I'm not sure how worried I am about archive.org, specifically, in this regard. But the concern does reflect a trend in copyright, promulgated by those with sig

I'm not sure how worried I am about archive.org, specifically, in this regard. But the concern does reflect a trend in copyright, promulgated by those with significant vested interests (IP value they're seeking to maintain or grow) and so-called "maximalists". There's a growing push to legitimize copyright claims for "instances" of a work, even after the base work has entered the public domain. If this "sounds ridiculous" to you, just recall how most of us are increasingly worried that, in the U.S., Congress and the Executive are going to... "re-Mickey" the copyright term. As in, they already pushed it to life plus 70 years when certain Disney copyrights were about to expire. (And keep using "trade agreements" as one mechanism to try to "back door" increases to "plus 70" into other countries' IP terms.) A separate concern I have, is that currently archive.org continues to "retroactively respect" robots.txt changes. 404 your once public content, and archive.org "disappears" it from their corresponding records/copies. As long as that's true, you can't really view it as a permanent, unbiased archive. As politicians, commercial interests, and their lawyers continue to have a field day constraining "online rights" (and IP rights, and etc.), currently the only "guarantee" the public has of continued access and a more complete historical record is, ironically, local copies. They say, "History is written by the winners." Well, unless they can't find the copy you have squirreled away.