InArchive.com - WARNING

InArchive.com is a hoax, tricks the search engines and they're dishonest. Their goal is obviously not to create an archive, it is to gain hits from search engines, and in that way make it easier to sell their products thru ads.

InArchive.com contacted me after they discovered the information on this page;
InArchive.com - has to be shut down

WHY CREATING AN ARCHIVE FROM OTHER PEOPLES WEB SITES?
WHAT DOES THE PEOPLE BEHIND INARCHIVE.COM GAIN FROM IT?


I asked Rolands Liepa; What is your purpose of creating this archive?

Rolands Liepa/InArchive.com replied;
Purpose of any archive is to make archive / catalog - let after some period can be accessed info, how it was on that indexing date. For example, many site owners lost their data, or made new version, but now is necessary info from version, which was 5 years ago, and it can be accessed from archive.
I reply;
But that doesn't answer the question at all! I wasn't asking about that.

I can see no use for your archive whatsoever, in the way it is done at your site. I see only disadvantages for everyone with your copies of other site owners sites.
Every site owner has a backup, in general lots of backups. Those who don't have this must be very, very few and then they most surely also have no data worth a backup.
In any case your copies, as they've been created, will be of very little use even if anyone would need an extra backup.

My main question, which you have avoided in every mail, remains;

What is your purpose of copying sites?

You answered my question as if you think you know what I and others want and need (which you can't possibly know) or as if you explained what the purpose of archives is in general, but the question was what you want to gain from it?

Rolands Liepa replies;
Our target is to make best archive system on web. Only now what capacity we have, at that we can do it.

But already now many users have found it useful. Whose sites have been indexed, and which have used info later for themselves from our archive.

I reply;
But that doesn't answer my question. Your answer that you want to create an archive is nothing new and doesn't answer my question about what you want to get out of it. The purpose for the people behind InArchive.com isn't to make people happy. The purpose is to make money. The question is how? So I would be very grateful if you'd answer my main question;

What is your purpose of copying sites?
What do you want to gain from it?

Once again Rolands Liepa only repeats what he's already said before;
As i wrote, our purpose is to make archive system / tool, which will be usefull for users, as many already have found it usefull. Like similar other archive systems with their features - which i described previous, only - with our features.
which doesn't answer my questions here in any way.

InArchive.com writes about their site;
"But already now many users have found it useful. Whose sites have been indexed, and which have used info later for themselves from our archive."

Note that InArchive.com can't even specify in what way anyone would have found their archive useful.

Since it hasn't even been possible to contact InArchive.com it indicates that it isn't true that InArchive.com knows of anyone who has found the archive useful.

InArchive.com has no references of anyone who's satisfied with InArchive.com (there will be none such). And if there will be references after InArchive.com reads this then it's ofcourse most likely that these references will be fake, and nobody will be able to contact these references.

I find it extremely unlikely that there would be even one single person who has found the archive useful. There simply isn't anything useful about it, for anyone.


I reply;
You're not creating this archive just for fun or because you have nothing else to do. You're not working for the government or in a non-profit organization or research project. Your archive is an obvious business idea, and the question is where you're making money in this and where you will see yourself making money from this archive in the future? Where do you want your income to come from regarding this archive?


InArchive.com replies;
Now we have made this project for research, and in the future, if it will be possible, idea is to make a non profit organization, which will work with it

I reply;
This is the first time you even mention the word "research". And this was triggered by my specific question which included this word (earlier you've told me that the only reason for InArchive.com was as a backup for site owners). But what you write here, apart from that it's not true, still doesn't answer my question of where you will generate an income. My question was about money... for you... your income.
You're not financed by any government or research organization, or similar. You're a private company (not a non-profit organization) which has seen a way to make money in some way with your archive.
  • The question is how you make/will make this money?
This is the question you've effectively avoided each and every time.


Here Inarchive.com all of a sudden ended the conversation with me. InArchive.com said they welcomed questions from me up until this question. InArchive.com didn't dare to answer my obviously very sensitive questions which would reveal the truth that InArchive just is interested in getting the attention from search engines.




LEGAL QUESTIONS

I write;
You didn't comment on what I wrote with a reference to webarchive.org.uk;
"They can not collect information like you do, because they then would break the law."

Rolands Liepa/InArchive.com replies;
I commented and show examples of google cache, archive.org and freezpage - where is absolutelly the same idea (archive of sites).

I reply;
It is not the same! There are vast differences between InArchive.com and your examples!
And I've explained that for you.

But, again, you didn't comment on what I wrote about webarchive.org.uk;
"They can not collect information like you do, because they then would break the law.";

  • Why don't you respect the copyright (on pages and in code)?
  • Who gives you the right to decide what to publish from other site owners (copyrighted) information?
  • By what right do you archive - AND REPUBLISH !!! - other peoples material, for everyone to see all over the world?
Just because it's there to be seen by everyone it doesn't mean you can take it.

Some information might even have been blocked for some countries by the site owner, but now you take other peoples material, publish it and open it up for everyone in the world!

Rolands Liepa replies;
The same - as i answered - it is regulated in robots.txt. If You do not want to spiders index Your site - set it on robots.txt. And Your info will not be found in any archive, or search engine database etc.

I reply;
But what has that to do with anything? It doesn't answer my questions!
  • I can not rob a bank, and then claim that the bank had the possibility to stop me from robbing their bank, but they didn't, so then everything is ok. Right?
There is a legal matter here. You actually copy copyrighted material, and that's why your answers to the questions above are of vital importance.
  • Haven't you even bothered to consider what is legal and what's not?

Rolands Liepa replies;
It is general to archive systems. As i wrote previous with examples - like our site evolution.lv is possible for everyone for example here.
And they also did not ask us any info, because they checked just robots.txt.

I reply;
What you do is not in any way general to archive systems. This is ridiculous.
But I'm not asking what other sites do or should do, or if other sites with more or less completely different conditions follow the laws, etc (I can bring that up with them). I'm asking you about your archive, InArchive.com.

Just because somebody is breaking the laws it doesn't mean that it's free for you or anyone else to break the laws.
If I see somebody who steals a car I just can't do the same and justify this with that there are others who also steal cars.


Rolands Liepa continues;
Again - robots.txt tells if content can be indexed. The same working example on other system - see above.

I reply;
You're wrong. Robots.txt does not tell if contents can be indexed, as you say. If I don't have a robots.txt it is not the same as you can break the laws, etc. Robots.txt is only a possibility - if certain given circumstances are available (which it hasn't been in the case of InArchive.com) - of stopping others from intrusion and breaking the laws. Robots.txt, which is just a tool among others, is in itself not a signal of what's allowed and what's not allowed according to laws, general rules and regulations as well as ethics. They have nothing to do with eachother and I'm sure you are very well aware of this.

When you go to a electronics store do you grab a dvd, or whatever you need for yourself, and if they discover it on your way out of the store you say that there was no sign telling you that you could not steal the dvd so you had the right to take whatever you felt like?

As I've told you several times before, robots.txt doesn't make any difference for my questions here! Robots.txt is irrelevant as well as no excuse for stealing what other people have produced!

In the rules on your site you yourself write that you will respect "publicity right, privacy right, copyright". But it's obvious to everyone that you break your own rules. Why have rules that you don't care the least to follow anyway?

  • I can not rob a bank, and then claim that the bank had the possibility to stop me from robbing their bank, but they didn't, so then everything is ok. Right?
Rolands Liepa/InArchive.com replies;
You go to bank and ask, if they can give money on some rules (robots.txt), and if they can - they give. If no - they say, sorry - not on such rules.

I reply;
But nobody has "asked" anyone for anything. You have not asked me for the right to copy my material. And I have not asked you to store my material. And it's not a question of "giving". I've not given you anything. It's a question of robbing.

In your example the site owner goes to you (where you seem to see yourself as the bank... and me as the robber) and ask you to archive the site owners site (or with your reversed thinking; me going to you and ask you for something, whatever that could be, because I haven't). As you know this is not the case. The site owner is not the one taking the initiative.
It's InArchive.com (the robber) who goes to the bank (me) and steals the money (my material). And then the robber (you) justify the theft by that the bank (me) should have had a better protection (like a robots.txt).
  • Do you think that's the right thing to do?
InArchive.com replies;
Again and again - the same working examples with google cache or archive.org, or any other bot - yahoo, bing, yandex, baidu etc etc. They all have indexed and saved info, which You can see in cache or their data bases. (As actually You have understand it long time ago on the same working examples)

I reply;
And again and again I tell you that it's out of the question to compare InArchive.com with Google, Yahoo, Bing, Yandex, Baidu or any other search engine. These search engines have no negative impact on the search results in the search engines. Only positive (they lead users to the site owners sites). Whilst you - InArchive.com - have a serious impact on not only the site owners traffic, but InArchive.com also has a serious impact on the search engine users since they will end up at InArchive.com in the belief that they came to the site with the relevant information. Which they clearly aren't. You're gaining traffic at our cost!

And again and again. You can not compare InArchive.com's "permanent" archive with the cache that some search engines have for some pages for a shorter period of time. This cache of search engines doesn't harm anyone. InArchive.com's archive harms everyone... and I mean exactly everyone apart from you!

Again and again. I'm not asking what other sites do. You keep on trying to justify what you do because you claim that there is another site (archive.org) that does the same thing as you do, according to you. But two wrongs don't make one right. Also - as I've told you several times - archive.org is not comparable with InArchive.com, mainly because archive.org has no impact on the search results!!!

And again and again. Just because somebody is breaking the laws it doesn't mean that it's free for you or anyone else to break the laws. If somebody steals a car you can't do the same and justify this with that there are others who also steal cars.

  • If you reason as you say here, then it would be ok if you block search engines from accessing all of the material you've copied from other site owners. Will you do that???
If InArchive.com only would be interested in having an archive, then InArchive.com would block the search engines from accessing the stolen material at their site. But ofcourse InArchive.com will never do that since the hits from the search engines is the one and only thing InArchive.com is interested in!

Since it's obvious that you can't compare InArchive.com with the search engines, archive.org or anything else - for mainly the reasons above - the legal questions remains as follows;
  • Why don't you respect the copyright (on pages and in code), as you even write on your web page that you do?
  • Who gives you the right to decide what to publish from other site owners (copyrighted) information?
  • By what right do you archive - AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, REPUBLISH !!! - other peoples information, for everyone to see all over the world?
  • Haven't you even bothered to consider what is legal and what's not? And if you have, what did that result in specifically?
The questions above are actually the core questions I have, and if you can answer these questions in a clear and honest way I will have no more questions.


Here InArchive.com suddenly ended the conversation with me. InArchive.com said they welcomed questions from me up until this question. InArchive.com didn't dare answering my obvioulsy very sensitive questions that would reveal the truth that InArchive just is interested in getting the attention from search engines.


Other questions I've asked InArchive.com

PRACTICAL USE OF INARCHIVE.COM (a-d)

a) Site owners have relevant backups. Not random backups at random times from random content, as in InArchive.com.

Even if there would be one or two out there who would like to see what there was on a specific page some time ago, on a random date decided by InArchive.com;
  • Who says anybody wants to see what the actual page said exactly at the time it was read by InArchive's bot, for example one year, 3 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 32 minutes and 12 seconds ago?
  • What if I want to see the different content on the page 43 seconds later?
Questions like the ones above are fundamental when archiving information, but you don't even have any answers to basic questions like this, which makes me wonder.

Rolands Liepa replies;
No one can archive all sites every day, but what our resource are - so we try to make archive.

Also google cahce, archive.org etc cannot archive all sites in regular period.

I reply;
Ofcourse nobody can archive every site in the world every day, but my questions were not about what's possible and what's not possible. The technique behind is a completely different matter, and of no importance here.
My questions are about the practical use for randomly archiving pages/parts of pages, and also without any structure - and without any proper search tools whatsoever;
  • What is the use - for anyone not related to InArchive.com - of a random backup at a random time from random content, which is only (in most cases) text (which also is hard to read), as in InArchive.com?
Rolands Liepa replies;
If You found info in archive, what You need - than it is good, but if You cannt find info for period You want, than nothing to de done.

I reply;
That doesn't answer my question about the practical use of your archive.

Archiving should be handled by experts in this area. I work with this myself so I understand the need for archives, I just can't see that you in any way fulfill this need. I also know how it should be done, which isn't in the way you do it. 

What you archive is often just garbage. Here's an example;

    1-7 (1977)
  • Sverige ger stora summor bistånd - DN.SE
    Rabbit både provocerar och inspirerar invånarna där den ligger på Stortorget i Örebro Recept Rosta för godare smak Hasselnötsbönor med kyckling Rostade nötter ger ännu mer smak till kycklingen Kultur Nöje Bästa upplevelsen Astrid Lindgrens värld nominerad Kan familjen Melkersson på Saltkråkan ge en av Sveriges bästa upplevelser Musik Beatlar ska inviga OS Stjärnspäckat i London Arrangörerna hoppas få till ännu fler exklusiva uppträdanden den 27 juli 2012 Världen En riktig jättebebis 7 3 kilo Vi är överväldigade Mycket av babykläderna vi köpt till honom måste vi lämna tillbaka De är redan för små Dawit Isaak har suttit fängslad dagar tim min och sek Tipsa DN Är du mitt i ett nyhetsskede Hör av dig Via SMS MMS eller e post Här grävs Caligulas okända villa fram Imponerande fynd från romartiden Nödvändigt bakslag Anna Lindberg i Insidans serie Komma igen Nyheter från Nyheter Fotbolls VM i Tyskland Foto John Macdougall AFP Antonia Göransson deppar efter förlusten Drömmen om en VM final krossades Förlorade mot Japan med 1 3 Målvaktsmissar sänkte det svenska laget Sverige får nu spela bronsmatch mot Frankrike DN se direktrapporterade Så var VM semifinalförlusten mot Japan 10 USA till VM final 3 1 mot Frankrike efter sent avgörande 3 Patrik Sjöberg 1987 Triumfens ögonblick DN s Jens Liljestrand reflekterar över vårt nostalgiska förhållande till sportens berättelser Storytelling Foto Scanpix Rötmånaden är snart här Bakterierna frodas Viktigt med hygien och mathantering 2 10 tips Så klarar du rötmånaden Foto AP Bilder från indisk tv Minst 20 dödsoffer i indisk terrorattack Runt 100 skadade Bomber exploderade i tre välbesökta delar av den indiska storstaden Bombay Foto Scanpix H M partner förgiftar floder I Kina En underleverantör till H M släpper ut farliga kemikalier skriver Greenpeace i en ny rapport 22 Stort huliganslagsmål vid pub I Stockholm Runt 50 60 av Hammarbys och AIK s supportrar råkade i luven på varandra Konst Form Kanin att älska eller hata Konstinstallation Big Yellow Rabbit både provocerar och inspirerar invånarna där den ligger på Stortorget i Örebro Recept Rosta för godare smak Hasselnötsbönor med kyckling Rostade nötter ger ännu mer smak till kycklingen Kultur Nöje Bästa upplevelsen Astrid Lindgrens värld nominerad Kan familjen Melkersson på Saltkråkan ge en av Sveriges bästa upplevelser Musik Beatlar ska inviga OS Stjärnspäckat i London Arrangörerna hoppas få till ännu fler exklusiva uppträdanden den 27 juli 2012 Världen En riktig jättebebis 7 3 kilo Vi är överväldigade Mycket av babykläderna vi köpt till honom måste vi lämna tillbaka De är redan för små Dawit Isaak har suttit fängslad dagar tim min och sek Tipsa DN Är du mitt i ett nyhetsskede Hör av dig Via SMS MMS eller e post Här grävs Caligulas okända villa fram Imponerande fynd från romartiden Nödvändigt bakslag Anna Lindberg i Insidans serie Komma igen Senaste världennyheterna Visa fler Mest Lästa Kommenterade 1 Så var VM semifinalförlusten mot Japan 2 Norsk miljardär befaras död i båtolycka 3 Stort huliganslagsmål på Södermalm 4 En gosekanin att älska eller hata 5 Misstänkt våldtäktsman får se porr

    http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/sverige-ger-stora-summor-bistand (2011-07-14)
You probably can't read Swedish, but I can. And I tell you, it's just pure garbage. A collection of words with no meaning whatsoever.
And this is how it looks like in hundreds of places at InArchive.com that I've checked (which means that most or almost all of your archive looks like this).

Maybe there is something in your archive that can be read and that can be useful for something, and I've just not been able to find it?

Rolands Liepa continues;
But idea is to make archive - and to be possible read info after even 10 years. Because, usually sites have backups for last versions. But, when is necessary to find old versions info - is usefull such archives.

I reply;
I'm pretty sure every site have the backups they find any use for.

Also, words archived in a non-structural way - and also without any search function whatsoever -, like in InArchive.org, doesn't serve any purpose from what I can see, and from the point of any potential user of the archive.

Also, most of the links in your archive just leads to empty pages! It doesn't exactly make it any better.
b) You only archive some web pages at each site (even if it some times is a large percentage).

Rolands Liepa replies;
Full text can be read in archived version

But my questions remains;
  • What about all other pages, that isn't archived at the site?
  • How is it possible to understand the meaning of a text where parts of the context is missing (even related images, etc)... how useful is that?
You say that full text is archived at InArchive.com, but that is not true.
For example, if there is one text connected to a text on another page at the site, eg. when a text is continued on another page), your system doesn't connect the two texts with eachother. With a little luck the two texts are archived at InArchive.com, but not in a way so anyone can find the connected text in InArchive.com. At least I've not been able to do that when I've seen this occur.

You can't see at which dates copies have been made for different sites. You will get very few - if any - film, sound, film, images, codes/scripts and similar types of info. InArchive.com doesn't work for dynamic pages.

NO REPLY FROM INARCHIVE.COM

c) You, in most cases, copy exclusively text. The only parts you don't copy is the parts of the site that in any way (however distant) could be useful for anyone.
  • What about images, sounds, videos, code/scripts, etc?
I haven't seen many pages archived at InArchive.com where the images are archived together with the text.

Rolands Liepa replies;
Full text can be read in archived version - where also images etc is archived.

I reply;
It's not true. In the pages I've seen, you do not archive the code/scrips either.
  • For how many archived web pages is the code/scripts included?
NO REPLY FROM INARCHIVE.COM

d) Every site has information that is changed and replaced by something better/more correct from time to time. And there are many occasions for each site where they don't want some old information disclosed.

Rolands Liepa replies;
As previous i wrote - it is regulated in robots.txt, where You can set - to not allow spiders to index any content, or allow only specific spiders to index content. Or if You want to content remove from our system and have not set this resctirction before in robots.txt - You can do it from form "Remove my site from archive".

I reply;
But the answer to everything isn't that there might be a possibility to block your bot or have the site removed from InArchive.com.
So my question remains;
  • What about those site owners who don't want some specific old information to be shown - for many different reasons -, but which you publish for many years to come, without even the site owners knowledge?
    When and if they discover it, it can be too late - and probably will be.

Rolands Liepa continues;
And this question is general about archiving systems. If you have published something, than it is possible - that info can be found on for example google cahce, archive.org or etc systems.

I reply;
But that's irrelevant for my questions. What a search engine, or even archive.org, can do is not an issue here.

Also, you can not compare a search engine to an archiving and publishing system.

Besides, data was just cached for a very limited time, in the opposite to InArchive.

Robots.txt is InArchive's only defense in arguments about why InArchive.com steal other peoples hard work. But it doesn't hold!

Rolands Liepa replies;
But it is cached!

You focused on that - who allows to index. I gave examples - that spiders checks robots.txt. And such archived info, if not on our system - than can be found on other archives - like i told archive.org etc.

My comment:
Rolands Liepa wants to compare InArchives storage for many years (10 years and above) of other peoples hard work for personal benefit, that only creates problems for the creator and owner of the original work, with some search engines temporary and non-searchable cache for a completely different purpose.

No use in continuing asking questions about this, since it's obvious that InArchive just want to avoid the questions instead of answering them.



Rolands Liepa continues;
As i wrote it in previous examples about other archive systems. And i have to explain it - as You said, that for example archive.org is as different as possibly can be, only because thay have pulished contacts, or have detailed description as "Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only."

I reply;
No, you misunderstood me. I did not say that archive.org is different from InArchive.com just because of the reasons I gave you.
I wrote; "Etc, etc." which means that I just gave you examples.

Anyone can just go to InArchive.com's web site and then to the web site of archive.org. It's a huge difference between the sites, as everybody can see immediately just by this simple comparision.

Rolands Liepa replies;
You gave the most important differences. Because You thought we collect emails for spam reasons, and as You wrote, that it is not possible to contact us and etc. But it is wrong, as You have found it later.

My comment:
Rolands Liepa tells me that I wrote the most important differences as if he knows better what I think than I do myself. Also he doesn't listen when I try to tell him what "etc" means.

No use in continuing trying to ask questions about this, since it's obvious that InArchive just want to avoid the questions instead of answering them.

Earlier you, Rolands Liepa, wrote;
"About: >> Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.
We also do not take any charges - and access is absolutelly free.
We will think also about ~ such info to publicate in FAQ section
.".

MY COMMENTS
You missed my point; "is granted for scholarship and research purposes only".

Rolands Liepa replies;
You missed our point: We will think also about ~ such info to publicate in FAQ section.

As we also do not take any charge and info is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.

My comment:
Obviously I haven't missed his point, since I've already commented on this and what he says here makes no meaning and is of no importance.

No use in continuing trying to ask questions about this, since it's obvious that InArchive just want to avoid the questions instead of answering them.

There are many, many differences between archive.org and InArchive.com, but one of the most important differences here is that the copied info in archive.org isn't searchable in search engines in the way it is in InArchive.com. In other words, archive.org doesn't disturb the search results from the search engines.

I've only given you a few examples of hundreds and hundreds examples where InArchive.com differs from the research site archive.org. If I only had the time I could write all of them down, but I see no need for it because it's obvious that what you do is so completely different from what archive.org does.

Also archive.org have had the possibility for site owners to block archive.org's bot since the beginning, while you added this possibility 3 years too late, after I wrote about it.

NO REPLY FROM INARCHIVE.COM






EARLIER (A LITTLE LESS IMPORTANT) QUESTIONS

I've also asked InArchive.com the following questions, however the replies I get are very vague. They try to avoid every question in every way they can.

1.
You, Rolands Liepa, write;
"Robots.txt is file - where You should write info - if you do not want spiders to index Your site.".
I don't know if you understand how robots.txt works, but in order to block your spider I need to know what to block.
a) Why don't you give out any information about name of your spider and the IP, so it will be possible to block InArchive.com's bot?
b) What is the name and IP of your spider/bot?

InArchive.com replies;
If You want to forbid spiders to index Your site - add disallow in your robots.txt. Or allow only these spiders - which You want to allow index, but forbid all others. In robots.txt IP adresses arnt given. More about robots.txt You can read here: http://www.robotstxt.org/
 
Now on our FAQ section also is our bot name given. And also, when bot will index any page, it will give bot name in headers. (But actually it is not necessary, as if bot checks robots.txt - and consider it, it will decide to start or stop to index - if forbidden for all bots, or allowed only some bots.)
Previous our system worked so, that - if indexing was allowed for bot's, than it indexed page. But now it checks also - if our bot name "inarchive.com" isnt seperately disallowed.
 
If You want to block in firewall our any bot activities - IP address range are: 109.73.111.0/24
 
About indexing - none of bots will ask any permission, and bots checks only robots.txt if there are any restrictions. If You want to forbid indexing Your site - you set it on robots.txt.
For example - allow only major bots to index Your site, but all others - forbid.
For example - googlebot or archive.org made your site cache/copy, but they do not ask any permission - only checks robots.txt:

For example - archive.org have indexed full our site: evolution.lv info in 2006:
(519 captures), but none of suchs bot systems ask permissions, as it is regulated with robots.txt.
 
Or - as in our system - we forbid any bots to index archived sites content: Disallow: /page/*
For example - archived sites info is allways starting by address /page/ - and that info is forbidden to index: evolution.lv
therefore from none of searcher systems should be direct link to that info.

I reply;
Thx for the info about robots.txt. I'm ofcourse well aware of how robots.txt works, but thanks for confirming the IP-range that I wrote on my web page (I had already blocked this IP-range in ".htaccess" for parts of my site).

However, why tell me only what InArchive.com knows I already know (the IP range), instead of revealing the specific IP-address for InArchive's bot?

InArchive.com claims that their web robot is named "inarchive.com". They know they can say whatever they want because there is no way of checking that it's true. And by saying that the bot's name is "inarchive.com" (general name) they know that it will be even more difficult to check if it's true. This bot is however not listed anywhere among the known bots in the world. This indicates that InArchive.com simply lies.

It's also a fact that InArchive.com haven't informed about any name for the bot until I brought up the question (about three years after InArchive.com started copying web sites). This also indicates that InArchive.com is lying.




2.
You, Rolands Liepa, quote from my web page;
"First InArchive copies your site without even asking or getting permission for this".
Am I wrong in this? Cause I'm pretty sure I haven't given you any permisson to copy the content of my site, and you have never informed me about your intention to do so.


NO REPLY FROM INARCHIVE.COM !



3.
You write;
"We need email to make sure, that You are site owner...".
- Why should I actively have to inform you that I want my site removed?
- Why don't you instead ask the site owners if you're allowed to copy the content of their sites?


You write;
"If You wanted to remove Your site from archive - You should just fill form or contact us (from whois info as You wrote it on site, or contact form).".
Same questions as above. Why should I have to give you my name and email?

InArchive.com replies;
"Remove my site form archive" is made, because - if previous site's owner havent disallowed in robots.txt to spider his site, but it is indexed in our system, and now owner do not want to see this site in archive - he can ask for removing it. Therefore this form is made.

MY COMMENTS
You've been copying sites 24 hours a day, 365 days a year from all over the world, and especially from Sweden, since at least year 2010 (and probably some time before that).
Until a couple of days ago, thanks to me, you've made it possible for the first time (if the bot name is correct, and if you don't have more bots and are using other IP's) to block your spider!
For about three years this possibility to block out your bot has not been there for anyone.


MY QUESTIONS
In order to block something you need to know that there is something you need to block, preferrably before it has done too much harm.
a) What about all those site owners who;
- still don't know that they need to block your spider?
- don't know how to do this in robots.txt?


My earlier questions also remains;
b) Why should I actively have to inform you that I want my site removed?
That you have a form where removal can be done (maybe) is no reason for the site owner to have to bother about this.

c) Why don't you instead ask the site owners if you're allowed to copy the content of their sites?

As well as a new question;
d) How do you reason when you think that you have the right to copy other peoples hard work without asking for permission?

Sure, Google doesn't ask for permission, but that's completely different.
- Search engines are commonly known. Your site is unknown.
- Google is a search engine. You have no search engine.
- Google doesn't copy your material. You copy other site owners work.
- Google doesn't use copied material in order to generate traffic. You do!
- Google makes a lot of money, but is also useful for me, i.e. Google fills a purpose for not only Google. I, as a site owner, benefit from Google as well as they benefit from my site. I don't benefit at all from your site. In the opposite, you hurt all site owners when you steal their material. The only one who gains from your archive is yourself.

4.
You write;
"... And this e-mail is public for everyone - as it is shown in whois info.".
a) Really? So then please tell me what email I have for my site, that is public for everyone (a hint: it's not this email where you wrote me, which I give out on my site) and where you found this email.
b) Why don't you want to give out your email on your own site, inarchive.com? Don't you think that would be the right thing to do?

InArchive.com replies;
About whois info - it depends on registrar and register, and also if site's owner want to show his info. But mainly in whois info owner's email are shown.

For example - about inarchive.com You can see all our contact info in whois.

InArchive.com don't give out their email in the whois search!
InArchive.com don't even have any abuse-address!
Why lie about that InArchive.com shows their email in a whois-search (as Rolands Liepas says) when everybody can see that it's not true?
Rolands Liepas, at InArchive.com, email is
rolands@evolution.lv

MY QUESTIONS
You require of people to give out their email in order to have their site removed. You even write on your site;
Remove my site from inArchive.com.
Note - contact data should be the same as Whois data for domain - let we can make sure changes asked by domain owner. If different data (name, e-mail etc) provided - we will ignore such request, and will not send even approvement request.
Your reason for requiring the email is so that you can check that the email (and name) is the same as the result from whois, as a proof of that the person requesting removal is the site owner.
  • But what about all the sites like mine, where there is no email given?
    You make it impossible for them to have their site removed from your servers, right?
Not only that!
You require the name of the person who wants their site removed from your archive!
  • What about all those people who don't want to give out their name (as well as email) to a strange person/organization in a foreign country who has copied years of hard work without asking for permission?



5.
You write;
"Our system works similar like other archive systems like archive.org, webarchive.org.uk, freezepage etc".

Sorry, but I can not see any similarities between http://archive.org/ and your site.
These two sites are as different as they possibly can be.
For example archive.org has complete contact information.

InArchive.com writes;
We have allways had contact info in whois database - where You also get this info. And any can comunicate with us by that info. Or - submitting info on special forms -
"Report unallowed content" or "Remove my site from archive".
When You responsed previous e-mail, it seems You havent rechecked our site - because we have made also "Contact us" form in menu. Where You can communicate with us.

But from form, we allways get data. Therefore nowadays many sites give only contact form. Like in archive.org "contact" section You will not find contact email.

InArchive.com continues;
If we publicate e-mail on site, we cannt guarantee - that our spam system will not skip this email.

MY COMMENT
But then you need another spam control system for your mail which you can rely on. It seems to work for everybody else in the world.

InArchive.com continues;
But from form, we allways get data.
Therefore nowadays many sites give only contact form.

MY COMMENT
No, not very many sites don't give out their email on their sites (apart from personal sites/blogs, but then they don't have any other way of contacting them, like a contact form).

InArchive.com writes;
Like in archive.org "contact" section You will not find contact email.

MY COMMENT
No, you're incorrect. Like most/all serious sites also archive.org give out their email (info@archive.org), as well as address and phone number, on their site.

Archive.org's contact information is very clear and can be found in several places;

Internet Archive Copyright Agent
Internet Archive
300 Funston Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94118
Phone: 415-561-6767
Email: info@archive.org

What you write doesn't really answer my question;
  • Why don't you want to give out your email on your own site, inarchive.com? Don't you think that would be the right thing to do?
You require of others to give out their email, but you don't want to do that yourself.
I don't think the newly added contact form is enough, especially for a site that works like yours.

And archive.org writes;
"Access to the Archive’s Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.".
Etc, etc.

InArchive.com replies;
We also do not take any charges - and access is absolutelly free.
We will think also about ~ such info to publicate in FAQ section.

Our system works very similar like archive.org or any other archiving system, only we want to make different catalog, and more additional info.

MY COMMENTS
The only similarity is in general that you archive other peoples work. Apart from this there are no similarities between the research site archive.org (for a selected group) and InArchive.org.

There are no similarities between http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/ and your site either.
Webarchive.org preserves UK websites and if you read their terms and conditions you can see that everything differs between your site and theirs.
They can not collect information like you do, because they then would break the law.


Your last example, http://www.freezepage.com/, is also nothing at all like your site.
At freezepage.com you have to manually enter a specific, single, web page to be freezed. And nobody is taking any decision for you, in the opposite to InArchive.com.


At freezepage.com;
- it's me who makes the decision to make a copy.
At inarchive.com
- you copy my site without my permission or even telling me what you're doing.

At freezepage.com;
- I "freeze" one single page.
At InArchive.com
- you copy a large portion of my site without my permission (also random parts of the site and random parts of web pages).

At freezepage.com;
- I make a copy of everything, images, scripts, the whole works for a specific page.
At InArchive.com;
- you copy only text (some of it) from some randomly selected web pages.

At freezepage.com;
- I - or anyone else - don't publish other site owners information/web sites.
At InArchive.com;
- you take advantage of other peoples hard work and publish large portions of other sites.

At freezepage.com;
- a copy is made for a limited period of time.
At InArchive.com;
- you copy other site owners information for a long & unknown/unspecified period of time (you mentioned 10 years as an example, but nobody knows the time limit).

At freezepage.com;
- the result is nicely presented.
At InArchive.com;
- it's a complete mess of texts, more or less impossible to read.

At freezepage.com;
- there is a real purpose for the site.
At InArchive.com;
- I see no advantages for the site owner who has had the content copied or for others outside those involved with InArchive.com.

Etc., etc.

What I do at freezepage.com is for me, and me only.

I can't see any similarity here between InArchive.com and freezepage.com.





Second last mail from InArchive.com ended like this;
But - we will stop this correspondence, as actually You have all understand, only You stay on Your opinion, saying that we can not archive, but i show You other working examples. Our main purpose of this letter was - that You remove or correct info in Your site, which is totally wrong.

It seems like my questions were too tough for them and they got uncomfortable, since they now understand that I know what they are doing.

InArchive.com ends the discussion with the following meaningless text;
You ask - who allow to index, i answer and give also other working examples, but than You say that we cannot compare other archives or other spiders, and other can index, but we cannt etc etc.
Than You re-ask these questions, which already are answered - for example #3 - as i wrote:
>>>>>>
Or - as in our system - we forbid any bots to index archived sites content: Disallow: /page/*
For example - archived sites info is allways starting by address /page/ - and that info is forbidden to index:
inarchive.com/page/2011-07-07/http://evolution.lv/
therefore from none of searcher systems should be direct link to that info.
>>>>>>
In such a way this conversation will never end. So i will stop it, as i already told some e-mails ago.

My last response;
I've given you very valid reasons for why InArchive.com can't be compared with search engines or archive.org. And you lack arguments for why I would be wrong, because I'm dead right in what I've said. You just repeat completely irrelevant words in a way to try and glide around the questions.

I understand that if you honestly answered my questions the truth would be revealed, and ofcourse you're afraid of the truth. What you've been telling me has only been lies from the beginning, and you've only tried to avoid every question I've asked you in a very dishonest way.

I know that your objective isn't to create an archive. This is obvious for each and everyone. Your one and only objective is to gain traffic from the search engines at the cost of others. In this way you think you will be able to sell your products. You don't care a bit about ethics, laws or copyrights (which you even lie about on your web page)!

I truly believe it would have been better if you had told me the truth. I'm sure you already know that I know the truth behind InArchive.com so why deny the fact that InArchive.com is only a traffic generator for your sites?

It's all about that you yourself want to benefit personally from the hard work of others.

The last thing you would do is to block the search engines from accessing the material you've stolen from thousands and thousands, if not millions, of site owners all over the world, and especially in Europe.


However...
The truth will prevail !!!








Also see;

InArchive.com
inarchive.com - Sajter vars innehåll kopierats G-
inarchive.com - Sajter vars innehåll kopierats L-
inarchive.com - Sajter vars innehåll kopierats Q-
inarchive.com - Sajter vars innehåll kopierats T-
inarchive.com 1000 senast indexerade sajter 15/4-14/5





Send this web page to a friend