Automated Content Access Protocol: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:55, 9 January 2018

Revision as of 13:39, 11 March 2018

Line 16:

ACAP rules can be considered as an extension to the [[Robots Exclusion Standard]] (or ''"robots.txt"'') for communicating [[website]] access information to automated [[web crawler]]s.

It has been suggested<ref>[http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/09/news-publishers-want-full-control-of.html News Publishers Want Full Control of the Search Results]</ref> that ACAP is unnecessary, since the ''robots.txt'' protocol already exists for the purpose of managing search engine access to websites. However, others<ref>[http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol Why you should care about Automated Content Access Protocol] {{webarchivecite |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061111015733/http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol |date=11 November 2006 }}</ref> support ACAP’s view<ref>[http://www.the-acap.org/faqs.php#existing_protocols ACAP FAQ on robots.txt] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070315105714/http://www.the-acap.org/faqs.php#existing_protocols |date=15 March 2007 }}</ref> that ''robots.txt'' is no longer sufficient. ACAP argues that ''robots.txt'' was devised at a time when both search engines and online publishing were in their infancy and as a result is insufficiently nuanced to support today’s much more sophisticated business models of search and online publishing. ACAP aims to make it possible to express more complex permissions than the simple binary choice of “inclusion” or “exclusion”.

|url=http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol

|title=Why you should care about Automated Content Access Protocol

|date=October 16, 2006

|website=yelvington.com

|publisher=

|access-date=March 11, 2018

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061111015733/http://www.yelvington.com/20061016/why_you_should_care_about_automated_content_access_protocol

|archive-date=November 11, 2006

|quote= }}</ref> support ACAP’s view

<ref>{{cite web

|url=http://the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6

|title=FAQ: What about existing technology, robots.txt and why?

|date=

|website=ACAP

|publisher=

|access-date=March 11, 2018

|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20180308070121/http://www.the-acap.org/FAQs.php#faq6

|archive-date=March 8, 2018

|dead-url=no

|quote= }}</ref> that ''robots.txt'' is no longer sufficient. ACAP argues that ''robots.txt'' was devised at a time when both search engines and online publishing were in their infancy and as a result is insufficiently nuanced to support today’s much more sophisticated business models of search and online publishing. ACAP aims to make it possible to express more complex permissions than the simple binary choice of “inclusion” or “exclusion”.

As an early priority, ACAP is intended to provide a practical and consensual solution to some of the rights-related issues which in some cases have led to litigation<ref>[http://www.out-law.com/page-7427 "Is Google Legal?" OutLaw article about Copiepresse litigation]</ref><ref>[http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/comment/0,,2013051,00.html Guardian article about Google's failed appeal in Copiepresse case]</ref> between publishers and search engines.