Probably never, the point is that they aren't getting around paywalls, it's users that they aren't necessarily aware of or responsible for. Plausible deniability goes a long way.

in other words, "no cojones"

I don't always strut my testicles, but when I do it's on a brand new throwaway.

Maybe because a tech industry forum routinely circumventing copyright protection paywalls in a "grassroots" way is in questionable taste, and making it official would arguably be worse?

(Incidentally, someday a piracy site like that could serve up a browser zero-day, and pwn a large percentage of US tech companies. Without ever having needed to go to the trouble to develop their own content that would attract such a large audience of tech workers on work machines.)

Are you saying that web archive services are breaking copyright law? I would say it's fair use seeing how ephemeral the content is. It's a myth that Internet content last forever.

AFAIK, archive.org is mainly used as a legitimate archive service.

These other archive.* services seem to be used mainly for piracy. I don't know whether that's the intent, but that's the only use of them I recall seeing.

I think conflating the two categories of services might put archive.org at risk.