Or they modify articles in the archive without telling anyone or leaving any evidence that the "archived" story is not the original version.
True, but who's to say that hasn't happened in the past?
We've all done the microfishe/film thing. For almost 100 years it's been the staple of archiving and sourcing. I think it's safe to say that it's reliable. Besides, however easy it is to alter a roll of microfilm, think of how easy it'd be to alter a website? I suppose that's you're point there, and again it's possible. But if we cast doubt upon any archival process, then who's to say another will be any better? In other words, who would be the final "archiver"?
Again, I'm not too worried about the "informational implications" of these copyright claims. I'm just POed that, with every chance they get, the leftists want to play informational games. It doesn't seriously affect my ability to archive though. At worse, I can simply cite an article, and force anyone I'm debating to go to the library. hehe