I'd noticed that Archive.org has a lot of Google scanned PDFs and that Google assumes anything is Orphaned and fair game for them, unless told otherwise. Also Google scans complete copyright works to feed their search.
Now this
Quote:
inside, a cactus
@ZumieYaravosky
Replying to
@textfiles
you are putting the onus on thousands of authors to search for and request their work to be taken down? Why not have an opt-in system where people can volunteer books upfront? The entire model feels like a scam, I am shocked your organization is considered non-profit.
|
from Twitter
https://twitter.com/textfiles/status...70785882644484
https://nwu.org/book-division/cdl/faq/
http://blog.archive.org/2020/03/30/i...gency-library/
I appreciate the service that Archive.org provides in "saving" copies of vanished websites. AKA "Wayback Machine".
They seem too much inclined to Google's attitude to scanning copyright works and not just archiving dead websites, but providing copies of copyright works, beyond webpages, with no remuneration to those selling them.
Also from time to time a book, comic, song, video or program might be distributed "free of charge" by the copyright holder or publisher. That doesn't put it in the Public Domain, nor does it give ANYONE the right to redistribute it.
No author or publisher should have to search to opt out of anything.
In a related issue:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/0...undup_2902320/
Quote:
"Folks covered by the EU’s GDPR, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and similar laws, can ask Clearview – the controversial face-recognition startup that scraped three billion images of people from the internet – to reveal what images it may have of you in its database and delete them."
Really that's crazy. They should be fined by EU and California and forced to delete all of them. Most people impacted will never have heard of Clearview.
No-one should have to provide extra personal details to opt out, nor even ask to opt out.
|