Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Archive Sued Over Stored Pages
Kailash Nadh writes "The Internet archive, which has been storing snapshots of millions of webpages since 1996 has been sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey, Philadelphia. The firm was defending Health Advocate, a company in suburban Philadelphia that helps patients resolve health care and insurance disputes, against a trademark action brought by a similarly named competitor. In preparing the case, representatives of Earley Follmer used the Wayback Machine to turn up old Web pages - some dating to 1999 - originally posted by the plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates of Philadelphia. Last week Healthcare Advocates sued both the Harding Earley firm and the Internet Archive, saying the access to its old Web pages, stored in the Internet Archive's database, was unauthorized and illegal." CT:update note that the submittor got it backwards: Healthcare Advocates is the sueing Wayback and Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey, not the other way around.
fsck me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't this be similar to suing someone for referencing an old book I wrote, just because I'd released a new one that didn't contain much of the old information?
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
Better sue everyone who has visited the website in question but never purged their temporary internet files folder.
Lawsuits these days sound more like people whining like spoiled brats than someone really done an injustice.
They publish the thing, person X stores it, person Y uses stored info to prove they publish it. So what? If they'd written the thing in a newspaper they would sue someone for keeping the newspaper?
Huh
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
I'm not saying that legally they don't have a legitimate case, but is it really necessary to persue an organisation such as the Internet Archive over something so passive as this? In my opinion, hell no it isn't.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
The archive is being sued by Health Advocates, not the legal firm that had defended Health Advocates. In fact, the legal firm is named in the suit as well.
And to clarify: its not a simple "you have our stuff stored on your systems" claim. Rather, Health Advocates is claiming that the archive failed to follow the instructions in robots.txt that were intended to prevent access to historical material.
They got caught with their pants down and now are suing because someone kept the evidence. Boy do I hope this lawsuit meets a swift and decisive end in favor of the Internet Archives.
To be candid, I'm surprised it took this long for someone to sue them.
..on at least two dates in July 2003, the suit states, Web logs at Healthcare Advocates indicated that someone at Harding Earley, using the Wayback Machine, made hundreds of rapid-fire requests for the old versions of the Web site. In most cases, the robot.txt blocked the request. But in 92 instances, the suit states, it appears to have failed, allowing access to the archived pages.
For the "I don't wanna rtfa because its early" crowd.
Why would a missing robots.txt imply that others are allowed to distribute the content?
Because that would be UnAmerican(tm)
Technoli
This is a case where a plaintiff of an action (that they probably lost) is sueing opposing council for using the internet archive looking for old documentation that is used as evidence against its claims. In effect, they're claiming that because they had a robots.txt any page that might have been on the internet archive was there illegaly, and shouldn't have been used as evidence.
In effect, they're saying "we were wrong, we tried to destroy the evidence of our wrongdoing, but because the shredder jammed and you found the evidence anyway, you're abusing our copyright".
The court hearing their argument should thoroughly smack them. Perhaps they should be brought to justice for trying to destroy evidence (or instructing a third party to do so), surely that's illegal in these post-Enron days.
Sorry, the writeup is bollocks. It says:
"The Internet archive, which has been storing snapshots of millions of webpages since 1996 has been sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey, Philadelphia."
and also:
"Last week Healthcare Advocates sued both the Harding Earley firm and the Internet Archive".
So to believe the write up, they are being sued by BOTH parties.
However, it says, in TFA:
"... John Earley, a member of the firm being sued, said he was not surprised by the action, because Healthcare Advocates had tried to amend similar charges to its original suit against Health Advocate, but the judge denied the motion. Mr. Earley called the action baseless, adding: "It's a rather strange one, too, because Wayback is used every day in trademark law. It's a common tool."
Christ knows where the idea they they are being sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey came from.
Doesn't anyone else read the stories first? o_O
... if they lose this fight.
For example, 2600 Magazine's old web site containing a copy of the DeCSS source code is stored in the Archive. Could the Archive be held in violation of the DMCA for mirroring someone else's old site?
I am scientifically inaccurate.
""Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary."
