I'm 100% behind banning WSJ and all other paywalled links, or at least having a highly visible (and preferablly filterable) flag, but it's a real stretch to cal

I'm 100% behind banning WSJ and all other paywalled links, or at least having a highly visible (and preferablly filterable) flag, but it's a real stretch to call an archive.is link "copyright infringement" and make a moral judgement on it. It's not like someone saved and reposted a sign-in only page, this is in the same vein as the Wayback Machine and Google Cache. The content was publicly available to the point that a well known bot was able to reach it. edit: I looked at the history of the link and it has an older copy where more of the images work. http://archive.is/4S2IG http://archive.is/4S2IG