They are providing a service to let you see what was on web-sites in the past. I guess this can be considered as "fair use". They are not profitting by doing this...
Yes how one uses someone else's content and with what motive plays an important role in all such cases. Heck, Google has almost ALL of the web on it's servers now think about that nice image gallery that turns up when you search for images on Google Images..
They do it by violating copyright.
There is no "non-profit" exception to copyright infringement, and making copies of entire websites and making them available the way that archive.org would not fall anywhere in the neighborhood of "fair use", which is a very narrow exception.
They generally don't get the bejeezus sued out of them because they respond well to requests by copyright owners to remove content from the archive...
I am surprised that there are opposite views here.
Archive.org has been around long enough, I would want to believe they are legal.
Any more knowledgeable people here would want to comment?..
They are absolutely legal.
Their bots are checking robots.txt file before they crawl and index your site..
They have just made a screenshot of what was publicly available by that time...
While they may violate copyright there are cases where they can be a lifesaver!.
We had been using a small local host for some website stuff and like a bonehead I never downloaded/saved a backup of the site to our own computers. I trusted that their hosting services would always be there and as out contract stated they would provide a backup server as well as backup tapes. What the contract did not specify was what would happen if they went out of business. I mean this was the late 90's, who would have thought it possible for that too happen???.
Anyway sometime in about 2001, in the middle of the night with no warning what so ever they shut down their servers, packed them all into a moving van and blew town. Apparently they were in over their heads and when a few of their developers jumped ship they were unable to meet their contractual obligations any more. In debt over their heads, VC money gone and little income coming in was all it took for them to jump ship.
Thankfully with archive.org we were able to salvage a good majority of the site and images...
That's nice to hear, brewmonkey. It seems there is too much of an unnecessary issue being made out of copyrights etc in this case..... The content that is available on archive.org is clearly marked as belonging to the original content owner. They are not lifting content from some site and behaving as if they own the content. THAT would be a violation of copyright...
That does not make it legal. Sorry. You need permission to copy and store content, not the other way around. Most website operators don't know about archive.org, and a good many would be pretty teed off that it works on the principle that someone can come and take your stuff if you don't lock your door.
And, SM, violation of copyright is copying other people's stuff without permission. It does not at all involve how you behave about it...
It is not professional to claim archive.org made a copy without your permission, because this is you who made your site publicly available. If you claim it is not legal that means all Google, Yahoo or MSN cache of your site is illegal... Is that what you tell? No! Nobody is taking your stuff. The stuff is entirely yours. It works on the principal that you get additional hosting account for your site for free. Nobody claims what they show is their property.
You have your site on your PC when you develop it. And then you copy it to your hosting account provider to show it to the world. Does it mean that your hosting provider has violated the copyright when they show a copy of your site to all the world. Actually, where is that copy of your site? On your own PC, on your web hosting server, on ISP server, or on visitors PCs?! It is a virtual reality... and your example with the "if you don't lock your door" is simply irrelevant...
With that argument copying music would be legal as well then it is publically available as long as you buy the cd first.
If you take a look around some sites (for example http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html) you will find that google have also come under fire for their cache system. Just because something is in the public domain does not mean it is not subject to copyright laws...
Permanent archives are readily distinguishable from temporary caches. Many news sites, for example, make their current news articles available for free, but they charge for archived stories. If it is legal to make archive copies of sites available for free, then you are undercutting the news sites' ability to charge for their archived content.
There is a specific exception in US copyright law for temporary caching - not for permanent archiving. If you can't see the difference, that's your problem. http://www.inwa.net/~m3047/archive-org.html.
Go read the law yourself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512..
Search engines are permanently showing temporary caches?!.
What is permanent and what is temporary?.
When does a temporary cache become permanent? A day? A week? A month...?.
You may say "well, lets assume after a month"?!.
But if you do not update your site for an year, does it mean that google's "temporary" cache is not temporary anymore because it has been shown for an year?.
By publishing your site you say to the public "Go, make a copy of my site"! Because in order to read it I HAVE to make a copy. In fact, several hundred of copies are made throughout the entire Web until your content is on my screen! You did not tell me, however, how long I can keep that copy?..
You did not read the law. Either that, or you read it, and do not understand it. By publishing your site, you do NOT say to the public "Go, keep a copy of my site, and make that copy available to other people years after my site has changed.".
As pointed out above, the robots.txt exclusion method is flawed, because archive.org STILL stores the content, but it does not make it available if the *current* robots.txt says not to make the content available. In other words, if you change to another site or domain name, and your old domain name expires, then the subsequent owner of the domain name will control whether your old content is made available - without your consent or control.
But getting back to the point, the law perfectly well recognizes that intermediate and transitory cache copies are made all of the time, and the law expressly makes an exception for the normal operation of transitory copies in accordance with the purpose of making things viewable on the web. If you cannot distinguish between that and a permanent archive, then I'm afraid I can't help you to understand the difference...
If you pretend you undertand it, you should know the answer of that question..
When does a temporary copy becomes permanent?..
In case you missed it , jberryhill is an Attorney .... and I'm quite sure he does know what he's talking about..
Most of the time, the law addresses broad questions with a rule of reasonableness. If you go and actually bother to read the law, at the link I gave you, you'd come across this condition on how long an intermediate service provider may maintain a cache copy in the ordinary course of accessing material on the web: and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections.
The entire point of the EXCEPTION to ordinary copyright liability is about the necessity of copying, as you point out above, in the normal course of making material available on the web so that people can read it. Absolutely, zillions of copies are made in that process - temporarily - and that is precisely what the copyright law is trying to capture here. However, the idea that maintaining a date-indexed archive of years-old copies of web pages has ANYTHING to do with that exception requires a studied ignorance of the what the law is trying to accomplish with the cache copy exception. And the fact that this is an *exception* to copyright liability should tell you something...
I am always suspicious when somebody uses too many words. He is either trying to hide something, or he simply does not know what he is trying to say.
I have asked you simple question, how long does it take for a temporary copy to become permanent?.
Making point of the quote above....
Very often you can see that Google's cache is unchanged for years. If you say this is different from Alexa's approach to caching in the archive.org, how that can be explained with a "necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections"?..
Time to take the 'tude down a step brutha.
He has answered your "simple question" twice; if you fail to understand it this point, I would just let it go.
As far as the topic at hand is concerned: I have requested twice in the past that archive.org and a university project take down dated content from my sites that was archived, but then I thought better of. They did without so much as a wimper, and all was fine.
Oh well, may be I am too slow-witted to understand such answers!.
Anyway, it is always nice when A Forum Leader "brutha" comes with a friendly advice...
I found this: http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/guias/guia1/en/guia.pdf.
After reading it, somehow it seems that archive.org is not legal...
Did I say that is okay? No. Do Google and Archive.org get sued for copyright infringement? Yes. Do they normally settle? Yes.
Now, if I told you there was a law that said, "You can't buy more milk than your family reasonably needs in a week", and then pestered you with "How much milk is too much?", you'd probably think I was simple-minded. The law just doesn't always provide simple answers to simple questions. "How long is okay?" depends on whether the caching serves the purpose of the exemption. Does storage at archive.org or google.com have anything to do with that exemption? No, they don't. So, in view of the fact that there is a *very* narrow caching exemption to copyright law, do you think a court would think that archive.org is "okay" if push came to shove? The answer should be obvious. Correct.
They comply with those requests because they know that they'd HAVE to take the stuff down if challenged. They don't turn around and say, "Get lost, we have the right to maintain copies of your old stuff" because they don't have that right. The portion of my post you were quoting was in bold, because it is a direct quote from the US copyright statute itself. I am sorry it has too many words...
Aaah okay, so the conclusion is:.
Temporary stealing is okay; Permanent stealing is not.
Way to bring a little humor back into it!..
What you say is that you can sue not only Alexa (archive.org) but also Google, Yahoo, Msn, Ask, and every search engine that delivers cached content to their visitors? Because there is no difference whatsoever between what is Alexa doing and every search engine that caches pages they crawl. Neither technically, nor in terms of how long cache is stored. Do you understand that? Well, go and sue all of them...! Or you hope they will settle with you... and you will suddenly wake up a billionaire... good luck.
What you say is that I can not show old newspapers or magazines (if I have collected them during the years) to everybody that wants to see them? Do you understand that?.
What I say is it's my right to collect information that is (was) publicly available.
What I say is it's my right to make records of Web history using only publicly available sources and to publish these records wherever and whenever I want.
Nobody can convince me it is against the law!..
Wildbest, the actual truth lies somewhere in between IMO. It's not our "right" to show them wherever and however we please. That's not our "right", because the content is not ours.
But yes, if the content is credited properly, if the source from where it is taken is unambiguously and correctly stated, if there is no attempt to pass off someone else's content as one's own (in a manner that is deceptive), if the use of such content does not conflict (albeit aids) the original content owner (search engine traffic), and if the technology used to gather such content does respect some common principles (robots.txt and max. pages retreived per second per IP less than an acceptable limit), and if the original content owner does not mind his content being used for the purposes for which it is being used, then we can say that we have the "privelege" but not the "right" of using such content...
I know, I know all you say. But there is a principle difference here. All these copyright purists are about to ban other people from having a memory. After all everything is a copy or assembled by copies of something else...
Isaac Newton once made this famous statement: "I stand on the heads and shoulders of giants".
Why there's even a debate as to whether einstein was the first one to have talked about relativity.... there are some russian scientists who claim that they were the first ones.......
I understand it perfectly well. It seems you do not understand the difference between permitting someone to do something and that person having a right to do something.
If you walk into my house every morning, leave a 100 dollar bill on my coffee table and then leave, I can sue you for trespassing. I would be a complete idiot to do so, but you have no right to walk into my house. But, hey, if that's what you want to do, then be my guest.
So, you are saying that you have no right to exclude Google, Yahoo, MSN or other search engines from crawling your site and storing your content. Is that right? After all, taking your position that you have the right to copy and store anyone's website for any purpose, you have no right or ability to stop others from doing so.
Now you are probably going to mention robots.txt in this context. My question to you is then why should anyone respect your robots.txt exclusion, since you believe that anyone has the right to copy and store your website. What gives the website owner the right to say "no", since it sure as heck is not copyright law in your view...
Maybe no one here can convince you but I know some folks who might be able to help.
Buy a copy of the New York Times or copy one of their free and publicly available articles online and try showing it to everyone on the Internet and there is a good chance you may become convinced. Try recording a song off of the radio and let everyone listen to that song or download it through the Internet and again there is a good chance of becoming convinced.
Why don't you try to convince us instead that you are right by publicly distributing a copy of a New York Times article and then send the Times an email with a link and an explanation of your theory. Then do the same by recording a song off of the publicly available radio, upload it to a web site and send a similar email to the music publisher with your theory.
Let us know how it works out...
Let me put it that way: We have the "right" to have the "privilege" of using this content since we have acquired a copy of it in a perfectly legal way.
At the time we have made this copy we were not warned by you for how long we can keep that copy. In fact, when you've PUBLISHED your content and gave unrestricted public access to it, you've "tricked" me to make a copy! Why do you ask me then why do I have a copy of your site?..
Let me see..If I buy a newspaper and show it to my friend - it's illegal? Don't be ridiculous! There is no way to stop saving a website since the author do not allow that. I 'm not saying about stealing a website which is the other thing..
It's true that we have the "right" to have the "privilege" of using this content since we have acquired a copy of it in a perfectly legal way...
As already mentioned, technically it is impossible to view your site without having a copy of the content on my screen. If you are the owner of that site, and you have restrictions for how long can I keep that copy, you should have changed your home page! The first thing what visitors stumble upon should be your ToS with a Accept/Do Not Accept check box and only after that visitors should be allowed to view your content. But you know as well as I know that if you make that you'll be out of business in no time!!!.
You simply can not say SEs are good(1) when they send traffic to my site by using keyword indexing but they are bad(2) to cache my content, because TECHNICALLY it is not possible to do the first without having already done the second...
