Should Archive.org Ignore Robots.txt Directives And Cache Everything? (archive.org) 174
Archive.org argues robots.txt files are geared toward search engines, and now plans instead to represent the web "as it really was, and is, from a user's perspective."
We have also seen an upsurge of the use of robots.txt files to remove entire domains from search engines when they transition from a live web site into a parked domain, which has historically also removed the entire domain from view in the Wayback Machine... We receive inquiries and complaints on these "disappeared" sites almost daily."
In response, Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein writes: We can stipulate at the outset that the venerable Internet Archive and its associated systems like Wayback Machine have done a lot of good for many years -- for example by providing chronological archives of websites who have chosen to participate in their efforts. But now, it appears that the Internet Archive has joined the dark side of the Internet, by announcing that they will no longer honor the access control requests of any websites.
He's wondering what will happen when "a flood of other players decide that they must emulate the Internet Archive's dismal reasoning to remain competitive," adding that if sys-admins start blocking spiders with web server configuration directives, other unrelated sites could become "collateral damage."
But BoingBoing is calling it "an excellent decision... a splendid reminder that nothing published on the web is ever meaningfully private, and will always go on your permanent record." So what do Slashdot's readers think? Should Archive.org ignore robots.txt directives and cache everything?
In response, Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein writes: We can stipulate at the outset that the venerable Internet Archive and its associated systems like Wayback Machine have done a lot of good for many years -- for example by providing chronological archives of websites who have chosen to participate in their efforts. But now, it appears that the Internet Archive has joined the dark side of the Internet, by announcing that they will no longer honor the access control requests of any websites.
He's wondering what will happen when "a flood of other players decide that they must emulate the Internet Archive's dismal reasoning to remain competitive," adding that if sys-admins start blocking spiders with web server configuration directives, other unrelated sites could become "collateral damage."
But BoingBoing is calling it "an excellent decision... a splendid reminder that nothing published on the web is ever meaningfully private, and will always go on your permanent record." So what do Slashdot's readers think? Should Archive.org ignore robots.txt directives and cache everything?
yeah (Score:5, Informative)
yeah!
Re:yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Law of headlines indeed, and there's already an established way for web developers to indicate that they don't want content cached or archived while still being searchable:
<meta name="robots" content="noarchive">
So archive.org could just honor that, and the problem would be solved. Google honors exactly this.
Re:yeah (Score:5, Informative)
User Agent: ia_archiver
Disallow:
As is often the case, Lauren is going off half-cocked with only part of the story. The IA already has a policy for removal requests (email info@) and is only considering expanding their current position of ignoring robots.txt on sites outside their current "test zone" of the
Besides, it's going to be interesting to see what kind of idiotic crap web admins who should know better think is safely hidden and/or secured because of robots.txt - it's useful to know who is particularly clueless so you can avoid them at all costs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to be a two-way street anyway because they're going to find a lot more sites that feed multiple-MB of pseudo-random crap to spiders that ignore robots.txt
I don't think archive.org actually spiders things any more. They've been on-demand archival for, what, over a decade?
I mean, they had the Alexa toolbar that automatically submitted everything that the user browsed to their index, and that is (was?) likely their main source of entries...
Try looking at an unpopular site, and you'll find few and incomplete entries spanning over several years, especially as you go deeper than the front page. But a popular web site has archive entries available for pretty much e
Re:yeah (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
while some random personal blog only get spidered every few weeks or more,
Well, my experience (as a user of archive.org, not as a webmaster) is more like 'every few years'...
FWIW, I mostly look up old static sites from around fifteen years ago. Back when people still had hitcounters.
Re: (Score:3)
But should that matter? If the website is publicly facing. why should you not be able to archive it (irregardless of their wishes)? I can take pictures of houses I see from the street. The law seems fairly straightforward here, and it is easy to build any sort of wall around your website you wish to keep the public and archivers out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, for some bizzaro reason I was thinking I was replying to the "neh" post below this one, and I haven't had my drop of liquor yet.
Cautiously saying yes to this (Score:3)
but it may have consequences I haven't considered
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My process is that if you go around the robots.txt, you're hostile, and you route to null on the next access. If you attempt to directly access cached URLs, you're hostile, same answer. The file of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that have attempted this is easily a half-mile long.