So the robots.txt was added YEARS AFTER the site had been archived. I don't think they correctly used the "no-archive-time-travel" directive.
"We've lost our case based on evidence and will now be suing the organisation that provided the evidence for doing so".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Having a public website is implicitly allowing anyone to read/view what you've made available.
But NOT to redistribute it.
Concludent behaviour. If I go to a doctor and get an injection, can I come back six months later and sue the doctor because he did not explicitely ask for permission to give me that injection? Well, I can true, of course, but I won't get far, because when he said "I'll have to give you an injection" and I didn't say no but instead rolled up my sleeve so he could give it to me, he was allowed to conclude that I was OK with it, even if I did not explicitely say so. IANAL, but I personally think the same principle should apply here. There is a standard mechanism for limiting access (in the sense of not authorizing it, that is, not as in making it technically impossible) - namely, robots.txt exclusion -, but if you chose to not use it, then the fact that you are running a *public* webserver that has the *sole purpose* of handing out its information to *everyone* who asks for it should be enough to conclude that you are, in fact, OK with not only the fact that people do receive your information, but also with the fact that they use it - no matter whether that means reading it (like a regular user would), indexing it (like a search engine would) or archiving it (like the Internet Archive *and* just about any search engine would).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Oh man, that sucks! I guess I better turn off all caching in my browser, lest I get sued for copyright infringement, because it's storing and rebroadcasting copyrighted materials that you may no longer want me to see at later date.
However, if you RTFA'd, you'd know that lots of IP law firms use the Wayback Machine on a daily basis, and in fact, the company suing the Internet Archive is not suing them for republishing copyrighted information. Rather, the case is that they recently placed a robots.txt file on their site that disallows viewing historical versions of the website, and the Archive is being sued because the Wayback Machine apparently ignored the robots.txt file (which, I might note is a voluntary standard, and by no means implies a contract between the two parties), which the plaintiff claims violates the DMCA. This has nothing to do with copyright violation.
It has everything to do with robots.txt. Read.
--- What
I've read about 500 analogies on what electronic information "is like".
Every analogy is bad. We cannot equate electronic information with physical information of ages past. Every analogy just plain sucks.
The reason the information age has taken off is because of the ease of transmitting, storing and copying of electronic data. These methods weren't available fifty years ago, and weren't wide spread until about twenty years ago. Trying to stuff these concepts into one-hundred plus year old ways of thinking is just useless.
This does not mean we can't use older solutions to problems to guide us in the future. But, we need to stop shackling ourselves to old ways of thinking. The fundamental way we transmit thoughts and ideas have changed, our fundamental way of thinking about information needs to change as well.
Does this mean "all information is free"? No. But trying to treat electronic information like a book is useless. Web sites are put out to be publicly consumed. It is contradictory to say that someone cannot cache it for non-profit purposes. Trying to reuse the "creative" parts of the web site for commercial purposes should be prohibited.
Bottom line: Stop with the analogies. Start thinking fresh.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
And if you printed out the site, would they want to sue you for "reproducing" that site? Along the same lines, would someone want to sue you because you kept a book you bought 10 years ago and the author had written a new version? This all smacks of this "on demand" nonsense and self-destructing media and even shades of Orwell's 1984 where the Ministry of Truth modifies ancient history when it suits their purposes. This is all part of an attempt of corporations with the complicity of the legal establishment to place absolute control of all media in the hands of said corporations. Which all leads to the fact that it's time for the Congress to enact a Corporation Control Act that would finally put a leash on these rabid idiots.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Oddly, the Internet Archive honours robots.txt, so if you don't want people to surf your archive, you can just post their robots.txt file and it will block everything, even into the past.
I would say that caching and archiving are so well understood to be part of the Internet that posting a web page and not expecting it to be archived or spidered is absurd. In other words, by posting their site to the web without a robots.txt, they knowingly published it in a medium which contains facilities for archiving and later redistribution.
Seriously, we have this discussion every time Google or the Wayback Machine or whatever comes up. Putting material on the Internet does not give up your copyright on it, place it in the public domain, grant others the right to reproduce it any way they see fit, or otherwise work differently to copyright laws as they apply to all other media. There are necessarily certain implied rights, but arguing that actually ripping someone else's material and then making it publicly available after they've withdrawn it from their own site is a pretty big stretch to anyone without a vested interest.
Actually there is a simple principle here.
The supreme court has ruled that directories cannot be copyrighted if the information they contain is purely factual in FEIST v. RURAL TELEPHONE, 1991
An example is the telephone book, those are all facts and that was what the case was about.
The wayback machine could be called a directory of old web pages, cached as they existed at the time. Facts.
Thus protected from copyright claims.
Well, there's their defense. It would be kind of fun to argue!
In any case it looks like the wayback machine needs a couple hundred mirrors. Heh.
.
Yes, but the difference is that under copyright law, I can require that you not make copies of my site just so that you continue to come to my site to get updated versions of things.
I do this routinely with my technical papers exactly because I know they will be updated. They're usually available for people to view and read and link to, but I ask people not to make copies elsewhere and technically that "request" is enforceable under copyright law.
Now it's true that fair use allows some things to be copied for certain reasons. And, curiously, I think the need to copy for a lawsuit might stand up. But copying the entire of everything everywhere in anticipation of something being needed for a lawsuit sounds to me to be a questionable thing. To stretch the analogy one further: making a complete repository of photos of all store windows, almost as a workaround for the fact that those store windows were not directly accessible for use. That doesn't sound like fair use to me. One of the fair use criteria is about the totality of the work, and while it's undefined how that comes into play in each instance, it's clear that the amount of bulk matters here.
Personally, I was initially uncomfortable with the Internet Archive, and I continue to be of mixed feelings about it. I think it serves a huge historical interest. However, in the nearterm it has some ill effects that run counter to the copying/distribution/presentation laws of copyright and may need some correction.
I might think it reasonable if
The disturbing part is that legal term of copyright seems to continue to lengthen with time. I'm a big fan of copyright as a form of personal control for authors to get income from their works, but copyright must lapse after some part and it is already well exceeding what I think is reasonable in that regard, with the trend looking to extend indefinitely as rich copyright holders influence congress to extend every time, say, Mickey Mouse comes into jeopardy.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
The Wayback Machine on the other hand stores copies of pages, not copies of their adresses.
If that's true, we had all better be careful not to visit *too* many pages on a given website during a given day. Either that or make sure that our web browser is set to immediately flush all downloaded content once it has been rendered.
The argument being made is that copyright is being violated, but the way the archive works might well be considered fair use, since the *only* reason it exists is for archival purposes. If having a copy of website content is illegal, in and of itself, then everyone who uses a web browser (unless they're running knoppix or something that doesn't store anything to the HD) is just as guilty as the Internet Archive.
I hereby rescind your permission to copy any of my posts, which means that if you're reading this, you're in violation of copyright law.
Okay, I now release my copyrighted work officially into the public domain. You're safe now.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Putting material on the Internet does not give up your copyright on it, place it in the public domain, grant others the right to reproduce it any way they see fit, or otherwise work differently to copyright laws as they apply to all other media. There are necessarily certain implied rights, but arguing that actually ripping someone else's material and then making it publicly available after they've withdrawn it from their own site is a pretty big stretch to anyone without a vested interest.
Actually, while they do not give up any copyright, there are a number of explicitly stated, legal uses of copyrighted materials and there is a great deal of public benefit to enumerating a few more of them. Can you honestly argue it is not in the public's best interest that a historical archive of the internet exists, for educational reasons if no other? This case should be a poster child for just such legislation. A company published something, lied about it, and are now suing the people who made a copy and proved their guilt. Are you saying it is in the best interests of society that copyrights be used as tool to promote lies and censorship?
Copyright is supposed to be about one thing and one thing only, promoting science and arts. That is the only constitutional provision for its existence. If someone is copying legally obtained works into an archive for educational, historical, or non-profit uses then they are almost invariably helping to promote science and arts, and anyone trying to stop them is up to no good.
As to the letter of the law (which is probably unconstitutional although it is impossible to prove that) you're right. The internet archive is screwed in the U.S. and many other countries. They tried to do what copyright law originally required of copyright holders and the library of congress. If a work is to copyrighted then ethically it needs to be available. That is the whole point of copyright. According to the letter of the law it is probably illegal for me to print out the receipt some e-businesses display when I buy something online. The law needs to be fixed.
In fact, limiting the rights of others to distribute your works in order to encourage you to make them available is exactly what copyright is for, and this sort of case is a textbook example of why the principle matters.
What? How does this limiting of the rights of others encourage them to distribute the material? They, like the majority of copyright holders these days, don't want the work to be available at all. It does not encourage them to publish it, it just gives them a way to prevent works from being distributed.
The archive is in trouble not because the violated the intention of copyright. They, in fact, are trying to uphold the very principals upon which it is founded. Unfortunately, the laws have been changed by the corrupt and greedy to create a situation where copyright does exactly the opposite of its original purpose. This is a perfect example of copyright laws that have been rewritten being used to hold back progress and remove works from public availability. It is unethical and sickening and your implication that a businesses financial considerations should trump both the rights of our descendants to have access to our works and that they trump the the ability to find and present the truth in the courts... well it makes me want to vomit. Go to hell.
Shouldn't that be "...the f***ing TFA article also does mention..."
Can you sue a witness because he remembered the facts against you during a trial the same way the Wayback Machine is being sued because it "remembers" old facts and saying and has been used in courts?....
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Those are just the first few examples that come to mind, but the significance is clear: just because some information was available somewhere at some time, that doesn't automatically means there's a benefit to society to preserving that information in an obvious place for all time.
The answer to problems with information like drafts and trade secrets being public knowledge after being published is simple, don't publish them. If you don't want people to read drafts of unfinished works, don't publish them online. You do realize copyright law, even today in theory, insures that all copyrighted works are to be preserved for the public and given over to the public for all time once it expires right? And how many better authors would we have today if we did have Shakespeare's drafts to look at to help understand his writing process?
I'm going to skip your constitutional arguments, because copyright is an international convention, and most of the world isn't subject to your constitution. Can we agree the more neutral definition that copyright exists to promote the creation and distribution of works for the benefit of society?
Most copyright law in the world is pretty similar to that in the U.S., but fine lets ignore the U.S. constitution. Lets talk about natural versus artificial rights. Freedom of speech is in my opinion a natural right. Copyright is, in my opinion an artificial right, granted as part of an agreement between authors and those who would benefit from said authorship. Authors are rewarded for giving works to the public with the rights to make money. What advantage does a copyrighted work that is not available to the public give to the people who are giving up their natural right to copy it freely?
Your position is illogical. We're talking about material that has already been made available. If it's a work of value, then probably it was removed because the copyright holder was going to distribute it via some other means, or was working on a newer, better version and didn't want the out-of-date material getting in the way. If it's not a work of value, then there is little public interest to be served in preserving it, particularly if doing so causes any harmful effects to the parties involved.
And here is where your argument falls apart completely. You're making a whole slew of assumptions here, most of which are not true. First you're putting responsibility for deciding what is and is not of value to the public into the ahnds of the copyright owner (note in most cases this is NOT the author anymore). Next you're assuming that not only will the copyright owners know what works are valuable to the public, but they will act in the best interests of the public rather than in their own best interests.
You do realize that the vast majority of copyrighted works including art, literature, film, and music are completely unavailable to the average person right? About .05% of all copyrighted books are still in print and maybe 3% are still available either new or used. The same holds true for music. This is mostly because so many works are copyrighted, but no one knows who holds that copyright, or because the large companies that own millions of copyrights don't want older works to compete with current offerings. Is it in the best interests of the public as a whole to have no access to the majority of our artistic, music, theatrical, and literary heritage? How many great works are in those collections, that will never be seen ever again because the last copy is lost and it was illegal for anyone to make more except some company who did not see the profit in it?
If you remove copyright...
I never said anything about removing copyright, only reforming it. For example it used to be that every copyrighted work in the U.S. had to have two good copies sent to the library of congress to be archived for reference and to preserve the work for future generations. Sound familiar? If that law was still in effect