On 8/16/02 11:04 AM, "Charlie Summers" <charlie@lofcom.com> wrote:
> No. It is the responsibiliity of the archiver to ask permission.
And robots.txt is the way you put the answer out there before they ask, so
you (as admin) aren't constantly being interrupted with questions.
> But then, I don't like the robots.txt file method, either, since I am a
> FIRM believer in opt-IN, not opt-OUT. Any time we blindly accept opt-OUT, it
> adds legitimacy to a flawed system.
And how is google supposed to operate in your version of the universe?
> (I am less restrictive in indexing by search engines, since
> my pages _are_ publically accessable, and indexing is the computer equivalent
> of "reading."
But then you DO support robots.txt, because robots.txt is defined to define
what they CAN do.
> But retaining or distributing a _copy_ without the copyright
> holder's permission is pretty clearly illegal in the United States according
> to the changes made to Title 17 of the United States Code by the draconian
> DMCA.)
The sites that do this are exceeding the intent of robots.txt anyway, at
least IMHO. I wouldn't blame robots.txt for this.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?
References:
|
|
