惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

N
Netflix TechBlog - Medium
IT之家
IT之家
博客园_首页
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
美团技术团队
小众软件
小众软件
博客园 - 叶小钗
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
罗磊的独立博客
博客园 - Franky
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
博客园 - 【当耐特】
月光博客
月光博客
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理

Archive.is blog

Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog • "Trustworthiness" in my question meant "reputation of being trustworthy", i.e. reputation of you not modifying saved pages to insert fake information into them. Guarantees about your archive being trustworthy are literally on the main page: > Archive.today is a time capsule for web pages! It takes a 'snapshot' of a webpage that will always be online even if the original page disappears > … > and provides a short and reliable link to an unalterable record of any web page. This was true until very recently you chose to tarnish that reputation and began inserting fake information into saved pages. • Do you think there's absolutely no illegal content on your archive, including CSAM? That's simply consequences of you refusing to remove information no matter what. I'm not saying that this approach is wrong or right, you just need to accept these consequences when someone points them out. • Is me saying that some website/company is American also "nationalism" or whatever bad political position you think it is? Or Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog Archive.is blog
Archive.is blog
archive-is · 2026-03-03 · via Archive.is blog
  • 匿名

    I wouldn’t say either “yes” or “no” here. That is, ‘yes’ in the sense that we do remove (or blackrectangle) some pages based on user reports, but “no” in the sense that we would not be eligible for safe harbor if we strictly followed the DMCA (i.e., remove everything, without a fee, but based on non-anonymous reports that must include the verifiable name/address/phone number of the reporter). DMCA safe harbor only works for ISPs and certain websites (those that have appointed an agent and registered them with the U.S. Copyright Office); for everyone else, it is still not “compliance” but “voluntary behavior resembling compliance”

    In a strictly legal sense: “no”, because there is no USCO-registered agent.