If the called party is charged for the call they may have run afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USC 227 and the rules under 47 CFR 64.1200). If so you can sue them for up to $1,500 for each "call" just like a junk fax.
The majority of information being collected by Archive.org is covered by copyright law. It is up to Archive.org to get permission before they republish the information. If you look at the Archive web site they run banner ads for the Alexa toolbar. This Alexa service provides the marketing with information somewhat similar to the Nielson ratings for TV.
Archive.org has received complaints about their service contrary to the statements made in the published article. Archive.org has refused to respond to any meaningful way to these issues. Archive.org is trying to put burden on the publisher to determine that The Archive is publishing it, find it within TheArchive web site and then provide them a notarized statement.
see their FAQs at
The claims made in these faqs are just not consistent with the law. Are they going to repost everything that was available on Napster?
They also have some problems with their algorithm so that some domains that are redirected fool their algorithm into associating content with a site that was never actually associated with the site. To try to find copywritten works would be a nightmare. Archive.org has refused to respond to any of these issues and, in fact, are lying about it if the quotes in the article are factual.
This article is like the people who kept documenting how Sanford Wallace was caught not honoring removals... what else is new.
Try complaining to PSINet about some of their corporate spammers like LifeMinders. Their abuse team lieas through their teeth and has been sending out the exact same response to the complaints for more than a year. PSINet pretends they don't know what happened, claimed I "opted-in" and then refuses to answer any further complaints. Same game when I called them on the phone. These people are liars and frauds and I look forward to them going out of business.
Russ Smith
I have filed numerous TRUSTe complaints. they have not resolved any of them.
Some tricks they use: they claim AOL.com is covered by the TRUSTe seal until you file a complaint. they then claim only www.aol.com is covered but members.aol.com is NOT covered. This means if you visit www.aol.com to get information you are covered... but, if you actually join and give them your personal information you are not covered!
Any web site can set up 2 sites www.example.com that has the TRUSTe scam seal and then set up a second site www2.example.com that collects the personal info and avoids the requirements of the seal. What a joke!
Other complaints where sites do have the TRUSe seal simply go unanswered (Geocities, Real Networks, New York Times, etc). this is not surprising since TRUSTe is funded by fees paid from these companies. Pople who complain don't pay anything.
The public whois database is updated approximately once a day so it may have just been earlier in the day. Under the new distributed registrar system the registry has the real-time availability of any domain, not the whois. This is accessed via most registrars web registration section. This sometimes goes down and make it appear as it is available. When this happened NSI would show a domain available, show it taken, and then show it available again.
Is everybody on slasdot completely clueless?? Network Solutions is one of several registrars and is a private profit-making company with stockholders. They are not a dispute resolution body or Internet governance board. The only reason they got involved in domain disputes at all was because they were being sued by several companies in the mid 90's.
All they did was put a web site that describes the ICANN dispute policy. the same policy that governs register.com, CORE, Name secure, AOL, an a whole bunch of companies wo register domains (listed at Internic.net). Their site is a FAQ about this policy and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
If the called party is charged for the call they may have run afoul of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USC 227 and the rules under 47 CFR 64.1200). If so you can sue them for up to $1,500 for each "call" just like a junk fax.
http://www.archive.org/exec/faqsidos/about/faqs.ht ml?index=2 andt ml?index=26
http://www.archive.org/exec/faqsidos/about/faqs.h
The claims made in these faqs are just not consistent with the law. Are they going to repost everything that was available on Napster?
They also have some problems with their algorithm so that some domains that are redirected fool their algorithm into associating content with a site that was never actually associated with the site. To try to find copywritten works would be a nightmare. Archive.org has refused to respond to any of these issues and, in fact, are lying about it if the quotes in the article are factual.
Russ Smith
That is because the spammers account wasn't big enough. they only allow spammers who pay.
Try complaining to PSINet about some of their corporate spammers like LifeMinders. Their abuse team lieas through their teeth and has been sending out the exact same response to the complaints for more than a year. PSINet pretends they don't know what happened, claimed I "opted-in" and then refuses to answer any further complaints. Same game when I called them on the phone. These people are liars and frauds and I look forward to them going out of business. Russ Smith
ATT Called.com
privacy.net/diary
Business account customers still can.
Say Goodbye to NSI GoodByeNSI.com
http://DumpNSI.com
Some tricks they use: they claim AOL.com is covered by the TRUSTe seal until you file a complaint. they then claim only www.aol.com is covered but members.aol.com is NOT covered. This means if you visit www.aol.com to get information you are covered ... but, if you actually join and give them your personal information you are not covered!
Any web site can set up 2 sites www.example.com that has the TRUSTe scam seal and then set up a second site www2.example.com that collects the personal info and avoids the requirements of the seal. What a joke!
Other complaints where sites do have the TRUSe seal simply go unanswered (Geocities, Real Networks, New York Times, etc). this is not surprising since TRUSTe is funded by fees paid from these companies. Pople who complain don't pay anything.
Russ Smith
http://privacy.net
The public whois database is updated approximately once a day so it may have just been earlier in the day. Under the new distributed registrar system the registry has the real-time availability of any domain, not the whois. This is accessed via most registrars web registration section. This sometimes goes down and make it appear as it is available. When this happened NSI would show a domain available, show it taken, and then show it available again.
slash.dot-.com
All they did was put a web site that describes the ICANN dispute policy. the same policy that governs register.com, CORE, Name secure, AOL, an a whole bunch of companies wo register domains (listed at Internic.net). Their site is a FAQ about this policy and nothing more.