Laurent, Thanks for clarifying that the this is a targetted response to the EU TDM. My point was that robots.txt succeeded because interests were largely aligned between client and server. It's pure speculation that DNT could have succeeded if it had legal basis; as interests were in opposition. Cookie banners have been a horrible failure in all respects. For the current discussion, it would be useful to examine cases where a digital indication had successful effect because of a legal basis. I'm struggling to think of a good example. Eric > On Aug 3, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Laurent Le Meur <laurent@edrlab.org> wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > "Do not Track" didn't succeed in part because there was no legal risk in ignoring it (-> and we end up with awful cookie banners now because of a bad interpretation of the EU GDPR). There were other initiatives more or less related to copyrights and mining before (some are listed here <https://w3c.github.io/tdm-reservation-protocol/docs/initiatives.html>) and they were ignored mostly because not legally binding. > > Now, at least in the EU (but it seems there are other laws built in other regions), there is a legal "exception or limitation to the rights of rightsholders on lawfully accessible content, for reproductions and extractions for the purposes of TDM', and a legal opt-out for this exception. Even terribly limited and unclear, this is changing how the game is played. > > Laurent > > >> Le 3 août 2023 à 17:45, Eric Hellman <eric@hellman.net <mailto:eric@hellman.net>> a écrit : >> >> I think a better comparison is "do not track" which was soooo successful. Don't forget that we already have lots of "AI" agents on our PCs and in our corporate networks (looking for malicious code, providing autocomplete, smart search, etc. and these agents won't care a damn thing about your protocols. Robots.txt works because it helps spidering bots do their jobs, not because of any "honor" among robots. >> >> Eric >> >
Received on Friday, 4 August 2023 01:54:14 UTC