[beebmam]

I think we all have to face the reality that much of the content we love could disappear tomorrow. Many of my favorite videos and music tracks, almost entirely made by independent no-name artists, have disappeared over the last 2 decades from the internet, either due to link/content rot or artists that wanted their content to disappear. It is deeply sad to me, but I've learned to accept it and move on.

Archival tools are great for preventing link/content rot, but it feels disrespectful to use them for people who want their content deleted. Should we strive to always try to do the right thing? What do you think?

[dimask]

I like the following quote from an old greek rock singer, from those old times that musicians produced music in the form of actual material work (vinyls, cds etc) and deleting content was not a thing as it is now:

> [...] a work, when it leaves the hands of its creator, acquires its own personality, its own identity, according to which its course is drawn and it is the irrevocable right of the work to follow an autonomous way which, in the name of any paternity, you have no right to stop, otherwise the state has the same right in the form of censorship.

[janalsncm]

Artists may not have a right to have their works forgotten (whether they actually do or don’t is a legal one) but I believe what GP was getting at is whether it’s respectful or moral to listen to art the artist wants to disassociate from.

[pavel_lishin]

It doesn't feel any less moral than someone dictating what art I should or shouldn't enjoy. Yes, there's a greater weight placed on someone's opinion if they're the ones that made the art, but in the end, if I buy a CD of music or a print of an artwork, it would be a ludicrous proposition that the artist should demand that I stop listening to it or looking at it.

[GauntletWizard]

Yes, I would definitely give more credence to the artist who produced it saying "This work was trite crap, and I disassociate myself from it" than from a music critic saying "this work was trite crap, and you shouldn't waste any more brainpower on it", but either is very marginal- sometimes any art that is very much a product of it's time has reason for a second life, possibly a Renaissance; history doesn't repeat but it has a tendency to rhyme.

[prepend]

> but it feels disrespectful to use them for people who want their content deleted

I think it’s ok to recognize that the artist and I want different things and that’s ok.

But people’s wishes aren’t absolute. And I don’t think it’s disrespectful to not do what people want.

Once an artist makes something and puts it out in the world, they lose control. Visual art is not something that someone owns, so they don’t have a right to decide to destroy or take back what they released.

I expect that this is unpleasant to the artist. But life is unpleasant. And the trade off is that others get to do what they want.

I think this conflict is probably ok and best, as the alternative is some sort of complicated right that would let artists be able to reach into my private collection and remove stuff that is mine, just because they made it.

I’m happier and happier with my historical process of buying some physical media that comes with a digital download that I use while the physical media just sits there gathering dust. But backups are good even if I never use them.