5 ms·

In some cases they do appear to delete, on request. edit: "Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an exp

In some cases they do appear to delete, on request. edit: "Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an explanation as possible as to what you are requesting be removed for us to better understand your reason for making the request.", https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org-2/ https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...

db48x 2y ago
Nope. Nothing is deleted, just hidden.
- rascul 2y ago
  How do you know?
  - db48x 2y ago
    I worked there for a short while.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      So if the Internet Archive accidentally archived child porn, they wouldn’t delete it? I suspect they DO delete some things.
      - db48x 2y ago
        Don't be asinine; of course there are exceptions. But the general rule is that nothing is deleted. Even if you have a fancy expensive lawyer send them a C&D letter asking them to delete something or else, they’ll just hide it. You can’t tell the difference from the outside. In fact there are monitoring alarms that are triggered if something _is_ deleted.
        thimabi 2y ago
        Claiming to have deleted something while just having hidden from public view… that’s basically begging content owners to sue and very easily win damages.
        db48x 2y ago
        Copyright only regulates the distribution of copies of copyrighted works. Possessing copies and distributing copies to other people are two different things. If you were photocopying a textbook and giving it to your classmates, the publisher could have their lawyer send you a Cease and Desist letter telling you to stop (or else). But if they told you to burn your copy of the textbook then they would be overreaching, and everyone would laugh at them when you took that story to the papers. Legal reasoning from made‐up examples is generally a bad idea, but I think you can safely reason from that one. I’m not privy to the actual communications in these cases, but I suspect that instead of replying back with “we deleted the content from the Archive”, they instead say something anodyne like “the content is no longer available via the Wayback Machine”. Smart lawyers will notice the difference, but then a smart lawyer wouldn’t have expected anything else.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > Legal reasoning from made‐up examples is generally a bad idea What? That's the only way to do legal reasoning, and as an obvious consequence it's how both lawyers and judges do it.
        db48x 2y ago
        I would be better to quote the actual text of the law than to make up a silly hypothetical on the spot, but that would be more work. Even better would be to quote from some case where a judge has applied the law to actual events.
        jpc0 2y ago
        I'm not going to look up legal precedent, hire a lawyer if you want that. You are wrong, copyright specifically prohibits copying, not distribution. They can get a cease and desist that requests you destroy property and they ca get a court order backing that which will put you into contempt of court if you fail to do so. Proving damages is easier with distribution, but that is a civil matter not a criminal matter.

db48x 2y ago

Nope. Nothing is deleted, just hidden.

rascul 2y ago
How do you know?
- db48x 2y ago
  I worked there for a short while.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    So if the Internet Archive accidentally archived child porn, they wouldn’t delete it? I suspect they DO delete some things.
    - db48x 2y ago
      Don't be asinine; of course there are exceptions. But the general rule is that nothing is deleted. Even if you have a fancy expensive lawyer send them a C&D letter asking them to delete something or else, they’ll just hide it. You can’t tell the difference from the outside. In fact there are monitoring alarms that are triggered if something _is_ deleted.
      - thimabi 2y ago
        Claiming to have deleted something while just having hidden from public view… that’s basically begging content owners to sue and very easily win damages.
        db48x 2y ago
        Copyright only regulates the distribution of copies of copyrighted works. Possessing copies and distributing copies to other people are two different things. If you were photocopying a textbook and giving it to your classmates, the publisher could have their lawyer send you a Cease and Desist letter telling you to stop (or else). But if they told you to burn your copy of the textbook then they would be overreaching, and everyone would laugh at them when you took that story to the papers. Legal reasoning from made‐up examples is generally a bad idea, but I think you can safely reason from that one. I’m not privy to the actual communications in these cases, but I suspect that instead of replying back with “we deleted the content from the Archive”, they instead say something anodyne like “the content is no longer available via the Wayback Machine”. Smart lawyers will notice the difference, but then a smart lawyer wouldn’t have expected anything else.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > Legal reasoning from made‐up examples is generally a bad idea What? That's the only way to do legal reasoning, and as an obvious consequence it's how both lawyers and judges do it.
        db48x 2y ago
        I would be better to quote the actual text of the law than to make up a silly hypothetical on the spot, but that would be more work. Even better would be to quote from some case where a judge has applied the law to actual events.
        jpc0 2y ago
        I'm not going to look up legal precedent, hire a lawyer if you want that. You are wrong, copyright specifically prohibits copying, not distribution. They can get a cease and desist that requests you destroy property and they ca get a court order backing that which will put you into contempt of court if you fail to do so. Proving damages is easier with distribution, but that is a civil matter not a criminal matter.