Re-reading my older post I realize that I was unclear. I a bothered by the combination of lack of transparency, retroactive removal, and exclusion. I would not

Re-reading my older post I realize that I was unclear. I a bothered by the combination of lack of transparency, retroactive removal, and exclusion. I would not be bothered if they had a clear transparency policy. Such as a list of sites that were retroactively removed, sites that are excluded from future archival, and a warning that data has been removed (along with the reason) when you try to visit an excluded site via archive.org. Sadly for some reason this seems to not be a thing. > Still, having an automated exclusion procedure (via 'robots.txt') I am talking about retroactive removal, not exclusion. That being said I heard that they recently stopped doing that. > If the Archive were as meek about deferring to traditional-rightsholder supremacy as you want with regard to the "Emergency Library" of digital books Another organization could be created for this. By having IA do this it sets at risk the rest of the archive (as well as the donations given to it). > Which is better Not supporting DRM is.