Happy to add archive.org to it. Baidu, Bing, and yes, Google, are already there. Most of them have been from AWS instances snooping around. They get the same answer.
What are "cached URLs"? (Score:2)
If you attempt to directly access cached URLs, you're hostile, same answer.
How you define "cached URLs" could determine how much money you have to spend fielding support calls from legitimate users who have bookmarked a document on your site.
Re: (Score:2)
The site is static. It goes through revision. No one in their right mine bookmarked sites-- it gets 100 legit visits a year. It's a honeypot.
But spiders cache URLs and try to find them again. Nope.
Re: (Score:1)
Cautiously saying yes to this but it may have consequences I haven't considered
And that's how we ended up with Donald Trump, you bastard!
Re: (Score:1)
And somehow the world is still relieved it wasn't Hillary Clinton...
If given the choice of picking someone who could ruin you life, would you pick the evil conniving devil you know, or the bumbling orange buffoon you don't know?
Re: (Score:2)
As well as Obama destroying insurance ($5000 deductibles for everyone), Dianne Feinstein becoming a Billionaire *only while* in Congress, and of course the classic "We have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill." That from the bobble-head Nancy Pelosi. Yep. Oh yeah, you bastard!
My plan's deductible is $500 per person ($1500 / family), so I have a hard time believing $5k; $5k is closer to max out of pocket. Of course, I'm paying $500 / month premiums ...
No brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
Duh. Naturally it should. The notion that robots.txt should operate RETROACTIVELY is asinine.
Re:No brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
But that is not the question asked, is it?
robots.txt should apply to the page at the time. I do not see any decent argument against that.
But arguable robots.txt should not be a way to retroactively mark previously archived content as inaccessible.
Re:No brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
One problem i run into is with owner manuals for old film camera's a lot of the time they disappear from the company website when they get taken over by another company. Sometimes archive.org can come to the rescue if I can find where they used to be. Fair enough the new company may only be interested in the digital models and has no interest in the historical product made by the company they acquired but when they make boneheaded choices like erasing the historical information the original company put out for their customers..
Worst still is when a domain name is lapsed and bought by another company who had zero access to the content of the former site they bought a name not a right to control the history of the former site.
The other thing which bugs me is the white washing of old news articles how often that trick gets pulled, I might personally remember an event but find the contemporary records are missing that happens a lot especially in Politics when a past stance becomes embarrassing and then you get told black was white...
At the very least when a website changes hands the new owner should not be able to erase the history of the site under the previous owner.
Re:No brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the single most important reason there could ever be!
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The policy where someone with no interest in a site (i.e. takeovers, lapsed domains, etc) can retroactive wipe all archives with just a couple lines in a config is flat-out wrong.
Ignoring robots.txt entirely, though, is a bad idea. Some sites use it to block archiving, sure, but some others use it to tell robots to avoid places where they'll never return from. There's a case for ignoring "D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: No brainer (Score:1)
While the retroactive nature is indeed dumb, the simple fact is that if I don't want content I created/own to be copied by archive.org, it shouldn't be. And that should include content that maybe I didn't have a problem with being mirrored previously, but now do, albeit not through a stupid retroactive robots.txt file. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:3)
Internet Archive is recognized as a bona-fide library organization recognized by the library of congress and US copyright office and as such is immune from most copyright laws in their pursuit of archiving and allowing access- with some restrictions of course.
Section 108 lays out the framework but US regulations provide more specifics in the exemptions and uses. As far as I know, they fall completely within the scope of the laws and limitations even if they ignore the robots.txt because the copyright law cr [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Even though there is no legal definition of pirating
"Piracy: a robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority, done animus furandi, in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
"It is not necessary that the motive be plunder or that the depredations be directed against the vessels of all nations indiscriminately. As in robbery upon land, it is only necessary that the spoilation or intended spoilation be felonious, that is with intent to injure and without legal author
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so I should have said there is no legal definition of pirating concerning copyright.
Most people would have read that into the comment seeing how the entire discussion being replied to was about copyright. But I guess I should admit that I did not account for the one interpretation by someone not following along.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so I should have said there is no legal definition of pirating concerning copyright.
Nobody cares if the vessel that you pillage is carrying copyright assignments, gold dust, or toilet paper. The definition of piracy does not change.
Most people...
Are fucking idiots who don't understand the difference between propagandized hyperbole, and whatever other options for communication there are.
Re: (Score:2)
lol.. As if the internet is a vessel on the high seas.
I'm assuming either you are including yourself or this was just an exercise to illustrate that. Either way, it is annoyingly silly due to the obvious nature of the com
Re: No brainer (Score:1)
So why the fuck did the person put the stuff on the website in the first place? DMCA and anything similar to it is stupid.
Re:No brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
It should be even easier than that.
Archive.org should archive everything, including the robot.txt contents, at each scan.
The content being displayed from the archive.org website itself however could then still honor robots.txt at the time of the scan, purely for "display" purposes.
This way changing robots.txt to block search engines would not delete or hide any previous information.
Also the new information would still be in the archive, even if not displayed due to the current robots.txt directives.
Although it would require more work to do so properly, this would potentially allow for website owners to retroactively "unhide" content in the archive in the past as well.
Proper in this case would require some way to verify the domain owner, but this could likely be as simple as creating another specifically named text file in the websites root path, with content provided by the archive.
That can be as simple as the old school "cookie" data like so many other services use such as Google, or as complex as a standard that allows date ranges specified along with directives.
But in any case, this would preserve copies of the website for future use, such as for when copyright protection expires.
Despite everyone having a differing opinion on just how long "limited time" should be in "securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries", no one who wants to be taken seriously can argue that this time of expiration must happen at some point.
Since the vast majority of authors make no considerations to protect our property, that task clearly needs to fall on us to secure.
Robots.txt is not only for privacy (Score:4, Interesting)
It is also for variable random content. Imagine a service that returns a webpage containing the product (of the multiplication) of two numbers, followed by a list of links to ten other random number pairs you could try. It would take a 1kB page to write, but infinite space to archive *all* the results. For effect, imagine the service generates a video to show a kid how to multiply the two numbers, or drive from one place to another, or whatever use people have have now found for the Internet.
Random generated content (Score:5, Informative)
It is also for variable random content. Imagine a service that returns a webpage containing the product (of the multiplication) of two numbers, followed by a list of links to ten other random number pairs you could try. It would take a 1kB page to write, but infinite space to archive *all* the results
And archive.org already has a correct behaviour for that :
- it wont try to download all infinity of solution in one go (e.g.: generating giga-byte worth of data out of the 1kB Perl/PHP/NodeJS/whatever source)
- instead it will occasionally rescan the page, every few days (more or less frequently, depending on popularity of the links)
It provides a small glimpse of what a user could have seen back then on the website.
By the way, back in the 2000s, this was exactly a popular way to poison SPAM robots spiders who where scanning the web for e-mail addresses.
- Either they honour robots and not scan that or any other sources of e-mail on the site.
- Or they attempt to ignore robots.txt and follow links they aren't authorised to, and end-up siphonning giga-bytes worth bogus e-mails addresses auto-generated by small perl script, which will pollute their base of harvested addresses.
Archive.org's spider might by a tiny bit more susceptible to this kind of things.
Bot as much as a SPAM email-harvesting spider (which will try to download as much as possible, much more aggressively than archive.org), but still such a labyrinth of links might get archive lost.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming the web page will have the same URL. But what if the script auto-generates new URLs for each request ?
Then they will get an unlimited amount of web pages.
Its not hard to make a web page that works that way.
Block wildcard (Score:2, Interesting)
archive.org should block wildcard robots.txt, eg ones that say block everything. With a few exceptions:
Image boards (eg 4chan, reddit, and similar forums) due to how frequently they change, there will never be any possibility of archiving a complete state of any specific thread before it's purposely purched, and due to the rampant piracy, would only lead to further DMCA requests aimed at archive.org
Piracy sites - For obvious reasons.
Domain parking - A domain parking site should be treated as spam.
Re: (Score:3)
It could archive a specific thread on a board once there has been no activity for over six months.
