Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

    parec | sox -t raw -r 44100 -Lb 16 -c 2 -e signed-integer - -t wav raw.wav

I just wish someone would develop a fully automated workflow for converting playlists to audio files.

1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about)

2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass deep collections in)

3. Easily accessible playlists from other people (I really appreciate the "This Is <band name>" playlists especially from Spotify)

4. Seeing what my friends are listening to all the time (I get a lot of new music this way)

Yeah, stuff goes away on the service. Yeah, certain less-popular genres are patchy and incompletely represented (and are we ever going to get Tool?). Yeah, the personal library limits are a bummer (although as someone who never uses this feature, I don't care myself). Yeah, the UI is terrible for certain things (classical music is especially bad, and I really hate that single-song repeat gets turned off in so many ways). Yeah, some of their clients are worse than others (why is the PS4 client's sound quality so bad and not changeable?) Yeah, there's no lossless versions of anything (I think).

And yet, for all that, Spotify has transformed my music listening, and I've been listening to a huge array of music for almost 25 years now. I listen to so many more new and interesting artists and songs on Spotify than I ever would have otherwise. I'll never go back, personally.

It does require some mind-shifts on all sides, including those of content creators/providers, though. I don't know that I need to "own" any of my media in an everything-available-all-the-time world, but that requires, well, everything to be available all the time. If content availability comes and goes like the tide based on contracts and deals that I'm not a party to, it makes me a lot more skeptical of the implicit everything-everywhere promise.

https://github.com/danny0838/webscrapbook

You are purposefully muddying the issue of access. If you upload your pictures on a password protected ftp server no one will know or care when you delete them. If you upload them on a publicly accessible website, despite what outdated laws on copyright say, you won't be able to withdraw them and that's a feature.

Facebook is a monstrosity that pretends to be a password protected server but leaks your data by design. Do not try to equate someone unpublishing a work after they wrote, uploaded and publicized it with someone removing a drunken status update that should have never been public in the first place.

Rather, invest in teaching kids how to safely publish under pseudonyms or anonymously if they wish to publish their angst-ridden teenage vampire poetry. You can always abandon your connection to that work that way — even if the work lives on for all the world to see.

> Comparing that to Facebook: […]

You should indeed never upload anything that you might wish to expunge at a later date. You have the right to see an old picture gone from Facebook, but you don't have the means to enforce removing it from your cousin's private backup on their own computer.

We should punish mistakes. Especially stupid mistakes.

A sentiment that is harder to sell if people erase all evidence of their mistakes.

The publicizing of things said by then Presidential candidate Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 election would incentivize people to not talk in private. Should we have banned any details about the incident from being spread if the one who said it didn't agree with knowledge of what was said spreading?

If being able to undo what you wrote so that it won't be held against you is a good thing, why wouldn't being able to undo what you said so that it won't be held against you also be a good thing?

If think that you will ever want real control over the pictures, then yes, you should avoid posting them to Facebook. I'd think that that's fairly obvious.

When the author burns their own book and forbids new ones from being made is the only time that it's acceptable to print new copies.

Need I remind you of the purpose of copyright?

>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

That depends entirely on the publishing contract's rights reversion stipulations. An author deciding that they do not want their book to continue being printed, purely because they have changed their views, will often find that they have very little legal right to do so.

>To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

We, the people, trade our natural right of copying and selling anything we see for the benefit of increased dissemination of art and science.

Your integrity is kept perfectly pristine if your work only stays in your draw. The second you publish your work it is no longer yours.

What sort of integrity is it, that can be adjusted by erasing your past actions, to hide the mistakes you've made and only present the successes?

The problem I see with once you've published something public - whether you've deleted it or not - is if and when they reference it (especially if it's older) in part or whole -- is if they reach out to ask you if since posting/writing something, if there are any comments or updates to it, so they then post that inclusion.

Perhaps your knowledge wasn't as evolved, therefore your understanding wasn't to conclusion - which is what the process of learning is all about. Perhaps you were going through a difficult time and you revealed things you're embarrassed about, and you have a fear of ridicule or other. That's where understanding and compassion then hopefully kicks in with the reader. If you can understand these processes yourself, and be able to forgive yourself and therefore others - or forgive others and therefore yourself - then great. If worry is strong and remains strong, then perhaps the solution is developing self-awareness to understand the nitty-gritty and nuances of emotion, to help understand the worry, where it comes from - and developing the tools and skills to help them settle.

Edit to add: You'd be surprised at what people deal with on a day-to-day basis or what they had to deal with in the past. Suffering, especially emotional suffering including discomfort and fear, is a strong teacher - it's something you have to develop to be open to - otherwise the ego mind will learn and want to logically control a situation, vs. managing it - which comes with developing self-awareness, therefore better self-control, and better self-regulation.

Where I'm at in my life, on my path, I currently fluctuate between having difficulty coping with chronic pain that I have to manage which affects my executive function and decision making, and between being very suicidal; most infuriating is that I have had success with healing some of the pain with stem cell injections, however for unreasonable/irrational decision that was made, I've been blocked from getting more from the doctor who first did them - and that has cascaded into making it challenging to find another doctor to continue them, I've come to the conclusion that our health-"care" system is very broken, and which I could go into the nuances of from my experiences, however I won't in this comment.

Yes, there will be assholes who will judge me for sharing that and think negatively for that, and they are people haven't developed those skills and understanding or compassion - at least not yet, or perhaps never, however we can forgive them for that - their genetics and life path, the environment they were born into wasn't up to them.

When you publish and sell a book, you no longer control who that book is later given or sold to. You retain only rights over the ability to make copies, and even then, you can't block people from making copies for personal use.

In practice, the nature of the web allows everyone to keep copies of everything if they want. But if someone republishes it, then you need to use the DMCA process (for American websites) to take that content down if it violates copyright.

Going back to print, what if you print something you don't want out there anymore? Well if people have already bought your book or magazine, they have bought a right to that physical copy. They can even sell the book or magazine to anyone else (granted that the content isn't illegal).

It's not because they say it exists that it makes it valid in practice.

Things went out of print because the unit cost of producing one extra copy was much higher than producing 10000 extra copies. As demand for copies tends to taper off over time, you eventually reach a point where you simply cannot produce just one extra copy at a cost lower than the price the next customer would be willing to pay for it.

No such pressure exists for digital reproduction. Every additional copy costs the same low, low amount. The author then has no reasonable argument for refusing to make an additional copy.

And yes, there was infrastructure for capturing and preserving copies of print flyers. It wasn't all-encompassing, and didn't catch everything, but there are many museums of ephemera now that have extensive collections of published material that was of limited circulation (and limited literary value). For those items that were expected to get thrown away or used as toilet paper, there was always the possibility that someone might have saved it, and it could still be around in some form 200 years later.

It is entirely reasonable for an author to demand that no one else make and distribute copies of their work. But in my opinion, if you can find the author, and make them a reasonable offer for a new copy of their copyrighted work, and they refuse to make one and sell it to you (or to license the right to make your own) then they have essentially abrogated their copyright. You would then be morally (but not legally) justified in copying that work from another source.

When something is published, the genie is out of the bottle. No law can stuff it back in. And copyright was intended to protect the livelihoods of creators, not to give them the ability to more easily destroy what they have wrought. Thus, whenever there is any confusion or ambiguity, I always personally interpret a copyright situation with the test "is there any way this might lessen the creator's ability to sell (or otherwise monetize) one more copy of this work?"

If the creator is no longer attempting to make money from a work, screw their copyrights. We granted them that limited monopoly to make enough money so that the effort of creation would be worthwhile to them. If they don't care to sell, I don't care to protect their ability to sell exclusively.

[1] http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/remov...

[2] http://archive.org/about/faqs.php#2

Read the law before posting wildly misleading comments like this.

If you explicitly make something public, you can’t later come and claim that this information is actually crucial to your privacy. If so, you yourself was the one who violated that privacy, not the company later archiving/caching/processing your public article.

GDPR is all about decency and common sense wrt. user data and privacy.

No need to spread FUD about something that simple. SV proved tech companies can’t be trusted to act ethically, so here comes the regulation. Deal.

If you look into it I think parent is most likely correct with his predictions since they are easily verifiable i.e. big coorps do have massive teams and monetary funds to deal with this legislation, startups and one-man shops do not. This is completely ignoring the deontological question of what should be the case, where I think most would be in agreement.

No, because the legislators fundamentally misunderstood cookies. Almost any website needs to have some basic tracking of users for fraud detection, bot detection, and yes, basic analytics.

Instead of writing out a thoughtful approach, we get a mandatory nag screen right up there with "This product is known to cause cancer in the state of California" on anything sold ever. Users ignore them because the information isn't useful - infinite noise, no signal.

This is the opposite of the CAN SPAM law which did have thoughtful requirements - allowing exceptions for account related emails, requiring one-click unsubscribe but also giving systems a period to obey that to handle mail already in transit.

GDPR has so far been grossly in the cookie nag screen category, except instead of a tiny bar on visiting a page I get a multi-select based dialog of doom. The answer most companies are going to take is simply not market services to folks in the EU, and those that do will implement annoying nag screens.

More rules blindly applied rarely solves problems.

(This is for foreign businesses. EU businesses have to apply it to everyone, regardless of their location or citizenship.)

Funny, because the GDPR explicitely says this is not the case.

Art2. Paragraph 2

This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data:

   c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity;

Edit: I of course know that Russia is not in the EU, lol. Parent said "Europe" and I added Telegram as a fun remark after two serious examples (and there are more). Calm down with the downvotes.

Like the cookie nag, users are going to blindly click through until the confusing nag screen goes away and then be upset that it wasted their time.

It's the equivalent of it being technically illegal to take a photo of the Eiffel tower at night, because the light show is a copyrighted artistic display.

free speech is the right to speak about any topic without the gov't attempting to punish or censor you.

Free speech isn't the right to speak at any (private) forum, nor is it about having the right to be heard.

There is plenty of nuance to copyright, such as public forums, public domain, fair use, etc. You have those defenses available to you. However, a person can bring a civil action against you anytime you make a copy of their protected work. The case may or may not be meritorious but already defending against a lawsuit is a penalty. Archival facilities are already exposed to this risk and they actively lobby for protecting their activities as fair use to varying degrees of success.

A person cannot bring civil action against you under the GDPR. They may make a complaint to the data protection authorities who may bring action against you if your use of the data is unlawful. Therefore, there is no way to force a person to have to even face a trial under GDPR. If your use of the data is unlawful, you certainly have no license, so you are not protected less under the GDPR than under copyright law. If your copy counts as fair use, then it will count as being lawful under Article 6.1 (e) and no action can occur under the GDPR.

According to [1] the law applies to:

1.) a company or entity which processes personal data as part of the activities of one of its branches established in the EU, regardless of where the data is processed; or

2.) a company established outside the EU offering goods/services (paid or for free) or monitoring the behaviour of individuals in the EU.

The internet archive doesn't offer goods or services in the EU (if you want to know how that's defined you have to read the actual law I'm afraid) and they're certainly not "monitoring the behaviour of individuals in the EU".

[1]: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...

However you do seem to need javascript enabled to query the wayback machine from web.archive.org: "The Wayback Machine requires your browser to support JavaScript, please email info@archive.org if you have any questions about this. "

Less horrible than ‘Magic Trackpad 2 — Silvers’ I suppose.

An author's track record for honesty and accuracy is (was?) the foundation of credibility.

Right up until you publish it in a public journal or newspaper, at which point you have no right to demand that every other reader destroy their copy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

[2] A TOS is not a contract. If you want to use a contract, make your offer, wait for someone to understand and accept it before you send them a copy of your article.