I wonder. Would it be possible for any/all submissions to automatically generate (and provide) and archive.is/archive.org link? @dang
I can't think of any large downsides, it would mean every submission would have an available snapshot for the given time, and we would no longer need a user comment to provide this.
I'm confident that you didn't realize what you were saying, but I really chuckled at "I can't think of any large downsides [in institutionalizing a clearly very legally questionable practice]".
There's a thing called "copyright" and it's kind of like a union, but for people who write or create art. It gives them the right to decide who gets to make a copy. Many of the best sources of news put up a paywall because it's what allows them to pay their reporters. When you make an illicit copy without their permission, you undermine their ability to make a living. In other words, eat.
I'm not interested in having a debate on the legality of it which is why I said "legally questionable." It doesn't strike me as implausible that you wouldn't know what copyright is, if you don't accept the premise that linking to the internet archive for any and all paywalled contemporary content is at least legally questionable.
> if you don't accept the premise that ... is at least legally questionable.
The premise was that this is so obvious that my naivety is funny. But no, you don't want to debate that point - Why would you care to consider otherwise, it's not you losing face if correct.
You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.
I don’t follow the first paragraph of this comment at all, it just seems vaguely antagonistic. You also seem to be suggesting I’m taking a view on a debate that I am not.
That such a blog post exists at least suggests the legal “question” exists, which again is the only thing I said in the first place.
There’s a big difference between accepting people will post links that just happen to, sometimes get people past paywalls - and operationalising that so it’s the default behaviour
Actually I'd say the opposite: If it only happens with paywalled sites it's clear that its purpose it to circumvent paywalls. If you always do it, It's so there is a record of the original site at time of posting.
Why isn't that already an issue then? archive.is links remain, despite being easy to otherwise detect?
IANAL, but it would seem to me HN couldn't be liable, since it is a third party (archive.is/org) caching the site. In fact, I always assumed that's why the links aren't removed.
I am also not a lawyer, but I would guess that a court might differentiate between choosing not to actively scour user generated content for archive links, versus choosing to proactively provide those links.
To expand on this; I don't think other forms of active moderation get this pass, you don't get to harbour copyrighted IP, CPP or other illegal material posted on a forum by just not moderating.
further, if intent would be a possible defence, I already mentioned that archiving everything looks better than only having links when there are paywalls, active or otherwise.
from a moral position, I don't think HN moves the needle wrt enabling bypassing - most if not all HN users are likely fully capable of using archiving sites themselves, if not automating the process themselves.
The vast majority of website-gate captchas are served by cloudflare these days. You can use the privacy pass [0] browser extension to skip them. Privacy passes are an open standard [1], so you can re-implement it yourself if you don’t trust that extension.
95% of the time I click the tick box and wiggle my mouse and it lets me through without doing a captcha.
I believe they check your mouse for human-like movement as an additional factor. Could be wrong but I haven't been bothered by many captchas in the last couple years.
The message is stating that you're seeing a Captcha because suspicious traffic has come from your network. If you're not doing suspicious things, "check that you're not infected with malware" is valid feedback.
No, it’s because Cloudflare and archive.ph have some pissing content going. I forget the details, but it has nothing to do with malware on anyone’s machine. Somewhere on HN someone has given a better explanation, but I’m not spelunking for it.
No, the message is stating that because I don't allow Javascript to fingerprint and commodify my browser. The euphemized nonsense about malware is just an insult to reason at this point.
I'm gonna throw the NAS with the family backups out the back window while running upstairs to get my son.
But yeah, with a bit of planning you can turn it into a yes-and situation.
Also: 48 hours. Can you provide for yourself and your neighbor for 48 hours without any help from the authorities? Does the Kanban card for pasta and tomato sauce always leave 10000 calories in the pantry? Got firewood, matches, and know where the nearest spring is? (This is easier in a culture where we still have running fountains with dates like 1780 on them.)
reply