>Always? If emails are not answered you'll usually notice unless you're a Spammer
Means you're not using your email seriously. For example, to send CVs in response to job postings.
I send up to 20 email per day to people who have issues with their package build scripts, and I have no idea whether they ignore me because they stopped using the distro or because mail got dropped.
Now watch the goal post moving at light speed. This site is by business for business. They can't stand self hosting. Saas or bust. No matter how much time you spend demonstrating the opposite the next time someone mentions email they'll get a backlash. It's mind boggling how it plays out the same every single time. But give them a saas that returns the next integer for $19.99/month and that "creator" will be praised for their hard work. :)
What you've identified is the looming great conflict of the coming decades. Legacy states presume that the internet regards reality on their terms.
If states want to legislate internet objects, they first need to very clearly explain how they define the objects which they regard as being within their purview.
The idea that the internet transcends material and social realities and that nations are now irrelevant seems like a pretty old-fashioned idea at this point.
Not as old-fashioned as the idea of "legacy states" for sure but perhaps less able to withstand the test of time.
It seems to me to be a temporary artifact of the closed/corporate social slop that has come be to the face of the internet lately.
But in 1,000 years, I'm pretty confident that the internet (whether it consists of AI or humans or both) will revere The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace (and The Grateful Dead more generally) and will regard Meta and Tiktok as footnotes.
However, it may be and in most cases is probably still copyrighted (with some exceptions such as US government content). Archiving is probably OK in most cases. Making that archive available to the public (e.g. Wayback Machine) is something that gets a blind eye turned on but there's probably not much legal backing for that--and which, to date, pretty much no one has wanted to try to build a legal case around.
The BL is not after my site specifically. It is after all sites it "sees" as "UK sites". All I am asking is a definition of what is a UK site.
I am asking for such a definition not because I object to archiving but because placement of my site into a collection of "UK sites" is an obvious mis-classification.
It's not legal in the UK to make a copy of a website except if you're a deposit library and the website fails within the strictures of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003.
But, under that act, if it's hosted in the UK then BL can make a copy (for access in person by someone visiting the physical library).
UK law is pretty draconian, in my personal opinion, when it comes to copyright.
In the UK most copies are outlawed. There are explicit exceptions for things like internet caches and the transient copies made by routers. The fact the exceptions are needed shows how restrictive the law is.
Well, I'm from Germany and it doesn't sound wrong to me. And in Germany we don't even have anglo-saxon law, but napoleonic laws (sample cases matter less, written law text matters more, for one big difference). We also don't have "copyright" at all. We have a "Urheberrecht", which is very similar, but also very different in details.
One of the things is: if a person creates something with a certain creativity level (I'm sure "hello world" programs don't count) then the work has automatically "Urheberrecht". There never was the need to register it, not even in history (like in the US, the origin of the "(C) xxxx by yyyy" markers). You also don't need to write any sentence at all into your works. What exactly is "certain creativity level" isn't in the law, that's on a judge in case of dispute. Also data bases and things generated by machines aren't covered.
(There are more ways you can get protection, e.g. if something is a computer program, or if something is art.)
And while this this can be seen draconian, then non-draconianess comes from exceptions. Generally private people are allowed to make one copy for their personal usage.
IANAL and the usual jadda jadda --- this is another difference between anglo-saxon and napoleonic right: in napoleonic right one doesn't have to state the obvious for fear of damages rulings ... oh, and technically we don't have napoleonic right in Germany either, as usual it's more complicated ... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtskreis
And yet, UK and DE were together with many other countries in the EU. And so a lot of laws in the agricultural and trade realms are similar. Copying (and selling) stuff is IMHO trade related. So it doesn't wonder me at all that in practice the have a similar outcome despite being in totally different law systems.
You're right, ordinary Fair Dealing applies, the Marrakesh Protocol too I expect (though probably CDPA 1988 has been amended to include those provisions now?).
What I was mainly getting at is that we don't have any general Fair Use exception that is interpreted as allowing archiving (universally) nor retaining copies for private use.
My understanding might be a bit out of date. There were some further rights granted for private use (eg format shifting), not they were quashed about 10 years ago and I'm not up to date since then.
But it's still bizarre for a legacy entity like a nation state to presume that it can identify an internet phenomenon without first explaining what it even means when declaring its intention to do so.
I myself have a site that has no particular UK content, not a .uk domain, not owned or operated by any person or business or other organization in the UK, but the physical hosting server is in the UK. It's public info and I actually want it copied as much as possible, but that's just lucky.
They didn't say but they must mean the items in the identifiers list must be ANDed.
