removing domains from Wayback Machine

[Deleted member 5660]

I noticed several (sometimes frivolous) UDRP domain disputes where pages taken from the Wayback Machine at archive.org. Some of the recent cases I have seen are domains more than 10 years old. In some cases the arbitrators have taken it upon themselves to conduct their own investigation and use pages from the Wayback machine as "evidence." I put "evidence" in quotes because I don't think most courts would accept a printout from a web operated by a third party as "evidence" without further confirmation (such as some type of sworn statement).

In any case I think it is best that had my domains removed from the wayback machine. I did it many years ago and I found they did not fully complete my request so I made another one.

When you do this they will make all kinds of excuses. They claim you can use the robots.txt to do it (which is true). But the archival standards that they post at their web site say you not have to publicly disclose your "opt-out" request. They also came up with some kind of suggestion that certain pages would be removed but not the main page (which I found unacceptable). They will also claim they have very few resources to complete such a request. Many year ago I checked their tax returns (which is publicly available because they are a non-profit) and they had a foundation with many $millions. They also say it is not being used commercially yet they are associated with Alexa and they won't fully explain the relationship. they also won't explain how it is that many people have their internet cut off, get sued, or even arrested if they decided to post materials protected by copyrights (this is a very touchy subject for them and they never address it directly). If you keep insisting they will eventually remove your domains.

BTW: I complained to ICANN and NAF about the use of Wayback machine pages as "evidence" and they, of course, won't respond. I told the Wayback people to complain to ICANN if they don't want all these domains removed.

 

[Cartoonz]

your best bet is the robots.txt...

You don't get an "opt out" any other way.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

your best bet is the robots.txt...

You don't get an "opt out" any other way.

you contact them. Their removal policy is unclear (in addition to the HTML errors) because it says to use the robots.txt file yet it also says Arhive.org is not supposed to require public disclosure of opt-out requests See http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/aps/removal-policy.html. If you put in the robots.txt file then anyone can see it. plus, some people don't have access to change the robots.txt file such as if your domain is parked with a service. The person in charge of the removal requests is Christopher Butler.

 

[eeedc]

Archive.org and all "evidence" works both ways.
Without the Wayback Machine, trademark owners will not be able to use it as "evidence" against you, but you will not be able to use Archive.org to show that you are using it in good faith.
Any lawyer worth his salt will print out a page of any "illegal" material on your site, then say, "Since Mr. Keyword diabled archive recording, we don't know how long this illegal activity has been going on."

It sounds to me that you are at best wasting your own time and archive.org's time, and at worst, making any future case worse.

 

[DN BROKER]

Class Action Lawsuit is the only solution.

 

[Gerry]

I put "evidence" in quotes because I don't think most courts would accept a printout from a web operated by a third party as "evidence" without further confirmation (such as some type of sworn statement).

I'd love to see marco or some other internet attorney weigh in on this because I believe it can be used in a court of law.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Archive.org and all "evidence" works both ways.
Without the Wayback Machine, trademark owners will not be able to use it as "evidence" against you, but you will not be able to use Archive.org to show that you are using it in good faith.
Any lawyer worth his salt will print out a page of any "illegal" material on your site, then say, "Since Mr. Keyword diabled archive recording, we don't know how long this illegal activity has been going on."

It sounds to me that you are at best wasting your own time and archive.org's time, and at worst, making any future case worse.

It is generally not "illegal" material, it is generally some claim that something is infringing upon their trademark such as an ad that was displayed while parked. They look back for years and try to concoct some kind of claim. If they don't have the material they won't be able to concoct that claim. If someone is doing something illegal, like selling counterfeit goods or defrauding people, you may have point but I don't think there are issues if you park a domain or put it up for sale.

---------- Post added at 07:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 PM ----------

I just noticed the contact on the internet Arhive's netblock uses Whois privacy for their domain. Maybe they are trying to hide from the law for posting all this material with copyrights owned by others?

 

[Dale Hubbard]

WBM are analogous to the press. They 'report' whatever is public knowledge, and with impartiality. I can't see any argument for copyright infringement. Using them to substantiate legal claims is obviously complicated, but IMO they provide a valuable service.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

It looks like many people are have trouble removing stuff

http://wwww.archive.org/post/392651/removal-request

 

[eeedc]

To me you guys sound like people who not only turn off their cell phones but take the battery out because they don't want the government or anyone to be able to "track" them.

