Looks possible however it relies on two easily challenged things by wayback
a) "The User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / code in our robots.txt file "
The the article suggests that you first change this file and claim it was there from the beginning ; Fraudulent act I would say
b) The letter suggest the that the website needs to claim copyright for the content on its website which again would be a fraudulent claim - especially with respect to a published paper
That said we can make it like trying to hold water in a net if we keep looking for and using tools to disseminate information - You can for example do a PDF print out of the paper and load that using the same website
Here is the paper preserved in that format - Nothing that CUREUS can do about that:
2nd the Link you sent appears to advise 5 steps of which Step 1 is to change a file on your website (called robot.txt) such that it explicitly request the page not be archived and then in step 4 where it guides you you write your request it suggest you make sure you have done step 1 and then suggest wording that makes the claim that at the time the pages were archives there was already in place an explicit request not to archive the page.
In my mind that is openly advocating a legally formatted fraudulent claim.
The author of the article states you should seek legal advice with good cause as this could get a web owner into serious trouble trying to abuse the law with false claims
3rd
Can CUREUS lay claim to owning the copyright of the public domain papers submitted to it for publication; would that be fraudulent of them to claim they did ?
4th
In any case the Globalists and Elitists will surely be feeling that now they are holding a sieve rather than a water tight bag on the information that is getting to the public because there are SO many platforms opening up to help disseminate and preserve information and history
I didn't mean to offend or present false information, if I have.
At some point in my looking for specific previous COVID-related claims, I was unable to find a website on the archive which I had previously accessed, which surprised me. In looking into why that might be, I found references which implied that an organization can request to have its content removed from the archive. I would be glad to know that this isn't correct.
I am sure you did not offend anyone reading this substack. Claiming "I'm offended" is the fall back of the woke and those that prefer to use slander to avoid a real debate. Only today I marveled at how Julia Gillard is a master at being Offended and noted how she now holds a very high position in The Welcome Trust (Part of what many are seeing as the terrible trio - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Welcome Trust, WEF)
Count how many times Julia says the words "I'm offended" in this personal attack on the opposition leader of the time
Powerful speakers like this can have an awful influence on the community and to see what has happened to global education under Julia's Stewardship is frightening
It is important to recognise all the weakness in ones approach and you point out a valid one; that there will be those that seek to alter their own history and remove their archived website from the internet.
If CUREUS were to adopt the advise of the website you pointed out they could be in serious legal trouble as webarchive archives the robot.txt files as well
"Your tone" and "I'm offended" are often interchangeable leaders into a "discussion" that evades debate.
I'm sure you are not wishing to evade any debate and I can assure you I was pleased (not offended) to have your input as it prompted a quick look into how people might try and cover their tracks by trying to remove web archives.
Your input revealed there are websites that are providing suggestions to website owners, that have had their websites archived, of how to go about making fraudulent legal claims to try and make demands to the web archivers to have their past publicly displayed material removed from web history.
Your input further led me to discover how easy it is for the web Archivers to out any such fraudulent attempts due to the records they keep.
Your input also prompted an addition to the post to show people how to archive documents quite separate to any websites that may have hosted them at one point.
In summary, thank you for your input it as it is very valuable, useful and welcomed and has assisted me and others in knowing what lengths people are going to try and hide the history of their mistakes and their unethical , illegal or dangerous website conduct.
"If you would like to submit a request for archives of your site or account to be excluded from web.archive.org, send us a request to info@archive.org and indicate:
the URL or URLs of the material
the time period that you wish to have excluded
the time period during which you had control of the site or relevant user account (if applicable) and
any other information that you think would be helpful for us to better understand your request.
This will initiate a review by our team. We do not make any guarantees beforehand about the outcome of a request.
Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an explanation as possible as to what you are requesting be removed for us to better understand your reason for making the request. Again, our team carefully reviews requests and we do not make any guarantees beforehand about the outcome of a request."
So, I don't see any need to do anything illegal to request that content be removed from the archive.
I don't know what copyright issues are involved in their copying and storing content from a web page. Their page entitled "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Copyright Policy" (https://archive.org/about/terms.php) states:
"If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice."