Take the inverse of your case: Anyone can put up a site with content about the UK that isn't hosted in the UK nor owned by anyone living or operating in the UK. That meets one of the stated criteria. Does that give them the right to archive it?
That immediatly just exposes that there are bigger questions we have yet to figure out before we can answer that one. The entire premis of copyright broke a long time ago once the definitions of "copy", "redistribute", and "view" became vague, which happened once "view" started taking place via the technological means of sending a copy to you.
You could always resell a paper book. You could always lend a book that you already read, meaning multiple people get to read the same book.
Could you sell access to your private library?
Could you rent out a book? That's what Blockbuster did, but IDK if they maybe had some extra voluntary private agreements with publishers to keep them from trying to shut them down or inhibit their ability to aquire inventory, seperately from what might have been strictly legal obligation.
So with all of that actually still up in the air, it's hard to say if they have the right to archive anything on the internet that simply references the UK, or even stuff that is primarily about the UK. Many people publicly display things that they claim to retain copyright to, so they would argue that merely existing in public view on the internet does not grant anyone else the right to do anything but view it, and only grudgingly allow that most laws in most places also allow people to retain their own personal copy.
But if I view a public site and cache a copy on my laptop and don't re-publish that anywhere, I may still let 10 people come into my house and look at my screen. Though I think charging money for that is covered, like with bars with a cover charge and pay-per-view sports.
If I can cache any site I can see, and even let anyone else look at my cached copy, then how do you disallow the British Library from doing it?
So maybe in fact they didn't mean for the points to all be ANDed, and maybe in fact they do intend to copy anything from anywhere published by anyone if it merely references the UK in any way?
But if they are ANDed, then merely meeting any one condition, or even meeting all but missing only one, means they don't consider the site to qualify.
All in all it sounds like an underspecced undefined mess.
There is no right or wrong, only what works and what does not.
Obviously the author never fixed 10 y.o. bugs at 0430 hrs in a room full of people watching his every finger. In moments like that, the programmer wants to work with the most boring, straightforward code.
Artistry contests is sometging else. I like doing this (iteration [0..9] backwards):
The fact that such a trivial need require to go into such an esoteric details speak more about the qualities of C than the author proposal actually.
And the kind of situation you describe sure can happen, but if it's more than once in a team life time, there are organizational issues at stake which are far more of a concern than any accumulation of code artistry pushed border line with occultism.
It is easy. We heard many angry programmers going ballistic about (un)maintainability of slop. That's the same, but very much more complex: imagine a large proof that maybe looks correct but it was written by a mentally unstable person that just committed suicide. What is its value?
The first language is formative. It gets the programmer to think at a particular level of abstraction. If that level is wrong for the problem at hand, the programmer needs another language.
I am trilingual. All of my languages belong to different language groups; I regularly read and write in both directions. I use all of the three languages every day. I can also bulldoze my way through a text in a fourth language given a dictionary and a reference for its grammar. I can read the alphabet of a fifth language (mostly w/o understanding the sounds that I make, but I am told that I get it right).
I got there 15 years ago. I seem to be unable to learn anything new since.
Good point about the different language groups. I wonder if there has been any research on measuring the scale of the effect by including some sort of distance metric between the languages. Let's imagine your primary language is Spanish: What's the gain if you learn Italian (Romance language) vs German (non-Romance Indo-European) vs Hungarian (non-Indo European same alphabet) vs Japanese (non-Indo European different alphabet)?
Uhm, Common Lisp, where JIT is not only available but is also manageable: the programmer can decide what deserves to be compiled and what does not.
Besides run time, JIT is available also when the code is compiled or loaded for execution (i.e., do you have a compilation or loading speed-up in mind? no problem, you can also compile that speed-up into native machine code, and so ad infinitum...).
You can turn that off by setting or binding sb-ext:*evaluator-mode* to :interpret.
Also, on my machine, compiling the identity lambda form takes about 200 usec with (optimize (compilation-speed 3) (debug 0)). SBCL could use a faster JIT mode, perhaps at compilation-speed 3/speed 0. Perhaps there are some other internal special variables that could be tweaked to reduce compile time.
When calling EVAL it can be much faster to use the interpreter than to go through the compiler. This has bitten me in the past. A faster compiler would get around that.
One of the competing open Common Lisp implementations, CCL, has a much faster compiler (albeit one that produces worse code). This can be useful in development.
Compiling to bytecode is still compilation. An interpreter would operate directly on the S-expressions. Obviously, this makes some constructs (such as TAGBODY) very inefficient.
reply