4 ms·

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

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]".

Chris2048 9mo ago
Yes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?
- xhkkffbf 9mo ago
  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.
  - Chris2048 9mo ago
    I asked pgwhalen specifically, so chiming in with a smug/condescending reply isn't welcome. It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.
    - pgwhalen 9mo ago
      GP’s explanation is better than I would have given and didn’t seem smug or condescending to me - from my perspective it was welcome.
      - Chris2048 9mo ago
        Your own original had the same problem, so let me play it straight; I don't think there is a legal issue, let alone a clear one. You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending? Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org
        pgwhalen 9mo ago
        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.
        Chris2048 9mo ago
        > 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. Here's an uninvited counterpoint anyway: https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-the-internet-archive/ https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-th... You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.
        pgwhalen 9mo ago
        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.
        Chris2048 9mo ago
        The practise in this case is not starting a competing service to archive.org, but linking to it, so the downsides are what?
        pgwhalen 9mo ago
        Presumably if hosting and sharing copyrighted content is legally questionable, then linking to it (especially systematically) might be as well. IANAL.

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]".

Chris2048 9mo ago

Yes, I didn't realize this was a very legally questionable practice, let alone clearly. Can you explain why?

xhkkffbf 9mo ago
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.
- Chris2048 9mo ago
  I asked pgwhalen specifically, so chiming in with a smug/condescending reply isn't welcome. It's also IMHO a misplaced or false criticism, per my other comments in this thread.
  - pgwhalen 9mo ago
    GP’s explanation is better than I would have given and didn’t seem smug or condescending to me - from my perspective it was welcome.
    - Chris2048 9mo ago
      Your own original had the same problem, so let me play it straight; I don't think there is a legal issue, let alone a clear one. You don't think phrasing like "There's a thing called 'copyright'", as if I'm not aware of what copyright is, isn't condescending? Now, either of you relate that concept to a suggestion that HN link to archive.org
      - pgwhalen 9mo ago
        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.
        Chris2048 9mo ago
        > 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. Here's an uninvited counterpoint anyway: https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-the-internet-archive/ https://blog.archive.org/2024/03/01/fair-use-in-action-at-th... You'll also notice that the link in this post (https://archive.is/TajtJ https://archive.is/TajtJ) shows a 'log in' button, implying that log-in credentials where not used (or abused) to get/share this snapshot.
        pgwhalen 9mo ago
        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.
        Chris2048 9mo ago
        The practise in this case is not starting a competing service to archive.org, but linking to it, so the downsides are what?
        pgwhalen 9mo ago
        Presumably if hosting and sharing copyrighted content is legally questionable, then linking to it (especially systematically) might be as well. IANAL.