Archive.org Sued By Colorado Woman

Archer · Post by **Archer** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:46 am

See:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid= ... 4&from=rss

From SD: The Internet Archive is being sued by a Colorado woman for spidering her site. Suzanne Shell posted a notice on her site saying she wasn't allowing it to be crawled. When it was, she sued for civil theft, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations act and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act. A court ruling last month granted the Internet Archive's motion to dismiss the charges, except for the breach of contract claim. If Shell prevails on that count, sites like Google will have to get online publishers to 'opt in' before they can be crawled, radically changing the nature of Web search.

Her claim is complete bs, but it is amusing nonetheless.

TeXan · Post by **TeXan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:47 am

that'll suck for google or us because a jackas says no i dont wana be crawled, why would you want that anyway then no one could find your page? does she do kiddy porn or something ?

Cc_Hairy · Post by **Cc_Hairy** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:39 am

i bet google has nekkid pics of her

lol her site is down

Due to an increase in visitor traffic, the Web page you requested is temporarily unavailable. It has exceeded its monthly traffic allottment.

Please try again later.

http://www.profane-justice.org/

SixtyWattMan · Post by **SixtyWattMan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:07 pm

I love you Hairy.

Cc_Hairy · Post by **Cc_Hairy** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:24 pm

crazy scientology bitch

video of her
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Nu6eW-fbo

TeXan · Post by **TeXan** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:27 pm

rofl is that the chick? psycho crazy girl why are they photographing her any way? she some type of political figure or just a crazy bitch haha

Delinquent · Post by **Delinquent** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:56 am

Wow.... I think you're becoming more immature hairy. Just because she's one way or another doesn't mean she doesn't have a valid argument. Which I think she does.

If I asked for google not to crawl my website then I mean I don't want them crawling my website. They should abide by my wishes. There are ways of going against this (anti google-bot code, protecting websites) but they're not always practical.

But this isn't a google thing, it's an internet archive thing. I for one think she should win. As most people don't want this, but some do and for completely valid reasons.

Hairy, wern't you the one arguing for gay people? Sure she may not be gay, but it goes along the same lines of calling her a "awesome" when we're talking politics.

/.Delinquent

Emerica · Post by **Emerica** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:16 am

Instead of her just posting a "notice" on her website, she should have contacted these site directly, telling them she didnt want that. I dont think she has a great case.

Delinquent · Post by **Delinquent** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:01 pm

I'm not saying she has a case at all (most charges were already thrown out), I'm just saying she has a point.

/.Delinquent

Cc_Hairy · Post by **Cc_Hairy** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:24 pm

Delinquent wrote:Wow.... I think you're becoming more immature hairy. Just because she's one way or another doesn't mean she doesn't have a valid argument. Which I think she does.

If I asked for google not to crawl my website then I mean I don't want them crawling my website. They should abide by my wishes. There are ways of going against this (anti google-bot code, protecting websites) but they're not always practical.

But this isn't a google thing, it's an internet archive thing. I for one think she should win. As most people don't want this, but some do and for completely valid reasons.

Hairy, wern't you the one arguing for gay people? Sure she may not be gay, but it goes along the same lines of calling her a "awesome" when we're talking politics.

/.Delinquent

i have no idea wut ur beef w me is, ru scientologist? maybe ur kyle?

yea its a google thing if she wins - google could be sues for their archives

wtf (besides obfuscation) has gay civil rights got to do with a lawsuit designed by a nutjob to extort money from search engines?

lol hairy: immature or funny maybe make a vote on it

seriously tho - if ever there was a bitch she qualifies - just watch the video, if you agree then hit her site with this https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/115/

SixtyWattMan · Post by **SixtyWattMan** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:52 pm

She has no point. She is an idiot. Google isn't going to inspect every website and they shouldn't have to.

Cc_Hairy · Post by **Cc_Hairy** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:21 pm

ever hear of robots.txt?

haha the comments here are best thread ever

http://digg.com/tech_deals/The_Moron_Wh ... ue_Us_Next

breakerfall · Post by **breakerfall** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:25 pm

I agree, she has no point.

If you're going to make and publish a website, a general understanding of the Internet is required. You can disable spidering of your website with a single text file, linked through a META tag in the head of your HTML file.

Spiders are unable to comprehend the text that they crawl, they don't read the content, they simply "scan it". If this wasn't a frivalous case and she genuinly didn't want the site crawled, she would have prevented them with a robots.txt file.

"Contracts" in the traditional sense, like she placed on her page, have no place on the Internet. It's a whole new medium with a different way of doing things. It's her fault and her's alone. I hope they throw out the last remaining charge.

TodPunk · Post by **TodPunk** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:09 pm

This is already established with precedence. There have been several cases like this and it essentially boiled down to "If you don't want your site crawled, put a robots.txt file up there, and THEN you can complain when they do."

Alkali2010 · Post by **Alkali2010** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:17 pm

hairy, nice touch using ReloadEvery.

I have it running for every 5 secs' :P I"ll leave that on for a few hours.

Lets get a quite a few people going on that.