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

Re:Opting out -- of publicly available HTTP???

[TheCarp]

The otherquestion is one of historical record.

What you say does not BELONG to you. It is not property. Once you write it, it exists. You may own the medium it is on, but once it is out in the world it is uncontrollable and no longer owned. You may hold copyright... but a hundred years from now when you are long since dead and copyright is expiring, then what?

We have the works of Galileo, we have letters that Thomas Jefferson wrote to people, why? because they were written. Many years later, long after the fact, these were made public and part of historic record because they survived.

On the net, we have a culture of written information apearing and disapearing. This information is part of our culture, its things that we read and see, when it goes away - for whatever reason - we have lost something.

I have websites from 96 that exist now only in the way back machine. Yea, som eof the stuff I aid back then I don't agree with now, and would rather not have associated with me but, by that same token, I wouldn't want it to be lost forever. If someone read it and what I wrote had enough impact on them that they want to see it again... then I would not even dream of trying to stop them (even if the impact was one of disgust - an impact is an impact) - even if its just someone wanting to see what the web looked like 5 years ago... I think thats valid... I think thats an important record fo our culture.

the only thing I can see a case for really is the removal of personal information that shouldn't have been public in the first place. Beyond that though, I think its good... i mean... its not something that is ever going to be mistaken for a live current site - you have to actually go to the way back machine and ask for it.

All in all this is a good thing and I hope it survives longtime.

-Steve