?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Interesting article via Slashdot:
The Internet Archive Sued Over Stored Pages

Kailash Nadh writes "The Internet archive, which has been storing snapshots of millions of webpages since 1996 has been sued by the firm Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey, Philadelphia. The firm was defending Health Advocate, a company in suburban Philadelphia that helps patients resolve health care and insurance disputes, against a trademark action brought by a similarly named competitor. In preparing the case, representatives of Earley Follmer used the Wayback Machine to turn up old Web pages - some dating to 1999 - originally posted by the plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates of Philadelphia. Last week Healthcare Advocates sued both the Harding Earley firm and the Internet Archive, saying the access to its old Web pages, stored in the Internet Archive's database, was unauthorized and illegal."

Get the links and comments at Slashdot....
This will be an interesting case to watch. I'm especially interested in what happens to the Internet Archive since I use the Live Music Archive for my work on Radio DTB.

Tags:

Comments

( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
duemoko
Jul. 13th, 2005 02:11 pm (UTC)
Eerk, be interesting to see how this pans out as it will have a knock on effect to a great many things. Among others, google cache and possibly also the SCO / IBM / REDHAT / NOVELL lawsuits - or at least Groklaw's ability to find old evidence.
eagle243
Jul. 13th, 2005 02:46 pm (UTC)
That is one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

If that's illegal, Google will have to shut down too, because they archive snapshots of millions of webpages too. Of course, Google stores (or attempts to store) only current versions of websites, but otherwise it's identical to what the other archiving sites do.

If, instead, Google is allowed to continue, yet the other sites are not, then some level of archiving is deemed legal. Then the question becomes: how much archiving is legal? And that's a silly question.
arcticturtle
Jul. 13th, 2005 02:47 pm (UTC)
Hopefully the court will slap the plaintiffs silly and charge them for court fees. After all, it's essentially identical to saying, "I've decided to un-publish the material I published x years ago, so all libraries are required to destroy the copies they have already legally acquired.".
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow