Forum Moderators: phranque
A few of my older sites are listed in their wayback archive. I never gave them permission to do that. How dare they copy my pages and store them on their own servers.
Just because my sites were public doesn't mean anyone should be able to copy and store the code without my permission. I wrote all that HTML by hand, it belongs to me.
Do you think they will remove my sites if I ask them? What do you guys think about the whole thing?
Take care,
Emperor
It also allows the user to then view the robots.txt file? Don't know why.
Mack.
They could not be more wrong.
It's a long-running debate that still hasn't been put to a legal test, AFAIK.
I think quite a few people here who love Google would be upset with me caching their web sites so that I could make money off of them.
You can block the bot IE_Archiver
I think that would be ia_archiver ;)
it must be really special
/sarcasm
A few of my older sites are listed in their wayback archive. I never gave them permission to do that. How dare they copy my pages and store them on their own servers.
We had another thread about archive.org recently. The reason why they can is because you gave them explicit permission to do so when you published the pages in a public arena with no restriction.
Just because my sites were public doesn't mean anyone should be able to copy and store the code without my permission.
If I visit your site - which you have made public - I am downloading your HTML and images and storing them locally in my browser cache. You have given me permission to do this, because you have published your site.
it belongs to me.
Yes, it does - but I've still got a copy with your permission.
Having said all that, I banned the ia_archiver years ago without the slightest regret. It's hardly a substitute for proper backups to start with, and I don't consider archive.org to be particularly legitimate in its claim to be the web "library". They are a self-appointed, private organization which has proclaimed itself the saviour of web history, and has previously made unfounded claims of "rights" over material such as obsolete Google crawls. They are also not averse to publicity stunts, but have failed to live up to their self-proclaimed role as guardians of the freedom of access to information.
That an archive should be kept I don't disagree, but I'm not sure that archive.org should be the ones to do it.
Now I'm happy to have it archived for any disputes for first designs without having to get my attorney involved.
Steve
We had another thread about archive.org recently. The reason why they can is because you gave them explicit permission to do so when you published the pages in a public arena with no restriction....
If I visit your site - which you have made public - I am downloading your HTML and images and storing them locally in my browser cache. You have given me permission to do this, because you have published your site.
That's explicit permission to make a copy for one's own use, as opposed to the permission to republish something. The difference is significant.
Both Wayback and Google are republishing content without asking for explicit permission, and making it possible to opt out does not justify this. They are assuming that everyone has heard of them and read their rules, which isn't the case. It's only because most webmasters find them convenient that they are allowed to continue.
