removing domains from Wayback Machine

[Deleted member 5660]

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.

I knew you try to explain by nitpicking, it is part of the mob metality thing. Both entities took your intellectual property without your permission and are trying to profit from it. if it were me I would have told the little guy to go ahead and use it and demanded a licensing fee from the big corporation.

 

[eeedc]

Archive.org/The Wayback Machine is legally a 501C3 NON-PROFIT organization. In addition to any nonprofit/library fair use, Archive.org would be covered by any of the fair uses that Google (a profit seeking company) has. If you have not noticed, Google and other search engines, also "copy" (spider) all the web.

Ask any 14-year old girl: if you don't want your breasts online forever, don't put them online - although there are fewer "fair uses" for copying someone's breasts.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Archive.org/The Wayback Machine is legally a 501C3 NON-PROFIT organization. In addition to any nonprofit/library fair use, Archive.org would be covered by any of the fair uses that Google (a profit seeking company) has. If you have not noticed, Google and other search engines, also "copy" (spider) all the web.

Ask any 14-year old girl: if you don't want your breasts online forever, don't put them online - although there are fewer "fair uses" for copying someone's breasts.

Non-profit status means nothing in terms of copyrights. Any industry organization can set up a non-profit and they do all the time. Inthis case the non-profit was set up by Alexa who wants to be essentially the nielson ratings for the Internet. Non-profit also does nean the people involved don't make a profit. But is does mean their tax returns and salaries are publically avaiable so I made a request yesterday (follow the money). As an example the RIAA chief who is suing all the downloaders makes salary and compensation of over $1Million per MONTH (not year, per MONTH).

Google does spider the web which is OK. The problem comes in when they display the cache. I have read some complaints about in the past and Google said they would block the cache display upon request but I have not heard much about it lately.

As for "fair use" the internet Archive Wayback tried to get a court to rule that but they have, so far, been unsuccessful. they were sued for "copyright infringement, breach of contract, civil theft, conversion and racketeering" and tried to get the ruling you propose. They were unsuccessful and settled the case before any ruling was issued. internet archive put out a statement that says "Internet Archive has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived." Based on my experience and other that are complaining the Internet Archive doesn't abide this claim. I am not expert in fair use but I don't believe reproducing entire web sites would be fair use irrespective of claims of being an "internet library" (especially after they have been told to remove the stuff).

But think about what you are saying. Suppose I started a 1-person non-profit to have a music library. Then I started compiling songs covered by copyrights and made them available free to the public by claiming I was the "Internet Music Library." What do you think would happen to me?

 

[eeedc]

Google "archive, library, fair use" and you will see that Internet Archive and any library has a good but not 100% right, to archive materials.

I would also google that "Suzanne Shell" case that Internet Archive "settled", probably because they wanted to be rid of such a character and her unnecessary lawsuit and think if you want to be considered such a character suing non-profits and 15-year olds also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Shell

Hey, but it's a free country and if you want to sue non-profits, Boy Scouts and 15-year old kids, go at it - just don't expect many people to support you. Expect most people to treat you like they would Suzanne Shell.

I don't see a problem with you starting an "Internet Music LIbrary" as long as 1) you only copy/scrap music that other people, the copyright owners, put online for FREE for EVERYONE and 2) the copyright owners don't tell people not to copy with a robots.txt, but the exact legal details are debatible. If you are giving your music out for free, most people would appreciate the added publicity. I think Yahoo, Google and other search engines already do this.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

If the Internet archive were doing everything correctly they would be able to post their policies and explain the questions.

Your posting shows how this mob mentality works. What you do is attack the person bringing the action (in this case Shell) yet you never address the actual issue. You discuss a music library that is copyright free. There is, of course, no problem with that. The problem is the Internet Archive is taking stuff with copyright notices and republishing it. Then they make it difficult to remove the items when their web site policy says it is no problem. People don't want to address this because the Wayback machine is useful and they like it so they come up with all kinds of excuses to ridicule anyone who complains. You also point out that "Google and Yahoo does it." Limewire did essentially the same thing as YouTube. Google does it and it is somehow okay but Limewire was not okay? There is no logic in that other than money talks and sh... walks.

 

[Theo]

I knew you try to explain by nitpicking, it is part of the mob metality thing. Both entities took your intellectual property without your permission and are trying to profit from it. if it were me I would have told the little guy to go ahead and use it and demanded a licensing fee from the big corporation.

First of all you are having a bias and grudge with Archive.org. That's fine. Then you try to involve my action against someone - little guy or larger guy it doesn't matter - who copied the DNForum logo and tweaked it to suit your argument. Being accurate is detrimental. Focus on your battle against Archive.org

 

[eeedc]

First of all you are having a bias and grudge with Archive.org.

