Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS AT itst.dk>]

>>
>> However the counterargument could also be: nope, never had this and all he
>> had to do was to fake the screenshot.
>>
>> So how do you prove that this is an actual screenshot. I suppose a third
>> party archive of creative commons licensed material would be sufficient
>> authority to defend against arguments of faking the screenshots.

>Perhaps the Internet Archive (or some other interested party) would do 
>something like the wayback machine for license verification. Perhaps even 
>take it a bit further.

Nope because you can tell the Archive to remove you from the archive. Also
because I've had one experience with the Archive that suggested to me that
subsequent changing of the robots.txt had caused the IA to retroactively
remove all its archived material on the page without having been explicitly
told to do so (this is just based on the IA response to a search which did
not say content removed by owner request but content removed due to
robots.txt forbids us crawling this site)

>Submit a link to the page showing the license, the link from there to the
> license and the link from there to the "content" - the machine would pull 
>down the first link and verify that the second two links were in the first. 
>If they were, and the license was one that they dealt with, store the page, 
>the license, and the "content" and the date in a searchable database.

This however could be a functionality offered by IA. The information that
particular material had been archived could be retained without necessarily
retaining material (maybe).

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen