Editing Wayback Machine (section)

===Suzanne Shell===
Activist [[Suzanne Shell]] filed suit in December 2005, demanding Internet Archive pay her US$100,000 for archiving her website profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004.<ref name="Justia">{{cite court |litigants=Internet Archive v. Shell |vol=505 F.Supp.2d 755 |reporter=at justia.com |opinion= |pinpoint=1:2006cv01726 |court=[[United States District Court for the District of Colorado|Colorado District Court]] |date=August 31, 2006 |url=http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2006cv01726/98194 |access-date=April 3, 2022 |quote='April 25, 2007 Settlement agreement announced.' Filing 65, 2007-04-30: '...therefore ORDERED that this matter shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE...'}}</ref><ref name="Babcock">{{cite web |last=Babcock |first=Lewis T. |date=February 13, 2007 |url=http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/waybackshell.pdf |title=''Internet Archive v. Shell'' Civil Action No. 06cv01726LTBCBS |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140125143809/http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/waybackshell.pdf |archive-date=January 25, 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=March 25, 2015 |quote=1) Internet Archive's motion to dismiss Shell's counterclaim for conversion and civil theft (Second Cause of Action) is GRANTED, 2) Internet Archive's motion to dismiss Shell's counterclaim for breach of contract (Third Cause of Action) is DENIED; 3) Internet Archive's motion to dismiss Shell's counterclaim for Racketeering under RICO and COCCA (Fourth Cause of Action) is GRANTED.}}</ref> Internet Archive filed a [[declaratory judgment]] action in the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]] on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's [[copyright]]. Shell responded and brought a [[countersuit]] against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her [[terms of service]].<ref>{{cite news |first=Thomas |last=Claburn |title=Colorado Woman Sues To Hold Web Crawlers To Contracts |publisher=[[InformationWeek]], UBM Tech, UBM LLC |location=New York, New York, US |date=March 16, 2007 |url=http://www.informationweek.com/colorado-woman-sues-to-hold-web-crawlers-to-contracts/d/d-id/1053075 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140904170742/http://www.informationweek.com/colorado-woman-sues-to-hold-web-crawlers-to-contracts/d/d-id/1053075 |archive-date=September 4, 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=March 25, 2015 |quote=Computers can enter into contracts on behalf of people. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) says that a 'contract may be formed by the interaction of electronic agents of the parties, even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the electronic agents' actions or the resulting terms and agreements.'}}</ref> On February 13, 2007, a judge for the [[United States District Court for the District of Colorado]] dismissed all counterclaims except [[breach of contract]].<ref name="Babcock" /> The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss the [[copyright infringement]] claims that Shell asserted arose out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case456.cfm |title=Internet Archive v. Suzanne Shell |last=Samson |first=Martin H. |year=2007<!-- This article has no date. I looked everywhere. --> |publisher=Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140803002113/http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case456.cfm |archive-date=August 3, 2014 |url-status=live |access-date=March 25, 2015 |quote=More importantly, held the court, Internet Archive's mere copying of Shell's site, and display thereof in its database, did not constitute the requisite exercise of dominion and control over defendant's property. Importantly, noted the court, the defendant at all times owned and operated her own site. Said the Court: 'Shell has failed to allege facts showing that Internet Archive exercised dominion or control over her website, since Shell's complaint states explicitly that she continued to own and operate the website while it was archived on the Wayback machine. Shell identifies no authority supporting the notion that copying documents is by itself enough of a deprivation of use to support conversion. Conversely, numerous circuits have determined that it is not.'}}</ref>

On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit.<ref name="Justia" /> The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/post/119669/lawsuit-settled |title=Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell Settle Lawsuit |author=brewster |date=April 25, 2007 |website=Internet Archive |location=Denver, CO, US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101205074057/https://archive.org/post/119669/lawsuit-settled |archive-date=December 5, 2010 |url-status=live |access-date=March 25, 2015 |quote=Both parties sincerely regret any turmoil that the lawsuit may have caused for the other. Neither Internet Archive nor Ms. Shell condones any conduct which may have caused harm to either party arising out of the public attention to this lawsuit. The parties have not engaged in such conduct and request that the public response to the amicable resolution of this litigation be consistent with their wishes that no further harm or turmoil be caused to either party.}}</ref>