Re: (Score:3)
Threads on 4chan last hours, not months.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely minutes on the popular ones. But 4chan already has its own archive websites I believe.
Re: (Score:3)
Piracy sites -- they deserve special protection, as they're very likely to be disappeared against their owner's wishes.
Image boards -- a glimpse into ephemeral content is worth keeping, even if you miss most of it.
Domain parking -- I agree with you, they're 100% spam. But they're the primary reason such deletion must not be retroactive.
No (Score:1)
If they do that on my sites (and many others I'm sure) they'll get locked out.
Re: No (Score:2, Informative)
Robots.txt is a suggestion, not a requirement.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt. Effectively ignoring it erodes the value of robots.txt. Sure, some underhanded people will ignore it but I don't see organizations openly ignoring it.
If you have an example of an organization completely ignoring robots.txt, do tell.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
archive.org ignoring robots.txt is a slippery slope, indeed. but there is no 'technical problem' here.
a web site operator specifically CHOOSES ON THEIR OWN to include directives in robots.txt to tell a bot to 'fuck off'. if they choose to add wayback machine to their robots.txt file, it is their choice, and archive.org should always honor such request
Re: No. (Score:1)
No. The purpose of the file is to let crawlers know that a page is not suitable for indexing, and/or to give site operators an "opt out" capability for crawlers which CHOOSE to offer such features. If you have a problem with a particular company then block their IP space.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
robots.txt is a polite way of saying "please don't"
But your website is there for the world to see. If someone, anyone chooses to ignore your polite request, well, so what? Why did you put your content up there for the world to see?
Re: (Score:1)
People like you are why we can't have nice things. You think it's fine to do whatever you like to other people as long as it's not punishable by law, just because you can, no matter what their opinion.
IOW: You're an asshole.
Re: No. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
robots.txt is a polite way of saying "please don't"
But your website is there for the world to see. If someone, anyone chooses to ignore your polite request, well, so what? Why did you put your content up there for the world to see?
This right here need elaboration. Sure, I can put my stuff on a webserver for the world to see. But you see, what I didn't sign up for is every search engine to download all my webpages and make them available in search results. Feel free to poke my website as a human, but not as a indexer, hence robots.txt asking robots to bother someone else.
robots.txt indeed does NOT have value (Score:3, Interesting)
The use of robots.txt only makes the internet somewhat harder to search. I fucking hate it when some scientific publisher haplessly uses robots.txt, only to make search of their published content nearly impossible to find. Fuck that, fuck robots.txt and the train it came with.
Re: (Score:2)
The use of robots.txt only makes the internet somewhat harder to search. I fucking hate it when some scientific publisher haplessly uses robots.txt, only to make search of their published content nearly impossible to find. Fuck that, fuck robots.txt and the train it came with.
Keep in mind, if the world collectively decides to ignore robots.txt, a polite and easy way to tell indexers to go away, people will take stronger measures to prevent indexers from doing unwanted things with content they don't own and have no rights to, right up to blocking indexer sourced requests outright, no robots.txt, no http, just the middle finger of 'connection closed by foreign host.'
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? If they don't always get exactly what they want, well, welcome to life. They should deal with it.
blantant-predator moral honeypot (Score:2)
So what? When DoubleClick argues that they ought to have the same advantages as Archive.org, they'll only manage to look like douchebags reaching their filthy hands into a cookie jar.
It's not always a bad thing to set up douchebag-honeypot moral exemption, even if it does depend on the mass audience (mostly) managing to find two sticks to rub together.
The real solution here is
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious (and already available) solution is to have the spider mark its incoming HTTP request at the TCP level appropriately:
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc35... [ietf.org]
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
A public act by an organization ignoring robots.txt will only lead to the justification of other organizations ignoring robots.txt. Effectively ignoring it erodes the value of robots.txt. Sure, some underhanded people will ignore it but I don't see organizations openly ignoring it.
If you have an example of an organization completely ignoring robots.txt, do tell.
I gotta agree with this. The mechanism of robots.txt needs to be respected in all cases, lest it become obsolete and ignored if big enough players decide it is meaningless and ignorable.
I personally don't give a hoot about my page(s) appearing in an archive, what I don't want, is Google, Bing, Yahoo, or anyone else, indexing my pages so they might appear in search results with terms that may be present on my pages. Not hiding anything, frankly there's almost nothing on my webserver (visible at least), eve
Re: (Score:2)
will only lead to the justification of other organizations
Well, if organizations don't even need to "justify" what they scan or don't scan, then this is a non-argument.
Here is my clever idea... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Already possible, practically since the inception of robots.txt.
User Agent: archive.org_bot
Disallow:
Re:Here is my clever idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why even have a website visible on the internet, if you don't want it searchable and archivable? Those two effectively mean "invisible" - because as long as it is visible, it is also archivable - if nothing else, manually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> 2) People will be more wary to publish anything on the web. Also known as self-censorship. ... not only by bots. Have a look at twitter. When a celebrity twitters something dumb, there are 5 people posting screenshots before they have the chance to delete the tweet.
Actually you NEED to be wary. If you publish something, it is there, it will be copied, screenshotted, archived
You should not censor yourself. But maybe you choose the use your anonymity online. Even a anonymity which isn't anonymous against
Could this break the computer misuse act? (Score:1)
Section 1 a & b (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1)
Access to the information is unauthorised (robots.txt says no) but they do it anyway and wilfully.
Re: (Score:2)
The British Library also maintain an archive. The FAQ relating to their crawler is quite an eye opener:
(http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/legaldeposit/websites/websites/faqswebmaster/)
: Do you respect robots.txt?
: As a rule, yes: we do follow the robots exclusion protocol. However, in certain circumstances we may choose to overrule robots.txt. For instance: if content is necessary to render a page (e.g. Javascript, CSS) or content is deemed of curatorial value and falls within the bounds of the Legal Deposit Librar
Privacy is an illusion (Score:2)
The current system is stupid. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with robots.txt is that it doesn't contain a validity period.
Say I add mustnotbecrawled.html, a link to it in existingpage.html, and a modification to /robots.txt that bans crawling of mustnotbecrawled.html. The problem is that a robot might have downloaded robots.txt right before my publishing, and does not see that it shouldn't crawl it. So it does.
It could be argued that a crawler should always re-load robots.txt if encountering a document newer than the last server transmit time for robot
Re: (Score:2)
No, that won't work. Changes may have taken place in-between the two copies of robots.txt.
An example: A newspaper.
At the first fetch of robots.txt, an article might not exist. The first version of it has not yet been verified, and is published with a new robots.txt that tells robots not to crawl it. Then, the article is modified and verified, and a new robots.txt published that now allows crawling it.
Yet, a spider may have caught the first robots.txt from before the article, the article while it was in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
every one of you knows for certain (Score:1)
YES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud the direction internet archive takes. They should fully implement it.
A year ago one of my domain names was stolen, through negligence of the registrar. The site was a non-profit resource that I maintained for the past 15 years. The squatter who now owns the name put deny all in robots.txt. As the result the website with some quantity of useful information has totally disappeared from existence and from the archive record.
I do not see sufficiently important reasons to remove information that was once in public access. There are some reasons, however the public benefits of having access to all past public information outweigh all them.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not have deny in robots.txt at the time the site was crawled. I do not mind if archive.org does not cache the "domain for sale" page, but why should the new owner be able to delete the entire history from the previous domain owners?
People abandon useful resources and domain names for many life reasons. To begin with, we all die. Companies change. Organisations change. Life priorities change. In my case the reason not to reinstate is the sheer lack of time: things are scripted for that domain name and
This will have some big negative concequences (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about a big site like github.com.
Imagine how many terabytes of pretty-printed source code and other things archive.org would be pulling were it to crawl all of GitHub.
And that's just one site, there are many others that generate pretty-printed source code and other large things.
Or what about if it crawls Google and starts archiving all sorts of Google search URLs or Google maps URLs or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't that dumb ... who writes a crawler puts in some protections against too big websites or sites autogenerating content with dynamic urls. So for example they put non-popular github links on the end of a queue to check them after everything else was processed. So they may slowly add unimportant github content, but won't crawls terabytes of data just now, but only some megabytes every now and then. Their bandwidth and storage capacity is limited as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously (to some of us, anyway) the crawler should honor robots.txt, but the archive should not. Once something is in the archive it should be in there forever.
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
robots.txt is intended to indicate what parts of a site should not be scanned recursively, often due for technical reasons such as generated content> It especially for sub-paths like /cgi-bin/, but there is no technical reason why the content of any arbitrary URL can't be programmatically generated. It might be and you wouldn't even know it, because the generated content may be the same most of the time, such as a navigation menu.
However, it was also not intended to be used to remove previously-archived content, as archive.org is currently using it. When an archived page changes status in robots.txt, they should note the first date that the status changed, then simply stop updating it until and if robots.txt re-allows it.
scanning and archiving are two different operations, and robots.txt is only intended to apply to the former.
Simple solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this: respect the version of robots.txt that was on the site AT THE TIME OF ARCHIVING. Do not apply subsequent versions of robots.txt to old snapshots retroactively (as when a domain changes ownership), but allow the owner to request deletion when an appropriate robots.txt was omitted by mistake.
I conducted a 2 yr experiment on Internet Archive (Score:2, Informative)
I wanted to know if it was possible to delete content from the Internet Archive. Their FAQ and support staff were very vague and only referred me to the robots.txt file. I found that they archive everything even if you tell them not to. The robots.txt file only controls whether or not the public can view it.
Experiment 1) Buy an expired domain and host it with a robots.txt file telling Internet Archive not to archive it. Before the experiment I confirmed that Internet Archive had a history for this expir
Why ignoring? (Score:2)
There are already flags like "noarchive" to get google to index the site, but not provide public "google cache" links (you can assume they still cache it, but that doesn't matter for you).
So archive.org should ignore noindex directives, but not noarchive ones.
Bing's spider wasn't obeying robots.txt (Score:2)
.
However, the way Microsoft has been acting recently (e.g., Windows 10 forced upgrades), I doubt if they even car
No (Score:2)
"Should Archive.org Ignore Robots.txt Directives And Cache Everything?"
No.
Yes. If you want to keep it private, then (Score:2)
don't publish it openly in the first place.
archive.org should be smarter (Score:1)
Boingboing wants ad impressions (Score:2)
Privacy, how quaint. (Score:1)
The problem is this retroactive application of it. (Score:2)
Different archive copies from when the site was under different ownership should retain their own policies - whether it is fully restricted, not restricted at all, or in between. Yes, that will take up space, holding on different copies of robots.txt files, linking them to websites, etc, but it is better than some archives not being available because of their current policy.
An excellent decision !!! (Score:2)
Good luck Internet Archive. Backup everything in the world !!! Preserve al knowledge !!!
Yes, with Conditions (Score:2)
First of all, everything should be archived for future generations and researchers. Otherwise, it defeats the whole point of the project.
But for the general public, the robots.txt should be honored and content hidden with a few conditions. First of all, it should not be retro active. I've seen valuable information lost when domains have changed name and the new owner has blocked the contents with a robots.txt. Second of all, there should be a review system to override the robots.txt. For example, if a site
Robots.txt v. Copyright Law (Score:2)
Unauthorized Access (Score:2)
By ignoring robots.txt, archive.org would be gaining unauthorized access to a computer system as access was expressly denied as per the Robots Exclusion Standard.
To further disseminate the archived pages would be added infringements.
I think that they need to campaign site owners to modify their robots.txt and if need be, lobby for exclusions to the Computer Misuse Act.
problem for websites (Score:2)
Really Stupid (Score:1)
Sure... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Gone doesn't mean there will be no replacement. It just tells, that the replacement will not be the same file. So you can re-request the URL, but you should not try to resume a download from there.
Re: (Score:3)
Archive.org needs to respect copyright law and stop this blatant reproduction of protected works!
Unless I explicitly consent to archiving (or searching for that matter), my content should never reside on someone else's server.
Sounds like you shouldn't have put that information on the Internet in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out section 108 of the US copyright law. It provides exceptions for libraries and archival libraries. You really have no "copyright" say in the matter with Internet Archive is a bonafide library and your legal rights granted by copyright do not apply to them.
Other sites, yes. But not for the internet archive.