3 ms·

This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archi

This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-machine https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac... I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being "standard" makes it any better.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship. Unless there are examples of these people wanting their content archived and the IA refusing, I don't see your point. Anybody is free to tell the IA not to archive their copyright material.
- pannSun 4y ago
  > You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? We aren't being kept in the dark, we know the reason some content is unarchived and they say which content is unarchived. Your complaint is like going to a store with posted hours after closing and demanding an explanation for why they aren't letting you in. It's possible there's some vast conspiracy to block you from shopping, bit it's more likely they're following the posted rules.
    - pannSun 4y ago
      > I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? Because of their deliberate policy of secrecy that forces you to assume, instead of know. As this is the 3rd time I repeat this same point, it will also be the last.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I directly addressed this with my following two paragraphs. It's not secrecy, we're fully aware of why they were unarchived and have no reason to think there's any other reason.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship. Unless there are examples of these people wanting their content archived and the IA refusing, I don't see your point. Anybody is free to tell the IA not to archive their copyright material.

pannSun 4y ago
> You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? We aren't being kept in the dark, we know the reason some content is unarchived and they say which content is unarchived. Your complaint is like going to a store with posted hours after closing and demanding an explanation for why they aren't letting you in. It's possible there's some vast conspiracy to block you from shopping, bit it's more likely they're following the posted rules.
  - pannSun 4y ago
    > I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise? Because of their deliberate policy of secrecy that forces you to assume, instead of know. As this is the 3rd time I repeat this same point, it will also be the last.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      I directly addressed this with my following two paragraphs. It's not secrecy, we're fully aware of why they were unarchived and have no reason to think there's any other reason.