Talk:Internet Archive
|
|
phish has never allowed their shows to be hosted at the archive and dave matthews band no longer allows their concerts to be hosted there.
Just noticed that as of today, the Wayback machine now also has a full text search. Don't know if that's worth mentioning. --Aramgutang 12:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There must have been controversy about publishing copies of everything on the web - the article should include info on this topic!
- I believe this falls under the umbrella of "cached" information being legal to own and to display, in the same way google can cache any page and translate any pdf/doc to html, while at the same time any page can block the application thereof. To say it another way, the cached information is basically their distribution of the material to you, in the same way a newspaper is printed. The print (ink/data) is stored on a media (paper/hard drive) for your use, and if you want to give it away in public, who can stop you? What shouldn't be legal is the redistribution of cached material, but how can this be stopped?
- What I find very annoying, is that anyone who has let their domain registration lapse, or had it stolen or purchased, can have their historic content removed by a new owner using robots.txt. This includes content that the previous owners of the domain might wish to remain in archive.org. Since many people cannot afford to keep their domain indefinitely, any content in archive.org could conceiveably be removed, given enough time. Shouldn't there be legal channels with which one can restore their own content, by proving ownership of a domain for a given timeperiod? Would this be worth mentioning it in the article? 64.162.10.162 06:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who wrote this their PR department?
This page is symtomatic of several I've recently encountered on Wikipedia (gmail comes to mind), only it's worse. The gmail page although neglecting controvosial aspects, at least mentioned them. Why doesn't this page mention that archive.org not only complied with scientology's demands to remove pages - it exceeded them and lied about it.
Fix this page please, it's currently a mandible-straining servicing of Mr. Kayle.
- Please provide some links for further research on this(i.e. news reports, watchdog websites, etc.) That's the first step to getting it included. JesseW 18:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Here's some links on the Scientology removal: CNET story (http://news.com.com/2100-1023-959236.html), Forum post at archive.org (http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=778), LawMeme article (http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=350). JesseW 19:25, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Website?
I dare not remove it, but WHAT is the link to the 'related' page on Website doing here? Shouldn't a post to Internet be posted here as well, then? And to Archive? I mean, it just seems somewhat ridiculous to me, this link to Website.
IRC channel
Don't they have an IRC channel? If anyone knows it, please add it.