Has the Wayback machine become useless? Yesterday, the "archives" were changing faster than I could read them. Broken path, file not found, altered files, pop-up redirects, etc. Here is the Wayback archive for huntingtonbeach.com http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://huntingtonbeach.com Here is yesterday's "archive" for November 29, 2001 - http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/nov29-2001.gif Notice the dates - they were changing old pages so fast, they were unable to get it right. Today, it is "updated 10-14-06". I gathered a load of screen shots, and archived them off-site. I do not enjoy being called a liar. The reason? The press release - http://www.townsend.com/news/pressrelease.asp?o=8033 The lawsuit - http://www.townsend.com/files/Flotsam.pdf My conclusion: The Wayback Machine has been, and is being hacked. It used to be so much fun, to go back and see what pages looked like. NOW, however, all you see is what SOMEBODY wants you to believe the pages looked like. Pages now say "Surf City USA", instead of what they used to say, just "Surf City". I am very disappointed by this turn of events. The Wayback Machine is now BROKEN and USELESS. Because it has been polluted with LIES. History rewritten. Comments?
ah well, it was good while it lasted.. I hate people who put up lawsuits just to get their greedy hands on some money...
Our lawsuit is in response to a Cease and Desist Order from Huntington Beach, telling us we could not put "USA" on our t-shirts. It is Huntington Beach who is the aggressor in this matter. Our lawsuit is intended to counter a threatened lawsuit from HB. Just to be clear. Two emails to info at archive.org went unanswered. I guess they don't want to talk about it. Posters have suggested using the WB machine to prove trademark usage. Well, folks, now the Wayback Machine is being used illegitimately, to prove trademark usage, WHICH NEVER OCCURRED! Everyone needs to be made aware of this.
What are all the possibilities? 1. The Wayback Machine archive has been hacked by Huntington Beach. 2. The Wayback Machine archive has always been "editable". ?? 3. The Wayback Machine archive can now be changed by anyone. ?? 4. The Wayback Machine organization is corrupt. Pick one. Or suggest another. I'd love to hear other opinions. Especially, I would like to know about any similar stories. .
You can request archive changes, deletions, etc. so this really matters not. While it can aid to show continuous infringement use... changes can show intentional tampering of evidence (should they choose to indicate that "it was always that way". As Archive is a designated agent under DMCA you can acquire their records. Your attorney should be able to acquire these easily noting they "MUST comply" to have a safe harbor from claims brought against them by you. No matter how you split it - so long as a mark infringement occurred there is evidence and someone will be liable (if you are innovative enough). Look for old cache version is search engines as well e.g. deleted pages seen in archive but no longer on the website. They can be in G,Y, and M for a year or more.
Thank you, Fathom, for clarifying the situation, and offering the suggestions. I have known for years, that you are very knowledgable, web-wise. I appreciate your input. It concerns me greatly that these "changable records" can be called "archives", when they are nothing of the sort. In my mind, a "true archive" cannot be altered, changed, rewritten or substituted. A different word should be used to describe these "records".
I'm sure they won't either if ever you call them that. But have you bothered to read the fine print? http://www.archive.org/about/terms.php No one's perfect, after all. But they do what they can. Sure it's a nice handy site. But they're potentially infringing copyright law. The only reason they're able to get away so far is they comply with any and all requests to remove the content upon notice. But that still didn't stop at least one party from suing them for copyright infringement. If you feel archive.org is useless, then don't use it. Simple solution to a simple problem.
Thank you for highlighting this. Frankly, I got buried in the "boilerplate". I missed it. It is just about the most all-encompassing disclaimer I have seen - essentially, "nothing is fact". I understand removal. I don't understand alteration being allowed. " . . then don't use it". OK, I won't.
Earlier in this thread, I made the statement - "Well, folks, now the Wayback Machine is being used illegitimately, to prove trademark usage, WHICH NEVER OCCURRED!" I would like to retract that statement. It was not accurate. The statement was made due to my ignorance of just how the Wayback Machine works, as was very well pointed out by Dave_Zan above (thank you, Dave). Although there may have been no intent to mislead, it was logical to assume that there is something wrong with an "archive" that is changed daily. This caused me to come to erroneous conclusions regarding the "archive", which does not represent ACTUAL previous web content. I also received an explanation email from Paul Forrest Hickman, Office Manager, Internet Archive, which explained "graphic grabbing" - "Sometimes if the image matches what is on the live site, the image will be "grabbed" from the live site." Thank you, Paul. The archive is a fun toy, but cannot be used for legal purposes. There may have been NO INTENT whatsoever of creating false images, or "rewriting history", as I erroneously stated earlier.
The bolded part needs a little clarification. You will never sustain a burden of proof in a court of law merely on archive.org - but it can demonstrate circumstantial evidence. a couple of examples: 1. first use of common law marks - e.g. if I use a common mark YouTube for my website's video library in 2000 and among other things archiver (as a third party) supports my own evidence - Google would not be able to sustain a burden of proof for their "first use" thus no claim against me. 2. In the case of common copyright where a DMCA takedown order resulted in a counter-claim and you need to register your copyright prior to litigation - archiver can be used to support your original publication date. So while it cannot be prima facie evidence - it can be circumstantial support.