8 hours of work, 8 hours of sleep, 48 hours of Family Guy

Yeah I’m wondering as well. It seems to save webpages, whereas the issue is with scanned books which may be removed from IA…

So child porn is okay then? You would already have it on your system

You’d have to look for it, knowing fully well that it is illegal to produce in the first place and distribute to others, access it online, and then deliberately retain it. It’s not really the same as something that’s legal to produce and distribute (it is certainly legal for me to view your site). You wouldn’t “already” have it.

I doubt you are either.

Well I’ve read some copyright laws, had to solve some issues regarding usage of copyrighted works, etc. Nothing that makes me an expert, but I’m not talking wholly out of my ass either.

It does… on paper… A lot. https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/ To the point it’s losing lawsuits over exactly that.

That’s not Wayback Machine per se, that’s Internet Archive’s book scanning and “digital lending” system, which was most definitely doing legally questionable (and stupid) things even to an amateur eye. However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

What do you mean by “saving a copy”? I still have the .doc file somewhere in my emails. If I told you I’m a serious published writer, and then you asked me where you can read my texts, and I sent you a .doc that hasn’t been proofread, would you take me seriously?

You don’t have any rights to do anything else with it.

That’s patently false. At a minimum, I can quote parts of your content, just as you can quote smaller portions of any published text anywhere, you don’t have to ask the publisher or author for permission. It’s also ridiculous and impossible to control, the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there? I doubt you’re writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me.

You’re arguing semantics that really don’t make any difference. The display is irrelevant, because the data by itself is stored on my computer before it is displayed. That data is what you’ve put up online to be accessed.

Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. That’s about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You don’t gain that same right by simply visiting a website.

I fail to see the difference between getting a CD with some data (buying it or being given for free, as e.g. a gift) and being sent some data online for free. More importantly - says who? Does copyright law say this about websites?

If an artist makes a painting… and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what they’ve done?

This simply doesn’t follow from what I’ve written. They certainly retain the rights to the painting. Besides, “deserving pay” depends on completely different factors than the ones we’re discussing, usually artists sell the actual object, the painting. A digital reproduction is, as far as most people care (I think), merely an informative reproduction, and not the real thing. Stuff that’s posted online for free is… free. It wasn’t intended to be made money with directly.

Your final paragraph is really confusing me, you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft, which I’m pretty sure is not true (I’ve followed the lawsuits against IA for a while and don’t remember anyone invoking that term). And at this point I don’t know what “theft” is even supposed to mean to you or to anyone else, and what was the point of the discussion anyway. Maybe I should reread the whole discussion carefully all over again, but I’m on my phone and it’s all giving me a headache.

, it’s a salty article

Actually the author himself is somewhat harmed by this situation. I would be salty too. When I wish to write my CV, I can say: my text have been published at X and Y. Especially nice if it’s an important and well known publication. Now a part of his CV is literally erased, he can’t access his own texts anymore (not even on Internet Archive). That’s… utterly ridiculous. It’s a common practice to send the author a copy (or multiple) of the text he has published, he has every right to own a copy of them. Now the copy that was intended to be available to everyone is not available even to him. Something of the sort really has happened to me too when a website I published an article on a site underwent a redesign and now the text just isn’t available anymore. Admittedly it’s still on IA, but it’s an awkward situation.

For what it’s worth, I agree with the other commenter and, as much as I dislike AI as it currently is, I have never and probably never will bitch about the scraping. If I put things out there online, I am aware that they may be used in ways that I never intended. That’s how it has always been, after all.

You’ve put it out there for free, though, and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that, so what’s the problem with me saving the data on my machine for later, and potentially sharing it elsewhere for free again?

then publishing it as your own is theft

1. This scenario (misattribution of content) has nothing to do with the previous discussion. The other commenter is making an analogy to CDs, owning a CD and lending it to others doesn’t mean you’re claiming its content is your own creation.

2. Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but it’s not normal theft.

Could be so, though it doesn’t look like a site where the devs have a fixed time schedule. (Not that I know much about managing a website, just my impression.)

Nope. I actually tried using a proxy and it got rejected for that very reason (with a different message), whereas two normal IPs had the problem described in OP.

My suspicion was correct, I can’t figure it out.

I know, as I’ve said, I’ve sent them an email through that form two days ago but have still gotten no response.

No, I have no idea what that is and I suspect I won’t be able to figure it out, but I can give it a try.

Absolutely the correct stance, nothing dirty about it. At this point, for better and for worse, the Internet is a basic necessity. Imagine having your water turned off because you threw water balloons at your neighbour.

No, there is no default option, just a dropdown that offers docx, pdf, rtf, txt, odf…

Yes, Google Docs exports to ODF.

This reminds me of the anti-wind-energy arguments about the turbines killing many birds…

Uhh what? I’m pretty sure libraries in Europe can’t do that. Do you mean they can photocopy any book they own…?