If you turn off your cell phone, the government can't use it to prove that you were at a crime scene, but you also can't use it to prove that you were elsewhere, and you look guilty as hell or kooky as hell turning off your cell phone.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

The Wayback machine is not a repository of evidence nor are they the government. They are a private entity funded by a commericial company. That is like saying you are somehow hidiong something if you set your facebook profile to "private." If you want to show what is on your web site in a legal dispute you submit your own copy along with a sworn affidavit. You don't need the Wayback Machine, Google, or anyone else. the issue is about protecting your assetts from those trying to take your domains. If you look at the UDRP disputes you will see companies trying to get domains that were registered years before their company even existed and the dipute procedure is somehwhat erratic.

The real problem is that the UDRP has no appeal mechanism so the decisions get more confused. You can pick one one point and you can often find at least 5 decisions that say one thing and 5 more that say the exact opposite and the contradictions often do not get resolved. Now a complainant can come up with almost any wild claim and find decisions that agress with them. If they have a legitimate complaint the removing from Wayback probably won't matter. If you come up with one of these screwball claims then not having Wayback data avaiable is probably a good thing. If they have real dispute they can file a real court case and file discovery.

 

[Dave Zan]

I'd love to see marco or some other internet attorney weigh in on this because I believe it can be used in a court of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Archive#Healthcare_Advocates.2C_Inc.

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The lawyers were able to show that the plaintiff's claims were invalid based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Unless maybe some specific law was created to address that specific issue, Archive.org won't be forced to remove one's domain name from their database.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

It's like Clinton trying to redact a Lewinsky story from a previously-published newspaper.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

The information can be used in court if proiper sworn statements or other requirments are met. the problem with the UDRP is that they simply present these prinouts without the opportunity. for instance, I could use printouts of my web site and include a sworn statement that it was mine. Then it can be used as eveidence. What is not legitmate is a complainat or arbitrator in a UDRP to simply print these out and use them without the associated sworn statements and opportunity for the other party to challennge.

It is not the domain that is required to be removed but rather the material covered by copyright. There was at least one law suit against Wayback but it was settled so there is no published decision.

I have written an article at http://copyrights.org that covers the issues I raised and it has the links to the references.

---------- Post added at 11:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

check this out, in one case they claimed "illegal hacking" because the other side got Wayback results after the exclusion was put in robots.txt and it didn't work.

http://masslawblog.com/copyright/the-wayback-machine-and-the-dmca/

 

[Theo]

I just noticed the contact on the internet Arhive's netblock uses Whois privacy for their domain. Maybe they are trying to hide from the law for posting all this material with copyrights owned by others?

See some executive bios: http://wwww.archive.org/about/bios.php

 

[Deleted member 5660]

See some executive bios: http://wwww.archive.org/about/bios.php

Did you contact them about reproducing your logo??? ... or have you exhaused your takedown notices for this month:

http://www.dnforum.com/f31/important-thing-everyone-answer-please-thread-468649.html

 

[Theo]

Did you contact them about reproducing your logo??? ... or have you exhaused your takedown notices for this month:

http://www.dnforum.com/f31/important-thing-everyone-answer-please-thread-468649.html

Apples and oranges.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Not really (but politicians understand the difference). What you have is a mob mentality. In case one you have a small web operator who pilfered a web design to make a small (if any) profit. in case 2 you have a large corporation who spends millions to develop an internationally acclaimed archive. In both cases you have copyright infringement for profit. In case 1 most are angry at the web site operator making small profit from pilfering a logo. in case two you have a large corporation that hopes to profit from pilfering most of the Internet. In that case if anyone complaints they must have something to hide, they are a criminal, there is something wrong with them, etc. The same thing happened with limwire and Youtube. Limewire people were sued out of business while youtube is a great resource and anyone who complains about has a problem yet they are both based on the same concept of copyright theft.

 

[eeedc]

It's like Clinton trying to redact a Lewinsky story from a previously-published newspaper.

IMHO it would be more like if Clinton himself blogged about his own sex on a public blog site, than threw a fit because Archive.org stored his self-published sexual stories because he did not use robots.txt.

But I totally agree and every 14-year old girl knows, it you put something on the web (like your breasts) it's there forever.

 

[Theo]

Not really (but politicians understand the difference). What you have is a mob mentality. In case one you have a small web operator who pilfered a web design to make a small (if any) profit. in case 2 you have a large corporation who spends millions to develop an internationally acclaimed archive. In both cases you have copyright infringement for profit. In case 1 most are angry at the web site operator making small profit from pilfering a logo.

Totally different situations. DNArab.com copied DNForum logo and presented it as their own. Archive.org takes snapshots of web sites and archives them. They don't claim they developed that content.