Right to be Forgotten and archiving

[Tom]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 15:32:10 +0200
cblte <cblte at envs.net> wrote:

> Am 04.09.20 um 23:46 schrieb Peter Deal:
> > Hello Geminauts,
> >
> > This is my first post here but I have been lurking for awhile.
> >
> > The thread about archiving led me just now to read about the Right
> > to be Forgotten for the first time. It’s not something that I’ve
> > ever heard anyone talk about in Canada, didn’t realize it was an
> > active controversy in Europe. It raises interesting questions - is
> > it possible to take information off the internet? Is it effectively
> > gone for most people when you remove it from Google? What is more
> > important - the value of the public in knowing what happened, or
> > the value to the individual in getting on with his life after
> > making a mistake?
> >
> > For Gemini protocol, I feel like if it becomes important enough to
> > people, an archive is likely to be created whether we want it or
> > not. There’s probably some value in the community itself
> > proactively creating a sanctioned archive itself that respects
> > creators’ reasonable desires to have their content taken offline on
> > demand.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter  
> 
> Hello Everyone, 
> the right to be forgotten is something we here in Germany are
> discussing for quite some time. There is a semigood wikipedia article
> about it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
> 
> Personally I think, if you put it up online visible to everyone,
> there is a chance, that someone will take your content and save it.
> Either for himself or for others. You can not protect that other than
> handing out passwords to people who want to read your content. But
> then it makes not much sense to put it up and online. Then you could
> also send it via email. 
> 
> I personally like the idea of an internet archive. Respecting the
> copyright. But if you give your copyright away by posting something
> unter a CC licencse or similiar, then you give away your content
> which could then be archived. 
> 
> -- Carsten
> 

I strongly disagree. In the beginning of the web it was largely Open
Content as described here: http://www.opencontent.org/ . All work is
derivative work. People who make actual websites, not scrape together
random half-broken crap from stack overflow and wordpress plugins
surfed the web, saw something they liked, looked at the source and
added it to their own site.

Copyright, or more specifically Intellectual property is a completely
broken system and one that does not apply to cyberspace. All it serves
to do is prop up broken business models, justify censorship and spyware
in the name of saving reality a few reality tv shows.

The fundamental difference between meatspace and cyberspace is that
copying something is free in cyberspace. It takes effort to reproduce a
physical book. It does not cost anything at all to copy a digital book
or other digital work.

Intellectual Property law works on creating artificial scarcity. An
economy based on artificial scarcity is not a sustainable one. Nor
should we be designing technical specifications around something as
flimsy as that.

I would highly encourage you to watch Cory Doctorow's speech "The
coming war on general computation" as he explores these ideas in depth.
http://mirror.fem-net.de/CCC/28C3/mp4-h264-HQ/28c3-4848-en-the_coming_war_on_general_computation_h264.mp4

Any attempts to incorporate copyright into technical systems ultimately
leads to rootkits and malware. aka 'trusted computing/DRM'. As
engineers please try to understand the full ramifications of this. We
already live in an age where all post 9/11 CPUs manufactured by Intel
come with mandatory backdoors/hardware spyware implants you can't turn
off called Intel Management Engine. They implement a DRM called PAVP
(Protected Audio Video Path). It's wired directly into your onboard
Intel network interface and has hypervisor level access to all system
memory.

There are other ways to financially back projects. We live in the age
of self-publishing. A giant printing press is no longer required to get
your word out. The backing of a giant publishing corporation is no
longer required. We live in an age where individuals, not groups are
the primary producers of artistic goods. The thing we want to
incentive is the creation of these goods not the reproduction of
already existing goods. As the initial production is the costly part.
This is where business models like Patreon comes in. Now I'm not saying
Patreon themselves are good, but the business model here is that of
other individuals who like some content are able to directly fund the
creation of more of said content. No matter how niche that content may
be.

-- 
 ________________________________________ 
/ The other day I... uh, no, that wasn't \
| me.                                    |
|                                        |
\ -- Steven Wright                       /
 ---------------------------------------- 
\
 \
   /\   /\   
  //\\_//\\     ____
  \_     _/    /   /
   / * * \    /^^^]
   \_\O/_/    [   ]
    /   \_    [   /
    \     \_  /  /
     [ [ /  \/ _/
    _[ [ \  /_/