4 ms·

I'm not complaining, but I'd like to point out that I think this violates HN's terms of service: "You agree to not use the Site to: email or otherwise upload a

I'm not complaining, but I'd like to point out that I think this violates HN's terms of service: "You agree to not use the Site to: email or otherwise upload any content that (i) infringes any intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party;" It seems like sharing a link to copyright infringing content (archive.is) could be considered Contributory copyright infringement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infringement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_copyright_infring...) By analogy, how is this so different from posting a link to a pirated movie originally from Netflix? Because it's text? I think we have a case of normalization of deviance right here on HN. Illegal or stolen content is posted in the comments here all the time.

jchw 5y ago
Rules were made to be broken. In this case, dang themselves has commented on the matter[1]. Complaining about paywalls is off topic and discouraged, and linking archives is tolerated. I disagree with your sentiment vehemently. Firstly, law is not morality; people break the law all the time, every day, at their own discretion. It was made by humans and is not infallible. Secondly, I can’t just do a few GET requests to Netflix and get the full movie, yet this archive.is scraper has no trouble. So I guess it wasn’t very protected to begin with. The internet giveth, and the internet taketh away. They can get their better protection by not serving full articles publicly. They presumably do not because they would like to eat their cake and have it too with regards to indexing. This is hugely off topic so apologies but there is a reasonable chance I am not replying beyond this point. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989
madars 5y ago
Not sure what you mean here. Opening the original link in an incognito window yields full text of the article (maybe you are out of free articles, and they are counting?) Submitting articles to archive.is or archive.org serves the important function of maintaining an accurate historical record, and prevent link rot.

jchw 5y ago

Rules were made to be broken. In this case, dang themselves has commented on the matter[1]. Complaining about paywalls is off topic and discouraged, and linking archives is tolerated. I disagree with your sentiment vehemently. Firstly, law is not morality; people break the law all the time, every day, at their own discretion. It was made by humans and is not infallible. Secondly, I can’t just do a few GET requests to Netflix and get the full movie, yet this archive.is scraper has no trouble. So I guess it wasn’t very protected to begin with. The internet giveth, and the internet taketh away. They can get their better protection by not serving full articles publicly. They presumably do not because they would like to eat their cake and have it too with regards to indexing. This is hugely off topic so apologies but there is a reasonable chance I am not replying beyond this point. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989

madars 5y ago

Not sure what you mean here. Opening the original link in an incognito window yields full text of the article (maybe you are out of free articles, and they are counting?) Submitting articles to archive.is or archive.org serves the important function of maintaining an accurate historical record, and prevent link rot.