Not at all. If you keep the copy in your house, and run off photocopies for other people for the next five years, then yes, the copyright owner can sue you. The permission to copy inherent in the exception to copyright law which has been made for the web, is a limited permission to perform the sort of automated copying inherent in retrieving and viewing websites in their approximately current form from the original site.
I'm surprised this is such a hot button issue. Television broadcast signals are distributed for free too. It took a Supreme Court decision to establish that home recording for personal use is okay, but I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that they have a right to distribute their archives of recorded television programs. Or perhaps someone here would believe that, but they'd be just as wrong. http://news.com.com/Major+newspapers..._3-216204.html.
Major newspapers sue archivist.
Two national newspapers are reviving a longstanding industry battle with a suit against a site they accuse of misappropriating their copyrighted content.
In a federal lawsuit filed this week, the Los Angeles Times joined the Washington Post and it's online subsidiary, Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, in alleging that a non-profit news discussion forum is copying and archiving their articles without permission.
The Post and the Times initially allow free access to articles posted on their sites. However, after a period of time the articles are archived and the sites charge for access. By preserving content on it's own server, Freerepublic.com diverts revenues from the rightful owners, Heinke claimed.
The newspapers also take issue with the mere copying of their articles, which they said drives down traffic and related advertising revenue potential.
Believe what you want, but the article quoted above is reality. There is no "good" or "bad" involved here, since it is a question of civil law, not a moral issue. But you haven't answered my question to you:.
1. Do you have a right to tell a search engine not to cache and index your site?.
If your answer is "yes", then explain to me what law gives you that right?.
(hint: the law begins with a "C").
If your answer is "no", then I have to ask you what you think you could do if a search engine ignored your robots.txt and crawled, cached and indexed your site anyway. What law would you use to stop them? Do you really think that respecting robots.tx is just the world's way of being "nice"? Do you really think the world works that way?.
The point is that most people PERMIT search engines to cache their content, for the same reason I would PERMIT you to enter my house and leave money on my table. But if you question is "Do I have a right to enter John's house and leave money on his table?" then the answer is clearly no, you don't. Not without my permission (and there is no implied permission in copyright law beyond the narrow exception that I linked above, and which nobody is motivated to actually read)...
Http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5793659.html http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-1024234.html http://www.threadwatch.org/node/1958.
As you can see people have sued google in the past for this (the first isnt solely relating to google but is about canadian law and how it is now possible to be jailed for caching pages)..
I'm inclined to agree with jberryhill's arguments here. One should not forget that any permission granted for use of copyrighted content is "limited" by the very virtue of the fact that there is only one legal owner of the content, and it is this entity which calls all the shots (or which can choose to...).
Take another example ... royalty free stock photography. There are many subscription services out there, wherein you pay some $$$ and you are allowed to download a certain number of photos/images for use in the print media or on the web. In the terms and conditions, it is clearly mentioned that downloading and/or using any of these images is restricted in that you may at any time be asked to stop using them if asked to do so, and you have to promptly agree. The copyright here remains with the photographer or with the agency (if the agency has actually purchased these rights from it's original owner)..
On the other hand, a whole 'nuther set of laws apply to "Rights Managed" stock photos, and rightly so these are much more expensive than RF photos.
So, it must be clear that "permission" is granted for usage.. there are no "rights" for the one who uses them.. just a permit license.
BTW: forgot to mention Webmaster World does not allow google to cache it's web pages... so we can see who calls the shots here...
Wrong again! It is a completely wrong perception that your site is your house! IF you have configured your hosting to allow anonymous access then your site is NOT your house! Your site is your show room, your exhibition hall if you like, your public house even... but not private... It is published with anonymous access allowed! Do you allow strangers to enter whenever they want to the place you live now? Of course, not! Why do you compare your site with your house?.
You are in a position to be the owner of a show room. And when complete strangers start to visit it and start shooting and making pictures you start shouting "Why do you make copies?? You have to pay or I will sue you... If you have no money I will take your camera" and so on... However, people will simply ask you "Why didn't you make announcement or put a sticky on your entrance door?".
How would you sue them while you didn't warn them that making copies is illegal, jberryhill?..
I was talking about his newspaper, dude. A physical newspaper. My photocopier is in my house, so that's where I had him making the copies. I don't care if he takes it to Kinko's, a library, or wherever. The house was not the point about the difference between showing a newspaper and copying one. Yes, on the internet you have to copy it to "show" it to someone, and you can read all about the freerepublic.com lawsuit (linked above) on that point.
Is there a reason you don't support your arguments with any specific reference to law or legal cases? You owe me an answer to my question numbered "1." in the thread above, before you ask me more questions. You seem to think I don't know how this stuff works. My doctorate is in electrical engineering, which is what I did before I became a lawyer. I'm willing to bet I've been using the internet longer than you've been driving.
But I will answer this one, since it is easy. Hold onto your seat, because you aren't going to like the answer. In the United States, making copies of other people's works is *presumptively* violative of copyright. If your copying does not fall into a specific exception, and you do not otherwise have permission, the starting point is that you are violating the copyright.
And, if you want a specific warning, you will find it printed right on the newspaper itself. The warning is in the form of a little circle with the letter "C" inside of it. That's all the warning you need.
The point I was addressing was the comment about whether you could show a newspaper to someone else. You sure can. What you can't do with that newspaper is make copies and distribute them to other people. I don't know why people seem to "get" that point in connection with recorded music, but think there is a different rule about simple text.
In the context of the internet, the copyright law was specifically amended to permit copying incident to viewing web pages - that is, yes, as a website operator you are assumed to permit caching and copying incident to people viewing your webpage. So I don't get the point you are making with the showroom analogy.
Browse around the web and you will find plenty of websites that have little circles with "C's" inside of them. Whether anyone told you or not, that symbol *IS* a warning. It is not necessary for it to be there, and it is not necessary for you to be warned that you can't copy other people's stuff (I'll save the lecture on what the warning does for another time).
Now, I have answered your question. Will you answer mine?..
Would you be more specific about your questions buddy? Be short. Like I am. I have no time to read novels!..
I put a number next to it, so you'd find it easily. 1. Do you have a right to tell a search engine not to cache and index your site?.
It's a yes or no question, but I'd like you to explain your answer either way. If the answer is "yes", you tell me what law gives you that right...
Hahahaha it's a lotta fun. I'm enjoying. way to go..
Hehe, okay it is easy!.
1. Do you have the right to breath if there is air around you?.
If your answer is "yes", then explain to me what law gives you that right?.
(hint: "there is no such law, because there is no need")..
Should we take that as a "yes" or a "no"?..
I am holding onto my seat pretty comfortably but it seems you're getting overexcited!.
*presumptively* - yes this is the correct word. Don't forget it. use words to express yourself not to hide behind them.
There are copies and copies. And you quote it out of context. Remember, your site is your property but once you have decided to publish it with anonymous access enabled, you have declared it a public place. If you want people to observe certain restrictions different from other public places (like walking down the street for example) you have to explicitly warn them what is not allowed. In the Web it should be done both visually and programmatically. Different methods of doing that we have discussed already - ToS accept/do not accept check boxes, no cache meta tags, robots.txt.
What law makes you unique from other owners of similar public places? Of course, YES. And you should state your will in a certain form...
So what's the debate all about ??.
I'm having fun. that's what I'm doing..
Do you really ask what's the debate all about?.
The point is that "little circles with "C's" are almost meaningless in the light of current Web technologies.
Reason: People that create laws regulating Web activities may be very good in their respective field but are technically ignorant. Result: They try to zip the Universe into their small, tiny orderly worlds. No chance! Has never been. The law is lagging behind the technology like never before. This fact has enormous negative impact. Example: How Google gave up their project to work with public libraries to make all the information available on the Web...
One wonders how I managed to fool the university into granting me a doctorate in electrical engineering.
Further, copyright law was not "created[ed to] regulate Web activities". In fact, it was expressly expanded to make sure that certain kinds of copying would be clearly permissible.
If your problem, as it now appears to be, is that the law is too restrictive, or stupid, or based on ignorance, that's a perfectly valid point of view to hold. However, the original question was about the actual law as it applies to archive.org, not some version of the law as one believes it ought to be. The web did not turn copyright law into one big "negative option" deal for content creators.
Debating what the law "ought to be" or observing that law lags technology is not new, and hasn't been new since the steam engine was invented.
Are you saying that Google gave up the project because they were wrong about the applicable law, or because the law is wrong? A public library is a public place, right? So anyone should be able to copy and distribute anything that is in a public library right? How on earth could Google have gotten it so wrong, when you seem to understand the principle so well? Like a C inside of a circle.... One can easily design caching software to detect the presence of that character in a web page. What is so difficult about that?..
Hope you are not one of these mighty people that create precedents. Otherwise, the Web has no chance. Detecting the sign is not an issue. Detecting the context is. And it should be referred to TOS and here comes the complication. The TOS should be a standard well formed document, like a well formed document in XML for example.
Well, that is all from me for that thread..
Was a pleasure. Wish you success in the field...
I should have removed myself from this thread, but I have gotten more than my fair share of "jollies" from it!.
There is such a law, I suppose, so long as your question can be fairly read.
Of course, if anyone is depriving you of said air, then that would be de facto murder, no?.
And if you were afraid of breaking a law, no fear, as it is a common law principle that a public good / common good, such as air, can not be restricted from those in need of it. (Very over-simplistic, but sufficient for your attempt at a rhetorical device).
It consists of those principles, usage and rules of action applicable to government and security [rights] of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature.
Bishop v U.S., D C Tex, 334 F Supp 415, 418 (31 May 1971).
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed., supra, p 276.
In any event, wildbest, "good game"..
Jberryhill, thanks for the informative and fact-filled posts as always!.
I second that.
BTW, as Dr. Berryhill said even archive.org gets sued: http://namepros.com/showthread.php?t=107400..
You seem to think that I believe that the current state of the law is somehow "good". It's not. There are plenty of things wrong with copyright law, and there would be plenty of negative consequences if every potential claimant exercised their rights to the fullest extent.
However, in the context of a question about what the law is and how it applies to a given situation, wishful thinking is a poor substitute for an accurate statement of how the law applies. And if you knew anything about me, or even why I became a lawyer in the first place, you'd understand how wrong you are about what motivates the work that I've done and do.
You aren't going to change anything without first understanding what it is you are trying to change.
Jberryhill, IAmAllanShore & davezan all in on a copyright discussion...
That's why I love NP!.
Great read & debate...
So, what is the conclusion?.
1. archive.org is a good guy..
2. archive.org is not legal..
3. it is still not certain archive.org would face problem.
1. archive.org is a good guy.
The debate wasnt about moral issues. It was about what is permissible within the framework of the law and what isnt.
2. archive.org is not legal.
This is a grey area. The thing is that although it's a useful service, they're storing exact copies of copyrighted content on their servers. That's actually not permissible. So yes it isnt legal. The only thing going in their favour is that they're not claiming ownership of the content that they archive. So, is it ethical? yes, perhaps.
3. it is still not certain archive.org would face problem.
They dont have the law on their side... so they're potentially at risk...
Sm pretty much nailed it.
The question "is it legal" sometimes makes me wonder what is being asked. A lot of people's understanding of the law is limited to law as defining behavior that is criminal or not criminal. Criminal acts are those which have a moral dimension... we even refer to an adverse judgment as a "conviction".
There are also laws, such as the copyright laws in general, which say "If a person A does X, then person B who is harmed by X, shall have a right to recover money from person A." So, for example, if Davezan is violating Wildbest's copyright, it's not "illegal" as far as I am concerned, or indeed as far as the rest of society is concerned. Davezan is violating a statutory right of Wildbest, and if Wildbest wants to do something about it, then that's entirely and solely his decision to make.
As far as I am concerned, Archive.org is a great thing. I use it regularly. But I have no illusions about the fact that someone would be perfectly within their rights, and indeed there is a suit pending against them, to nail them for copyright infringement. That's just the way the law is set up.
But consider this. Whenever the archive.org discussion comes up, people will point to robots.txt and say, "you can stop them if you want to." That has the copyright law backwards. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of website operators all over the world are pretty much unaware of archive.org. And if there were dozens of archives, then the burden to prevent copying is being put on the wrong party. What would be wrong with setting it up so that your robots.txt would have to *grant* archive.org the right to archive your site instead of using robots.txt as a denial mechanism?.
Well, one result would be a much smaller archive. And the reason for that result is the very fact that most website operators aren't particularly aware their site is being archived in the first place.
It all boils down to an "opt-in" vs. "opt-out" question. Copyright protection is automatic, and granting permission to copy is not an "opt-out" proposition under the law as written.
So the answer is 3. They avoid protracted legal problems by promptly removing material on request, because they know the legal result for infringment of unregistered works is primarily an order to stop infringing, rather than monetary damages...
Thanks for all the replies..
How does archive.org make money (or not in red ink) anyway?.
So if I backup all the websites like archive.org but with an explicit opt-out option to remove any questionable materials, but then I would charge a storage-hosting fee (not sale of the copyright materials), am I in a lot worse trouble than archive.org?.
Since most people think archive.org being useful, I thought an internet backup service would be popular...
An explicit opt-out service doesnt let you off the hook. What you want is an explicit opt-in service.
By default nearly about all content on the web is copyrighted (unless it is released under such licenses as Creative Commons .. etc, or if the author expressly permits use of his content).
The service that you're thinking of providing is fine as long as you call it a backup service and charge a fee for it. But the moment you actually start displaying that content to the common public, there's a problem, unless you make a specific mention of this in your terms of usage clause, which would have to be agreed upon by anyone who would use your service...
And make it a confirmed opt-in service while at it...
They don't. I realize that long ago ".org" meant something beyond just another TLD, but.....
I haven't used NamePros for anything other than advertising in the past, so here goes my first real post:.
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - The US Constitution.
So if you're in the US, you've got a right to breathe air...
I am across this in a random browsing moment on a different site and thought it was interesting:.
Remove your URL or Google Groups Post http://services.google.com:8882/urlc...&lastcmd=login.
Also works for removing your cached site/page, if interested.
Taken from thir about us page cache http://www.archive.org/about/about.php.
Also notice:- http://www.archive.org/donate/..
Clever so all it takes to avoid law suits is to take the begging bowl out, and put it up Probably gives the impression that you gonna get nothin from me if you plan to sue me - just kidding...
It's perfectly legal. And why would anyone not want to be "listed" there?.
They don't make profit from it, either..
Did you bother reading the whole thread before posting this?.
I thought the exact same thing, then when I read your post, I just bust out laughing...
I assume that archive.org has good intention and not want to make money..
But why would amazon.com/alexa want to donate the contents for free?.
I also read somewhere about the "creative commons" license, is this popular now?.
I'd like to share some interesting read: http://www.fairgamed.org/xenunet5.htm.
A website was banned by waybackmachine.org/archive.org and google.
Textz.com text copying...
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) European publishers warned Tuesday that they cannot keep allowing Internet search engines such as Google Inc. to make money from their content.
"The new models of Google and others reverse the traditional permission-based copyright model of content trading that we have built up over the years," said Francisco Pinto Balsemao, the head of the European Publishers Council, in prepared remarks for a speech at a Brussels conference...
Interesting news..... I feel though, that preventing google from indexing content is not going to help publishers ......the majority are not going to support this stand (except possibly the ones that run subscription based services or news sites.......but even that is debatable). Of course, there's always going to be politically-oriented folks who'll cry foul, but the majority of the publishers will not even bother.
Apart from that.. the other interesting news is that WebmasterWorld has recently started blocking all search engine spiders from indexing it's content (over one million pages were removed from the google index)......
Interesting. It looks like it is not complaining google's caching, but.
"because it's news site looks similar to the one seen by AFP subscribers"....
"Many stories carry a small image, or thumbnail, along with the headline and the first sentence or two. Visitors can click on the headline to read the full story at the source Web site.".
So a headline+first sentence is breaking copyright, that does not sound quite.
More specifically (dealing with copyright) WayBackMachine has excellent insight about the "preservation" of information... http://www.archive.org/about/about.php#5..