Assuming disallow-all, and some research on robots.txt in Geminispace (Was: Re: robots.txt for Gemini formalised)

[Krixano]

My emails, afaik, should already be in plaintext. Not sure if something got messed up with a previous email, but anyways.... It shows Plain Text as being selected, so yeah.

Christian Seibold

Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 1:24 AM, Krixano <krixano at protonmail.com> wrote:

> > Google's "cached" pages system is essentially an archive under a different name. Is it truly a leap of logic if even a court of law comes to the same decision?
>
> Yes, the court clearly made a leap in logic. Courts don't always follow logic,
>
> because it's not efficient to do so.
>
> Btw, the court case is only in the district of Nevada. And I'm honestly surprised
>
> by this, considering that you do not have to explicitly assert your copyright
>
> in order for copyright to apply. It seems this particular court thought caching
>
> was an exception, unfortunately. Pretty disgusting.
>
> Anyways, if I find any site archiving any of the stuff from my server, I'll be
>
> looking into DMCA takedowns, because I don't tolerate utter disrespect for users'
>
> content like that. It's disgusting.
>
> Christian Seibold
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>
> On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 1:09 AM, Robert "khuxkm" Miles khuxkm at tilde.team wrote:
>
> > Hi Krixano,
> >
> > A few thoughts. First of all, please use plaintext email in future
> >
> > (https://useplaintext.email/#protonmail, as your signature clearly indicated you use protonmail I
> >
> > can give you the direct link). It's easier for a lot of us to access.
> >
> > Regarding your first email:
> >
> > November 26, 2020 1:09 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I want to point out that making the assumption that a lack of robots.txt
> > >
> > > is because servers don't mind they're content being archived is a leap in logic
> > >
> > > that doesn't actually follow/make sense. A server/user could have just forgotten
> > >
> > > to put a robots.txt, or they could have just not known about it.
> > >
> > > > A personal example: I didn't have a robots.txt on my capsule file until today, but I don't want
> > >
> > > to be included in archives for various reasons. Presuming consent from the lack of a robots.txt
> > >
> > > file would have incorrectly guessed my preference, and harmed my privacy. Who else in that 90% is
> > >
> > > like me? We don't know.
> > >
> > > Exactly! When I first got my server up, I didn't have a robots.txt for the longest time. Some of my
> > >
> > > content was actually not supposed to be archived because it was dynamic stuff. And other stuff I
> > >
> > > didn't necessarily want archived.
> >
> > It may be a leap of logic, sure, but it's the same leap of logic that has been all but codified as
> >
> > law (see court cases like Field v. Google, where judges have determined that not including a
> >
> > robots.txt or no-archive tag grants an implied license to archive). As stated in the case summary of Field v. Google:
> >
> > > Author granted operator of Internet search engine implied license to display "cached" links to web pages containing his copyrighted works when author consciously chose not to include no-archive meta-tag on pages of his website, despite knowing that including meta-tag would have informed operator not to display "cached" links to his pages and that absence of meta-tag would be interpreted by operator as permission to allow access to his web pages via "cached" links.
> >
> > Google's "cached" pages system is essentially an archive under a different name. Is it truly a leap of logic if even a court of law comes to the same decision?
> >
> > November 26, 2020 1:12 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure why Internet Archive matters here. Just because they do something doesn't mean
> > >
> > > it's the right thing to do. Seems like an appeal to authority to me.
> >
> > It is an appeal to authority, but not a fallacious one. The Internet Archive is (as far as I know)
> >
> > the biggest archiving group on the Internet. If they do something, it's not entirely beyond reason
> >
> > to assume other people do the same. A wide variety of people who do archiving that I've spoken to
> >
> > have the same attitude: they'll still archive it, but they won't make the archive available to the
> >
> > public if they aren't supposed to.
> >
> > November 26, 2020 1:18 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > One more thing I want to point out... copyright law isn't opt-in. It's opt-out.
> > >
> > > If you don't have a copyright statement or any other licensing information,
> > >
> > > then "all rights reserved" is automatically assumed, afaik. You can't just copy
> > >
> > > something just because the author didn't explicitly disallow you from doing that.
> >
> > Again, see above; the law is on the side of the person assuming robots.txt is a system for opting out of indexing/archiving/etc.
> >
> > Just my two cents,
> >
> > Robert "khuxkm" Miles