100% agree with this. The biggest issue seems to be that they make no visible effort to find and disable user-uploaded copyright content, so it's effectively a

100% agree with this. The biggest issue seems to be that they make no visible effort to find and disable user-uploaded copyright content, so it's effectively a free-for-all file sharing site. A lot of the cases are especially egregious because the uploading user will give the content an invalid "license" like CC0 that they have no right to apply. I picked three random pieces of recent copyright content (Adobe Lightroom, the video game Hollow Knight, the Taylor Swift album "Folklore"), and I found all of them easily and trivially on the Internet Archive. In fact I found hacked versions of the entire Adobe CC suite. The IA is at least as complete a source for pirated content as most public bittorrent trackers. Officially, of course, the Internet Archive is subject to DMCA safe harbor protections. This is user uploaded content, and so long as IA responds quickly to takedown notices, they're in the clear. But this story represents the situation de jure, not de facto. Ever since Viacom v. YouTube, it's been abundantly clear that even the biggest online platforms can't use this excuse in practice when sharing of copyright IP becomes rampant. YouTube put in the first version of their much maligned "Content ID" system the year after the Viacom lawsuit, and the parties settled out of court after YouTube lost at the circuit court level. [1] I don't believe that the Internet Archive, as a much smaller entity, is likely to see a significantly different outcome - that is, unless the lawsuits manage to bankrupt them entirely. This would suggest they need to be much more proactive about removing or disabling access to copyright content on the platform. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....