why 4chan archives are allowed to exist?

>>1551937
They are literally collecting trash

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Comments are owned by the Poster.

>>1551961
And what this actually means is that you are well within your rights to send a C&D to an archive to get your (And only your) posts removed, if you can prove that they're yours. Except in certain countries where archives of publicly available content are protected, or where the laws don't care about the terms and conditions of a site, or where non-residents can't do shit in the system, or any other number of roadblocks that could get in the way.

Lot of effort to get rid of an anonymous post, and that's just for one archive. You have to hit them all separately, and prove yourself for each one individually, and hope there aren't any insurmountable copyright roadblocks protecting them.

>>1552294
>if you can prove that they're yours.
You don't need to prove they're yours if you send a DMCA notice, you just need to promise they're yours.

>shouldn't 4chan data belong exclusively to 4chan?
This is actually what 2channel does. When you submit a post you give them the copyright. Hiroyuki's other site openly flouts this restriction by mirroring active 2channel threads.

>>1552297
Youtube's pseudo-DMCA system makes that way easier than it actually is. Most sites can just contest it and then you have to actually take it to a real court and prove it under penalty of perjury.

>>1552304
>Most sites can just contest it and then you have to actually take it to a real court
You think your average archive admin is going to go to court over some posts? If they contest it and you start taking steps to bring them to court, they'll give in.

>>1552312
If they contest it, it's entirely on you to bring it to court. Most people won't bother to do that.

>>1552315
>it's entirely on you to bring it to court.
And I'm saying if you were to start to do that, an archive admin would settle with you before it actually went to court.

>>1552321
And then they'd just settle for removing the post, after you spent all that effort (And possibly money if you had a lawyer do it) filing all that paperwork.
And if you refuse to settle, they'll just tell the judge that they offered to do exactly what the law requires of them and the judge will rule in their favor, leaving you with lawyer fees. Or if you don't have a lawyer, whatever other bullshit *their* lawyer can dump on you for DMCA abuse. Recent DMCA cases have favored defendants, especially if they did what the law required and got sent to court anyway.

>>1552321
If you present literally no proof that you made the post or attempt some other case guaranteed to fail in court, I could see an archive admin not backing down, because in cases that are completely bogus the winner can recover attorney's fees.

>>1551937
Who's that and can you link me the scene?

>>1552368
a quick googs reveals the fine lady in question is "lana rain"

>>1552328
>And then they'd just settle for removing the post
Which was the goal in the first place. I know it's a far-fetched scenario.

>Recent DMCA cases have favored defendants
That's good if it's true.

>>1552485
It's a goal you had to file a DMCA takedown under threat of perjury, wait two weeks, then file a proper court document using a real lawyer who doesn't work for free, and wait up to a month for their response for.
Assuming they even fall under the DMCA to begin with.

>>1552457
ew

>>1552521
we