The Wayback Machine, Friend or Foe?

ShaunC asks: "As the webmaster of numerous sites, I'm curious how others feel about the Wayback Machine. What particularly interests me is the fact that the Machine is a relatively new animal, yet it contains snapshots from my sites dating back to 1998. I can't help but wonder: where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies? I certainly didn't provide either. Perhaps I'm too much of a purist, but I've always seen the internet as an ever-changing medium, not a permanent one. Archives have bothered me ever since the fledgling days of DejaNews." This site last made an appearance on Slashdot, earlier this year. Internet archival sites are right smack in the crosshairs of copyright, but they are useful. Anyone who has ever used Google's cache (and there are plenty of those links on Slashdot) can attest to this. Of course, the issue that may bug many content providers is how to opt-out of such services, since some see it as a copyright violation. Is it possible to balance the issues of copyright and history, or will these two Internet resources find themselves in legal trouble in the future?

"The way I see it, archives are much like SPAM; I never opted in, why should it be my responsibility to opt out? I manage a number of domains and the process of refining robots.txt files and submitting myself to the Wayback Machine for removal seems to be intrusive. Worse, domains I've abandoned (which have lapsed or been re-registered by someone else) are forever archived in the Machine and I have no way to exclude them. Why should I have to deliberately remove my copyrighted material from an archive which was never granted permission to replicate that material in the first place?"

Comments

As a webmaster of various sites...

[schon]

As a webmaster of various sites, I have no problem with archives.. if I didn't want people to see my stuff, I wouldn't have put it on the internet in the first place.

where did they get such old copies of my websites, and who gave them permission to make those copies?

They probably got the copies the same way everybody else did - by surfing. You (implicitly) gave them permission to cache your sites by not including an appropriate entry in your robots.txt.

The way I see it, archives are much like SPAM; I never opted in, why should it be my responsibility to opt out?

Archives are nothing like spam. Spam is primarily harrassment. These guys aren't harrassing you. They did ask your permission (by way of checking your robots.txt). If you've since changed your mind, it's your responsibility to notify them.

Google caches material too - do you consider them to be spam as well?

Archive sites provide a valuable resource to the rest of the 'net. If you don't like it, put an appropriate entry in your robots.txt file, and be done with it.

Preserving information is important.

[Chiasmus_]

I doubt that I'm alone in my belief that it is always tragic when any piece of information--no matter how trivial--is lost forever.

If a person has offered that information for free at any point, to the extent that an automated script could access it, then I believe that information can be safely considered public domain. I doubt that there's any mechanism by which Richard M. Stallman could lose his mind and "rein in" all copies of GNU, or by which Stephen King could recall all his novels and refund the purchase price; once something is offered to the public, it no longer belongs exclusively to the publisher.

In my opinion, the value of archives in the future immeasurably outweighs occasional inconveniences of having information stick around longer than the author would have wished.

Purist? Pure what?

[American AC in Paris]

Perhaps I'm too much of a purist, but I've always seen the internet as an ever-changing medium, not a permanent one. Archives have bothered me ever since the fledgling days of DejaNews.

I'd say it makes you more of a control freak than a purist, personally.

Seriously, how did you ever get it into your head that a medium that serves documents to the general public on demand would be somehow exempt from archiving?

Would it bother you of John Q. Savant could recite the contents of your web pages from memory ten years after you'd taken it down?

Would it bother you to learn that stock prices, perhaps the most "ever-changing" thing out there, are permanently archived by a variety of services?

Or are you just jittery at the thought that your spouse/boss/Friendly Neighborhood Representative of The Man/kids may be able to someday look at the shite you plastered all over the web in your younger days? ("Ech, that stupid Netscape 2 animated title hack--honey, you actually -did- that?")

Re:Erm

[kevinank]

The goal of the person who started archive.org was to record the history of the world wide web. The assumption was that whatever anyone thinks about the archive, there will never be another chance to go back and get that data once it is lost.

The copies that they have archived in their databases are individual copies served from the original web requests, so they have the right to keep them. They became their copy when they were originally downloaded. Whether they have the right to make new copies and redistribute them depends on how you think fair use applies to that content.

Ultimately if a lot of people start suing them they will probably shut down the archive to public access and only allow researchers to view their original copies on site. And if you'd prefer that, well, you'll end up with the world you deserve.

Re:"The Wayback Machine"

[Rick the Red]

No, the issue is more akin to a library carrying newspapers and magazines for years, and their publishers suddenly telling the libraries "those copies are out of date, stop letting people read them." Why? If you didn't want anyone to read it, why did you put it out on the web?

Are you ashamed of what you did back then, when you were young and foolish? Grow up -- we're all ashamed of what we did when we were young and foolish, and years from now you'll be ashamed of what you're doing today. Get over it.

Personally, I think archives are great. Whenever I design an application I always ask about archiving, because inevitably they're gonna want it and it's easier to design in from the start. Oh, you want to know what your top 10 customers ordered last Christmas? Now you tell me! Geeze, we flushed that data last February, 'cause you said once the credit card cleared you didn't care to pay for the storage. But I digress.

Someday your next client will want examples of your previous work, then you'll go crawling on your hands and knees to the Wayback Machine, begging them to show you what your pages looked like. And they'll honor your robots.txt file and tell you to get lost.