MS Dirty Tricks Archive Trickles Back Online 83
networkBoy writes with word that The Register is following up its story about the Microsoft dirty tricks archive going offline. It appears that several individuals have the pieces to the puzzle and are looking for hosting resources. From the latter article: "The 3,000 document archive from the Comes antitrust trial, which disappeared from the web abruptly when Microsoft settled the case last week, is beginning to trickle back into view. A week ago the site was placed under password protection, Microsoft withdrew its own account of events, and so-called internet 'archive' archive.org apparently also pulled its mirror."
ANOTHER OFF-TOPIC -- WGA Notification is BACK (Score:2)
Offtopic - really... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I was brief - big deal. Sorry if brevity of opinion ticks off the MS crowd (not), but I see nothing in the rules that says brevity is cause for being modded down - fp or no. Do I feel pain for the slackjaws that need everything spelled o u t? Ummm..not today, sorry.
Mod how you like, but slapping 'offtopic' on something that isn't, is weak...really weak. So go right ahead. Waste your mod points, I'll wear 'em like a badge
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on anyone with enough power/money/social status has history rewritten to their benefit when they know that their is an account out their that puts them in a negative light. It's a basic human trait. What's the big shock that MS is trying to do what every human org has always done?
Re: (Score:2)
Did I say it was something new to mankind? Did I say I was aghast? Talk about rewriting history - thanks for the demo
Problem is, MS, uses it as a primary business model, over and over again - steal idea; pose as owner; profit (Alcatel ring a bell?).
Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who run archive.org aren't immune from copyright law. The legality of their archive is questionable at best, but if the copyright owner for some documents or web sites asks that they be removed, the legality is no longer questionable.
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:5, Interesting)
The people who run archive.org aren't immune from copyright law.
Isn't anything entered into evidence in a civil or criminal proceeding automatically part of the public domain?
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:4, Informative)
When a case was settled out of court and a common feature of such settlements is that the complainant agree to shut their yaps in return for a large financial settlement from the respondant. And if this was an out of court settlement, none of the material in question was ever submitted into evidence and thus never became part of the public record.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As other posters note, as soon as it is ordered by the court or submitted to the court, unless it is sealed, it's part of the court (and thus public) record - put into the public domain. Witness the SCO vs IBM, SCO vs Novell, etc. documents published on Groklaw. Those cases are still in pre-trial motions (not necessarily still in pre-trial discovery, even if
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In that case they should be public record unless sealed. Feel free to call the court in question and ask them for information on how to get those records.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To that end, since the register article says someone has a copy and needs a sympathetic host, I'll host all I can
Anyone else have bandwith and space to spare? I'm thinking just torrent the whole tarball or rar and distribute it far and wide. Once the cat's out of the bag and multiplied it's gonna be hard to put back. As long as only one person has a copy though, it will be easy to quash.
-nB
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
agreed. Data in one place is vulnerable to deletion. Data in many places is less so.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, do it with the files themselves and then with the archive, so nobody can spread fake versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:4, Informative)
"These documents are all public domain materials by order of the judge in the case."
PJ is back (Score:2)
As of this morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Public record, yes, at least by default. A judge can seal evidence. Public domain, no. Using copyrighted material as evidence in a trial does nothing to the copyright. Imagine the legal mayhem that this would cause if it were not so.
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think that copyright is the issue here, though; court records and submitted evidence wouldn't be covered by that, if I understand correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there someone at Archive.org we can ask why? (Score:5, Informative)
I would love to know what 'excuse' Archive.org gave for removing such essential internet history information.
Anyone have the Internet Archive URL involved?
Most likely, though, is that the site added a restrictive "robots.txt" file. The Archive obeys the "robots.txt" file retroactively. If you put one up, the Archive will disallow access to all the files that would have been blocked in the past according to the "robots.txt" file.
The data isn't gone from the Archive, though. Access has just been disallowed. You can ask that it be re-allowed given the legal justification that the information is a public record.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It wouldn't surprise me if a similar policy exists for sites that are put entirely behind passwords, such as the site involved here: www.iowaconsumercase.org .
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet Archive's Web Archiving Blog [archive.org] has a post, "Confusion at The Register and Slashdot about the Wayback Machine [archive.org]", which addresses some of the concerns in this article and thread.
[Just a pointer; my posts here are me speaking as myself, and not for the Archive.]
- Gordon
Relax, theres no conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
As John Gilmore (from EFF) wisely said (Score:2, Interesting)
MS Dirty Tricks (Score:5, Funny)
I personnaly think that... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
haven't you heard? (Score:2)
Hell, if I buy fifty of those limited-edition Bill Gates-signed numbered copies, I'd probably get a nymphomaniac Alessandra Ambrosio clone and a pony for free, rush-delivered.
(hey, at the total price, it might even be possible...)
All tied up in knots, that's all I got (Score:1)
Whoa, kinky. Apparently Bill's now into more than just *marketplace* Dominance.
Though I guess I should have known from Vista's heavy emphasis on DRM. ("Digital restrictions" is just polite language for "data bondage." Only thing missing from the whole scene is the leather mask, really.)
I wonder what kind of "dirty tricks" Alessandra's clone performs? For that matter...how about the pony?
Wilbur? Wilbur?
Looking for hosting? (Score:1)
some of archive on piratebay (Score:5, Informative)
Re:some of archive on piratebay (Score:5, Funny)
Seach PirateBay for a torrent called 'iowa'
I would, but I would probably get sued by RIAA for supposedly downloading Iowa State Marching Band songs or something.
Re: (Score:2)
go for it, the odds of getting pinched for a torrent on TBP are about as good as the odds of winning the lottery.
I have 1.6GB of the best stuff (Score:2, Interesting)
$ du --si
23M
11M
154M
108M
93M
173M
265M
152M
118M
126M
119M
94M
Re:I have 1.6GB of the best stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I'd put it on the darknets, Tor [eff.org] and Freenet [freenetproject.org] both have sites dedicated to preserving unpopular/threatened/censored information. I'd imagine that I2P [i2p.net] would have similar resources although I'm not personally familiar with it.
While darknet sites aren't reachable by the average computer users, this allows the more technically-minded to repopulate the mainstream net with the content when torrents or public hosts are taken down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slight correction: Tor isn't technically a darknet.
Please, for the love of Pete (Score:3, Insightful)
is this it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, oh why, do people RAR and split an archive, then offer it as one big download anyway ?
The only upside I can see is that when StuffIt decodes the RAR I get to see its 'estimated time to unpack the archive' of 2938757659 hours (an amusing bug, considering that it then takes a few seconds to unpack an archive).
GrokLaw has it (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070220
MS Dirty Tricks? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is starting to sound like Anna Nicole in a way, but it is neat to see Slashdotters responding with their own caches of materials & Ballmer will not be able to do a cover up.
Managing MS must be a real pain for Ballmer at this point. He & Billy Gates probably spend far more time trying to fend off issues & competition than they ever spend on "innovations".
Re: (Score:1)
Watch out now... (Score:2, Funny)
See, there's your problem right there... writing about Microsoft conspiracies with Word...
paging Winston Smith (Score:2)
Boycott... (Score:2)
That's a major reason why I won't buy the XBox 360. The gaming industry is just another Microsoft monopoly forming.
Absolutely necessary? (Score:2)
Anyone have the mirror? (Score:2)
Send me an e-mail at moornblade at gmail dot com
Re: (Score:1)
Internet Archive Trust (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ahahahh...TORRENT!! (Score:2)
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3620152/iowa [thepiratebay.org]
I am seeding. Please make the swarm bigger.
--
BMO
Groklaw Down (Score:1)