In addition to having an obvious bias and grudge, he is also NITPICKING Archive.org because they don't remove material fast enough or require paperwork too comples for someone who forgot to put up the robots.txt file in the first place.

And for legal "expert" Keyword, who seems determine to join the legal school of Suzzy Sheel, a SETTELEMENT does not give you a court's decision on if an action was legal or not. And how much money did Suzzy Shell get in this settlement? ZERO. If she had even a half-ass case, they would have thrown her a few thousand dollars, but she had a full-ass case.

If the case did go to court, the court MIGHT have found that, surprise, surprise, Arcive.org is an archive and has the legal right to archive your material even without your permission - which Archive.org on their own has decided they don't want to do since it would upset a small percent. There is always a fraction of a percent of the population who does like anything - a few oddballs don't like peace, libraries, schools and so on.

 

[Cartoonz]

"Removed" is a lot different than "Hidden".
...and, no matter what you believe, "Removed" completely will not happen at archive.org
Argue all you want, that's reality.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

In addition to having an obvious bias and grudge, he is also NITPICKING Archive.org because they don't remove material fast enough or require paperwork too comples for someone who forgot to put up the robots.txt file in the first place.

And for legal "expert" Keyword, who seems determine to join the legal school of Suzzy Sheel, a SETTELEMENT does not give you a court's decision on if an action was legal or not. And how much money did Suzzy Shell get in this settlement? ZERO. If she had even a half-ass case, they would have thrown her a few thousand dollars, but she had a full-ass case.

If the case did go to court, the court MIGHT have found that, surprise, surprise, Arcive.org is an archive and has the legal right to archive your material even without your permission - which Archive.org on their own has decided they don't want to do since it would upset a small percent. There is always a fraction of a percent of the population who does like anything - a few oddballs don't like peace, libraries, schools and so on.

Actually you are wrong on almost every count and you have no idea what you are talking about. I posted a couple of papers that discuss the legal issues involved and they all say the issue is unsettled and discuss the Shell case. As for robots.txt, it is clear you didn't even read the items you took the time to post about. Their policy states removal requests do not have to be public yet robots.txt is public so that part does not make sense. Many parked domains don't have access to robots.txt so you are supposed to be allowed manual removal. They didn't like the idea of removing all my domains so they keep making up excuses. Your post if the kind of mob mentality where there are no facts and you just fabricate stuff. All I did was post some advice that people should consider removing their domains from archive.org to protect against possible frivelous actions. Now you have me suing, hating schools, etc. You are some kind of lunatic who is going on ignore along with Raider and Sasquatch.

It is like domain portfolios. If you are a large corporation they are business assets. If you are a small domainer you are a parasitic cybersquatter.

---------- Post added at 12:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

"Removed" is a lot different than "Hidden".
...and, no matter what you believe, "Removed" completely will not happen at archive.org
Argue all you want, that's reality.

Yes, I don't see how anyone can stop them from keeping a local copy. One guy is saying once he files a DMCA notice they must delete it but I am not sure about that.

 

[Cartoonz]

with Archive.org, a robots.txt exclusion does two things:

1. Prevents them from making new snapshots of your site, so anything after the robots.txt file is added will not be archived.

2. All previous snapshots in their cache are set to "hidden", they are NOT "Removed".

Should you later remove the exclusion from the robots.txt file, ALL snapshots in the cache previous to when the robots.txt file exclusion was put into place will again become visible. There won't be any available from after the time of the robots exclusion, but they will start crawling again after it is off.

Some actions can be forced with a DCMA notice, but those are towards more specific files... not entire site histories - they will not "Remove" those. See, if they did.. .that would set a precedent and they would have to follow the same procedure for every request to do just that... and believe me, they get a ton of exactly that request. They won't, they don't, and really.. .they are within the law not to do so (but that is an entirely different debate).

 

[Deleted member 5660]

with Archive.org, a robots.txt exclusion does two things:

1. Prevents them from making new snapshots of your site, so anything after the robots.txt file is added will not be archived.

2. All previous snapshots in their cache are set to "hidden", they are NOT "Removed".

Should you later remove the exclusion from the robots.txt file, ALL snapshots in the cache previous to when the robots.txt file exclusion was put into place will again become visible. There won't be any available from after the time of the robots exclusion, but they will start crawling again after it is off.

Some actions can be forced with a DCMA notice, but those are towards more specific files... not entire site histories - they will not "Remove" those. See, if they did.. .that would set a precedent and they would have to follow the same procedure for every request to do just that... and believe me, they get a ton of exactly that request. They won't, they don't, and really.. .they are within the law not to do so (but that is an entirely different debate).

Yes, I think that is correct. However, they apparently told one guy the items would be "removed" but later told him something different. When he asked them to explain the Internet Archive refused to publicaly state what their policy was. They refer people to e-mail and then give evasive and incomplete answers. A real library would have no problem in describing their policy and would have it posted on their site. When someone asks they would just point them to the policy.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

They finally "removed" all my sites. They just try to wear people down coming up with all kinds of excuses.

There is still a question about what "remove" means, though. I think they actually do keep an archived version and may be put back up again later ... but they say at their web site that removal means that the items "are removed from the Wayback Machine." One guy was complaing about it and they told him nobody ever asked that before and he should ask via private e-mail. He went back in their own discussion archive and found a steady stream of people asking the same question dating back almost 10 years. They just play games with people when they make removal inquiries. I never heard of a "library" doing stuff like that.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

They finally "removed" all my sites. They just try to wear people down coming up with all kinds of excuses.

There is still a question about what "remove" means, though. I think they actually do keep an archived version and may be put back up again later ... but they say at their web site that removal means that the items "are removed from the Wayback Machine." One guy was complaing about it and they told him nobody ever asked that before and he should ask via private e-mail. He went back in their own discussion archive and found a steady stream of people asking the same question dating back almost 10 years. They just play games with people when they make removal inquiries. I never heard of a "library" doing stuff like that.

Have a look at some of the books that have been 'banned' by various countries in the last 50 years. In your 'library' scenario, all they do is remove the books from public view. They don't destroy them. Enough already? Why are you so paranoid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

 

[DN BROKER]

They finally "removed" all my sites. They just try to wear people down coming up with all kinds of excuses.

There is still a question about what "remove" means, though. I think they actually do keep an archived version and may be put back up again later ... but they say at their web site that removal means that the items "are removed from the Wayback Machine." One guy was complaing about it and they told him nobody ever asked that before and he should ask via private e-mail. He went back in their own discussion archive and found a steady stream of people asking the same question dating back almost 10 years. They just play games with people when they make removal inquiries. I never heard of a "library" doing stuff like that.

Shame on them, I just emailed them and requested all my domains/websites be removed.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Have a look at some of the books that have been 'banned' by various countries in the last 50 years. In your 'library' scenario, all they do is remove the books from public view. They don't destroy them. Enough already? Why are you so paranoid?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments

I don't care if they keep a copy. I am just pointing out other complaints. They are the ones claiming they delete the info so it generates complaints if that is not what they actually do.

 

[eeedc]

Why are you so paranoid?

Why are you asking a paranoid person why is he paranoid?

Herman Cain may or may not have done something wrong in the 90s, but A SMALL SETTLEMENT PROVES NOTHING.

Saying Archive.org settled for zero dollars proves nothing other than they were happy to see a person like Keyword go away.

In addition to wasting your time and Archive.org's time, removing material from Archive.org is only going to hurt you in any future case since it looks like you are hiding something, since you ARE hiding something - likely something that does not need to be hidden and can't be hidden anyway.

 

[Cartoonz]

it should be noted, for the truly paranoid, that archive.org is only one of many such cache systems... you can run, but you can't hide.
archive.org is the most well know... and it is free. Most of the others aren't, but you'd better believe that if you have something you would rather forget ever existed, they will not.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

it should be noted, for the truly paranoid, that archive.org is only one of many such cache systems... you can run, but you can't hide.
archive.org is the most well know... and it is free. Most of the others aren't, but you'd better believe that if you have something you would rather forget ever existed, they will not.

Yes, if you are concerned about hiding something you did wrong then are probably out of luck. However, if you have an attorney fishing to file a frivolous claim then blocking the Wayback may be a good idea. Of course many of the people on here are already paranoid about these things as shown by the widespread use of whois privacy.

The US Library of Congress responded to my inquiries about the Internet Archive. They were able to fully disclose what they are doing and pointed me to their archives of specific subjects at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/diglib/lcwa/html/lcwa-home.html. if you click on any archive you will see an explanation of the copyright issues. They also maintain a FAQ that explains what they are doing at http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/faq.html#faqs_06. The LOC seems to be doing things legitimately. The Internet Archive is not doing any of these things. That is the difference between a legitimate library and the Internet Archive.

 

[Theo]

What you don't understand is that anyone can store a page of your web site. The technology exists. See http://freezepage.com

 

[Jonathan Kramer]

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.

Actually, KF, WIPO Panels may (and sometimes do) independently consult and rely on the WAYBACK machine (and other independent archives) to aid them in adjudicating domain name cases. In La Sirena Alimentacion Congelada, S.L. v. Tom Fisher (Case No. D2011-0582), the Panel addressed your point directly. It said:

While the Respondent did not point this out in his Response, the Panel notes that Paragraph 4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions states that “a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it deems this necessary to reach the right decision. This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name . . . consulting a repository such as the Internet Archive (at www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past...”.

Regards,

Jonathan

_____________________
Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer Telecom Law Firm, PC
www.UDRP.io
www.TelecomLawFirm.com