3 ms·
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, vers
by appreciatorBus 9mo ago
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.
- Chris2048 9mo agoI'd guess otherwise.
- Chris2048 9mo agoTo 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.
- appreciatorBus 9mo agoI don't think morality has anything to do with HN's action/lack of action here. They are likely just balancing risk & reward. How much work to enable auto paywall busting? >$0 How much reward? $0 How much extra risk that a publisher will make your life difficult, regardless of morality or the letter of the law? >0% I can't imagine why they would bother when HN users seem happy enough to do the work for free.