4 ms·

Can you explain? Who has purchased the subscription? I'm sure there's a no-redistribution clause in the subscription agreement.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
The person who installed the browser extension would be paying the subscription and ignoring said clause.
- flerovium 3y ago
  But what is the relationship between archive.is and the user who installed the extension?
  - inconceivable 3y ago
    dude... haha it's a random person on the internet who is doing it for free.
  - phneutral26 3y ago
    The user helps free the Internet by using archive.is as an openly accessible backup platform.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    They (archive.is) would have built the extension to send the current page content to their servers and the user would have installed it so they can archive internet pages. https://help.archive.org/help/save-pages-in-the-wayback-machine/ https://help.archive.org/help/save-pages-in-the-wayback-mach... (item 2)
    - Stagnant 3y ago
      You are confusing archive.is with archive.org. Although archive.is does have an extension[1] it doesn't appear to capture any of the page contents, it just simply sends the url for archive.is to crawl. 1: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/archive-page/gcaimhkfmliahedmeklebabdgagipbia https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/archive-page/gcaim...
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        I wasn't exactly confusing them but yeah, I did link to an archive.org article. I was having difficulty finding something specific to archive.is. I think the distinction between the two is moot in this post. The question could very well have been "How does archive.org bypass paywalls?" Though it's interesting that archive.is seems to just crawl the URL. Indeed that means they wouldn't necessarily be able to bypass the paywall.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  curious if eventually companies with start watermarking articles and catch and sue extension users.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    I suspect most content publishers would go to the source. If there are people who are already willing to pay for subscriptions and ignore the terms of those subscriptions, it's not much of a stretch that they'll ignore the fact that they got their subscription cancelled once (or twice, or however many times). The publisher would more likely see results taking legal action against the archivist.
    - dwater 3y ago
      It didn't stop the RIAA from suing loads of people over downloading mp3s in the past 2 decades, claiming damages of thousands of dollars per song the individual downloaded.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        in this case (archive.is) they have stronger case, since many people who potentially could buy subscription read it on archive.is because extension user violated terms of subscription. Also, extension likely has also terms of usage prohibiting uploading copyrighted content shifting liability on users.
      - sam0x17 3y ago
        *uploaded They went after seeders
        riku_iki 3y ago
        downloaders also received legal letters.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago

The person who installed the browser extension would be paying the subscription and ignoring said clause.

flerovium 3y ago
But what is the relationship between archive.is and the user who installed the extension?
- inconceivable 3y ago
  dude... haha it's a random person on the internet who is doing it for free.
- phneutral26 3y ago
  The user helps free the Internet by using archive.is as an openly accessible backup platform.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  They (archive.is) would have built the extension to send the current page content to their servers and the user would have installed it so they can archive internet pages. https://help.archive.org/help/save-pages-in-the-wayback-machine/ https://help.archive.org/help/save-pages-in-the-wayback-mach... (item 2)
  - Stagnant 3y ago
    You are confusing archive.is with archive.org. Although archive.is does have an extension[1] it doesn't appear to capture any of the page contents, it just simply sends the url for archive.is to crawl. 1: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/archive-page/gcaimhkfmliahedmeklebabdgagipbia https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/archive-page/gcaim...
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      I wasn't exactly confusing them but yeah, I did link to an archive.org article. I was having difficulty finding something specific to archive.is. I think the distinction between the two is moot in this post. The question could very well have been "How does archive.org bypass paywalls?" Though it's interesting that archive.is seems to just crawl the URL. Indeed that means they wouldn't necessarily be able to bypass the paywall.
riku_iki 3y ago
curious if eventually companies with start watermarking articles and catch and sue extension users.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  I suspect most content publishers would go to the source. If there are people who are already willing to pay for subscriptions and ignore the terms of those subscriptions, it's not much of a stretch that they'll ignore the fact that they got their subscription cancelled once (or twice, or however many times). The publisher would more likely see results taking legal action against the archivist.
  - dwater 3y ago
    It didn't stop the RIAA from suing loads of people over downloading mp3s in the past 2 decades, claiming damages of thousands of dollars per song the individual downloaded.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      in this case (archive.is) they have stronger case, since many people who potentially could buy subscription read it on archive.is because extension user violated terms of subscription. Also, extension likely has also terms of usage prohibiting uploading copyrighted content shifting liability on users.
    - sam0x17 3y ago
      *uploaded They went after seeders
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        downloaders also received legal letters.