I never understood how the IA can get away with copying all those websites and all their content as if copyright did not exist.
Can anybody enlighten me how they have not been sued into oblivion and sit in prison already?
Can anybody enlighten me how they have not been sued into oblivion and sit in prison already?
What if the site is simply gone, or now belongs to someone else who is not the owner of the archived content?
https://www.joshualowcock.com/guide/how-to-delete-your-site-...
You'll need to prove that you are the owner of the archived content, or were the owner of the domain.
It's a discussion that's been had for literally decades, because most tech-fluent people realized a long time ago how a copyright that's designed for physical distribution does not lend itself well to the intangible nature of the web, were replication is trivial and in many cases a mandatory necessity to enable a lot of functions in the very first place.
Sadly that discussion simply died out at some point, I think it was around 2010 when smartphones and social media started to boom, so the copyright reform that was supposed to "fix" all this never came.
Not sure if that's the specific part that lets them do what they do, or if that's from some other rule, just pointing out that this kind of rule exists.
They are also not making a profit from “copied” content, and so damages would be small. Particularly as they would immediately remove the problematic content.
If people don't want their content in such place they can always place it behind login-wall.