Looks possible however it relies on two easily challenged things by wayback
a) "The User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / code in our robots.txt file "
The the article suggests that you first change this file and claim it was there from the beginning ; Fraudulent act I would say
b) The letter suggest the that the website needs to claim copyright for the content on its website which again would be a fraudulent claim - especially with respect to a published paper
That said we can make it like trying to hold water in a net if we keep looking for and using tools to disseminate information - You can for example do a PDF print out of the paper and load that using the same website
Here is the paper preserved in that format - Nothing that CUREUS can do about that:
https://archive.org/details/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and_202402
It is possible to have web pages removed from the archive; see e.g. https://www.joshualowcock.com/guide/how-to-delete-your-site-from-the-internet-archive-wayback-machine-archive-org/
1st :
Nothing CUREUS can do about uploading the paper to wayback
example:
https://archive.org/details/203052-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-lessons-learned-from-the-registrational-trials-and_202402
2nd the Link you sent appears to advise 5 steps of which Step 1 is to change a file on your website (called robot.txt) such that it explicitly request the page not be archived and then in step 4 where it guides you you write your request it suggest you make sure you have done step 1 and then suggest wording that makes the claim that at the time the pages were archives there was already in place an explicit request not to archive the page.
In my mind that is openly advocating a legally formatted fraudulent claim.
The author of the article states you should seek legal advice with good cause as this could get a web owner into serious trouble trying to abuse the law with false claims
3rd
Can CUREUS lay claim to owning the copyright of the public domain papers submitted to it for publication; would that be fraudulent of them to claim they did ?
4th
In any case the Globalists and Elitists will surely be feeling that now they are holding a sieve rather than a water tight bag on the information that is getting to the public because there are SO many platforms opening up to help disseminate and preserve information and history
I didn't mean to offend or present false information, if I have.
At some point in my looking for specific previous COVID-related claims, I was unable to find a website on the archive which I had previously accessed, which surprised me. In looking into why that might be, I found references which implied that an organization can request to have its content removed from the archive. I would be glad to know that this isn't correct.
I am sure you did not offend anyone reading this substack. Claiming "I'm offended" is the fall back of the woke and those that prefer to use slander to avoid a real debate. Only today I marveled at how Julia Gillard is a master at being Offended and noted how she now holds a very high position in The Welcome Trust (Part of what many are seeing as the terrible trio - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Welcome Trust, WEF)
Count how many times Julia says the words "I'm offended" in this personal attack on the opposition leader of the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNuPcf8L00
Powerful speakers like this can have an awful influence on the community and to see what has happened to global education under Julia's Stewardship is frightening
https://www.juliagillard.com.au/julia-gillard/current-work
Anyway back on point
It is important to recognise all the weakness in ones approach and you point out a valid one; that there will be those that seek to alter their own history and remove their archived website from the internet.
If CUREUS were to adopt the advise of the website you pointed out they could be in serious legal trouble as webarchive archives the robot.txt files as well
see: https://web.archive.org/web/20240224214017/https://www.cureus.com/robots.txt
Maye it's just your general tone, but to me, you sure came across as being offended. Oh well.
"Your tone" and "I'm offended" are often interchangeable leaders into a "discussion" that evades debate.
I'm sure you are not wishing to evade any debate and I can assure you I was pleased (not offended) to have your input as it prompted a quick look into how people might try and cover their tracks by trying to remove web archives.
Your input revealed there are websites that are providing suggestions to website owners, that have had their websites archived, of how to go about making fraudulent legal claims to try and make demands to the web archivers to have their past publicly displayed material removed from web history.
Your input further led me to discover how easy it is for the web Archivers to out any such fraudulent attempts due to the records they keep.
Your input also prompted an addition to the post to show people how to archive documents quite separate to any websites that may have hosted them at one point.
In summary, thank you for your input it as it is very valuable, useful and welcomed and has assisted me and others in knowing what lengths people are going to try and hide the history of their mistakes and their unethical , illegal or dangerous website conduct.
The archive.org website page on removing content from the archive (see https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-something-from-archive-org/) states:
"If you would like to submit a request for archives of your site or account to be excluded from web.archive.org, send us a request to info@archive.org and indicate:
the URL or URLs of the material
the time period that you wish to have excluded
the time period during which you had control of the site or relevant user account (if applicable) and
any other information that you think would be helpful for us to better understand your request.
This will initiate a review by our team. We do not make any guarantees beforehand about the outcome of a request.
Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an explanation as possible as to what you are requesting be removed for us to better understand your reason for making the request. Again, our team carefully reviews requests and we do not make any guarantees beforehand about the outcome of a request."
So, I don't see any need to do anything illegal to request that content be removed from the archive.
I don't know what copyright issues are involved in their copying and storing content from a web page. Their page entitled "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Copyright Policy" (https://archive.org/about/terms.php) states:
"If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice."