Re: FW: The Economist and e-Archiving

[David Goodman <dgoodman@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>]

I believe the wayback machine respects requests from sites not to archive
them, and does not in any case attempt to access restricted sites, such as
subscription-only journals.

I do not know what Finland does in this regard, and would like to be
informed, but I find it hard to imagine that they would permit access to
copyright-protected material even if they capture it.

It may well be true that some other organizations or individuals capture
international or national traffic, without disclosing the fact.  This is a
major privacy concern, with implications somewhat different than
censorship but equally important.

I am sure that Chuck's message does not intend to imply the superiority of
US law; indeed there are a number of areas, such as cryptography, where it
is possible to publish in Norway or Russia (for example) material that can
not be legally published here.

Nor is the example of France an extreme one. At present, China (for
example) are content to prevent the exposure of their own residents to
locally prohibited material. I see no reason why they would not also
attempt eventually to censor at its source material which they consider
hostile to their interests or customs.

In the print era, censorship limited to national borders could be
sufficiently effective to satisfy those who thought censorship justified.
(Although not even the most efficient totalitarian dictatorships succeeded
in completely preventing outside access.)

A consistent solution would be to have general international agreement
that no country has a right to reach material published elsewhere but
disseminated within its borders. I think that would be most desirable,
just as Chuck does. I think he would agree with me that it is also most
unlikely.

What shall we then do as librarians?
1. Fight every practical case.
2. Maintain print.
3. Support evasive measures, to the extent that it is prudent.

The sort of evasive measure I have in mind, is that someone in a safe
country might post the Economist articles, and give widespread notice or
where they can be accessed. Yes, it would be a violation of copyright.
Yes, France could undoubtedly attempt to exercise the same controls to
prevent its citizens from accessing this site, as the music industry is
trying for somewhat different reasons in the United State.

I support the existence of copyright to protect and support authors. But
when rights are in conflict, one must choose the most essential.
Historically, copyright arose out of censorship. Is it more important than
freedom of the press?

 On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 informania@supanet.com wrote:

> The existence of national caches (e.g., Finland caching the entire
.... SNIP