3 ms·

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 k

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.
      - Chris2048 9mo ago
        Perhaps, but for different reasons (not liability for hosting). And if there is liability in intend - I already raised those questions here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669774

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.
    - Chris2048 9mo ago
      Perhaps, but for different reasons (not liability for hosting). And if there is liability in intend - I already raised those questions here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669775 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46669774