Ah, I regret that the parent comment here slipped my notice.
There’s no problem with you archiving the site for your personal/private use. People have made various epubs and mobi’s of the Sequences and other posts at times. Ultimately we want people to read the content regardless of form.
Copyright stuff is included in the Terms of Use document linked at the end of the FAQ. I’ll check with others before trying to publicly interpret the legal meaning.
Based on that, copyright would be (by default) held by MIRI, but that only includes the site’s content, not user-generated content.
From the document:
MIRI may provide you with the ability to upload or transmit User-Generated Content to or through the Website, including, but not limited to, text, comments, photographs, images, videos, audio files, profile information, name, likeness, advertisements, listings, information, and designs (collectively “User-Generated Content”). Except as otherwise provided herein, you own all rights in and to your User-Generated Content.
When you submit User-Generated Content to the Website, you grant MIRI a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, and perpetual license to use your User-Generated Content for the normal and intended purposes of the Website. These purposes may include providing you or third parties with access to and use of the Website, backing up or archiving the Website, and selling or transferring the Website to a third party. In submitting User-Generated Content to the Website, you agree to waive all moral rights in or to your User-Generated Content across the world, whether you have or have not asserted moral rights. You also agree to waive all rights of publicity or privacy in or to your User-Generated Content.
So, AFAICT – and I am NOT a lawyer or other legal professional (in any jurisdiction) – users retain copyright on all of their content, e.g. posts and comments, and MIRI only insists on a ‘license’ to use that content.
It would be nice to relicense both the site’s content and user’s content, e.g. using a Creative Commons license.
It would also be nice to have something like an API endpoint (or publicly accessible download) of the ‘site data’. Ideally, such that ‘deltas’ could be retrieved instead of needing to download ‘full snapshots’ every time a backup/archive is made.
But I’m happy with the status quo! Others have been, for some time, using the site content – as you mention. I’m not aware of any problems with that. The LW team is much bigger than I expected (and you have a designated CTO!), so I’m not worried that it’ll be abandoned entirely and unexpectedly. I imagine The Internet Archive has pretty good backups/archives of the site as well.
Thanks for digging into the T&C, your analysis seems correct to me. I think we do want users to retain their rights – more than once people have been reluctant to post if might cost them their rights and other publishing opportunities. I think it’d be very costly to make writing seem costlier to authors.
Regarding an API endpoint – we have one! See here for a tutorial. The main thing is that if you wanted to archive everything, I’m not sure it’s so great if you wanted to get comments too. Pulling all the posts and all the comments and assembling correctly would be a hassle. I think you’re better trying to get archive via Internet Archive or similar. Deltas would indeed be tricky. But I assure you, we are not going to let the site data get lost!
By the way, what’s the motivation for the moral rights clause? That is, why do I have to waive the right to be acknowledged as the author of things I post when I post them? (The fact that it’s legally impossible for me to do so in either Russia or the EU aside.) I’m aware that are, apparently, weird places that treat just about any modification of a work as an assault on the author’s character and therefore a moral rights issue (Japan, per Creative Commons), but is waiving any and all exclusive rights to claim authorship really the best way to go about this (again, Creative Commons seems to use a different workaround)? I’m nowhere near qualified enough to argue meaningfully here, but I do roughly understand what these words mean, and in this particular combination they just look unbelievably dodgy.
I’m curious about this as well.
Specifically, I’d like to (possibly) archive the site (privately).
Ah, I regret that the parent comment here slipped my notice.
There’s no problem with you archiving the site for your personal/private use. People have made various epubs and mobi’s of the Sequences and other posts at times. Ultimately we want people to read the content regardless of form.
Copyright stuff is included in the Terms of Use document linked at the end of the FAQ. I’ll check with others before trying to publicly interpret the legal meaning.
Thanks!
A direct link to the “Lesswrong.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use”:
PrivacyandTerms-Lesswrong.com.pdf
Based on that, copyright would be (by default) held by MIRI, but that only includes the site’s content, not user-generated content.
From the document:
So, AFAICT – and I am NOT a lawyer or other legal professional (in any jurisdiction) – users retain copyright on all of their content, e.g. posts and comments, and MIRI only insists on a ‘license’ to use that content.
It would be nice to relicense both the site’s content and user’s content, e.g. using a Creative Commons license.
It would also be nice to have something like an API endpoint (or publicly accessible download) of the ‘site data’. Ideally, such that ‘deltas’ could be retrieved instead of needing to download ‘full snapshots’ every time a backup/archive is made.
But I’m happy with the status quo! Others have been, for some time, using the site content – as you mention. I’m not aware of any problems with that. The LW team is much bigger than I expected (and you have a designated CTO!), so I’m not worried that it’ll be abandoned entirely and unexpectedly. I imagine The Internet Archive has pretty good backups/archives of the site as well.
Sorry for the delayed reply yet again, my bad.
Thanks for digging into the T&C, your analysis seems correct to me. I think we do want users to retain their rights – more than once people have been reluctant to post if might cost them their rights and other publishing opportunities. I think it’d be very costly to make writing seem costlier to authors.
Regarding an API endpoint – we have one! See here for a tutorial. The main thing is that if you wanted to archive everything, I’m not sure it’s so great if you wanted to get comments too. Pulling all the posts and all the comments and assembling correctly would be a hassle. I think you’re better trying to get archive via Internet Archive or similar. Deltas would indeed be tricky. But I assure you, we are not going to let the site data get lost!
No worries! Thanks for the reply.
By the way, what’s the motivation for the moral rights clause? That is, why do I have to waive the right to be acknowledged as the author of things I post when I post them? (The fact that it’s legally impossible for me to do so in either Russia or the EU aside.) I’m aware that are, apparently, weird places that treat just about any modification of a work as an assault on the author’s character and therefore a moral rights issue (Japan, per Creative Commons), but is waiving any and all exclusive rights to claim authorship really the best way to go about this (again, Creative Commons seems to use a different workaround)? I’m nowhere near qualified enough to argue meaningfully here, but I do roughly understand what these words mean, and in this particular combination they just look unbelievably dodgy.