3 ms·

https://archive.today/t2pG6 https://archive.today/t2pG6

by toomuchtodo 9mo ago

boplicity 9mo ago
Please understand that circumventing copyright makes it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  I'm a subscriber, but not everyone is.
  - boplicity 9mo ago
    And by making it easy for them to circumvent copyright, they have even less incentive to support the journalists who did the reporting.
  - freitasm 9mo ago
    Subscribers can share the link as a gift, so readers can see the original, not the proxied version.
    - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
      I cannot trust that a gift link does not tie to my IRL identity I subscribe under. I can trust that archive links do not. The NY Times gets my money either way. It's an opsec concern. Trust no one. If someone wants to post gift links in every thread, just let me know who to pay to enable that, I am happy to.
- afavour 9mo ago
  I don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth. NYT actually has a "gift article" functionality that makes it easy to share articles with non-subscribers.
- this-is-why 9mo ago
  You are 100% correct. I find the attitude that everything should be free a bit tedious. But then again, why does the truth have to be paywalled while lies are free. I believe it is a detriment to society that we cannot publicly find reporting. Yes I know now come the cynics who will argue bias. But that’s just a failure of reading comprehension, not fair reporting doctrine. So yes. I’m with you 100%.
- unyttigfjelltol 9mo ago
  Is there a micropayment option or something? I wish I could friction-free, buy access to these sites al al carte without dealing with them directly or setting up a recurring subscription directly with them.
  - chihuahua 9mo ago
    Best we can do is a monthly subscription, with every dark pattern known to man to prevent cancellation.
- blell 9mo ago
  They should learn to code.
- ericmay 9mo ago
  Copyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.
  - boplicity 9mo ago
    Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story. This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription. I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.
    - amelius 9mo ago
      I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.
    - mrkstu 9mo ago
      In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.
    - Dylan16807 9mo ago
      Legally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
    - slopinthebag 9mo ago
      If OpenAI doesn't need to respect copyright why should we?
lioeters 9mo ago
Stop using archive.today, they've been found to inject malicious code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006
- kristianp 9mo ago
  Do you mean this? https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-... the malicious code wasn't injected, it was served with their captcha. They shouldn't have used users to ddos someone's blog, but this seems like a one off attack against a perceived threat to the service's privacy. I don't condone that ddos attack, but it's been a very useful service over the years.
- c420 9mo ago
  Here's a more functional alternative: https://pressreleased.alwaysdata.net/ https://pressreleased.alwaysdata.net/

https://archive.today/t2pG6 https://archive.today/t2pG6

boplicity 9mo ago

Please understand that circumventing copyright makes it more difficult for journalists to make a living.

toomuchtodo 9mo ago
I'm a subscriber, but not everyone is.
- boplicity 9mo ago
  And by making it easy for them to circumvent copyright, they have even less incentive to support the journalists who did the reporting.
- freitasm 9mo ago
  Subscribers can share the link as a gift, so readers can see the original, not the proxied version.
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    I cannot trust that a gift link does not tie to my IRL identity I subscribe under. I can trust that archive links do not. The NY Times gets my money either way. It's an opsec concern. Trust no one. If someone wants to post gift links in every thread, just let me know who to pay to enable that, I am happy to.
afavour 9mo ago
I don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth. NYT actually has a "gift article" functionality that makes it easy to share articles with non-subscribers.
this-is-why 9mo ago
You are 100% correct. I find the attitude that everything should be free a bit tedious. But then again, why does the truth have to be paywalled while lies are free. I believe it is a detriment to society that we cannot publicly find reporting. Yes I know now come the cynics who will argue bias. But that’s just a failure of reading comprehension, not fair reporting doctrine. So yes. I’m with you 100%.
unyttigfjelltol 9mo ago
Is there a micropayment option or something? I wish I could friction-free, buy access to these sites al al carte without dealing with them directly or setting up a recurring subscription directly with them.
- chihuahua 9mo ago
  Best we can do is a monthly subscription, with every dark pattern known to man to prevent cancellation.
blell 9mo ago
They should learn to code.
ericmay 9mo ago
Copyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.
- boplicity 9mo ago
  Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story. This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription. I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.
  - amelius 9mo ago
    I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.
  - mrkstu 9mo ago
    In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    Legally it's infringement but I don't have a lot of sympathy for semi-porous paywalls getting circumvented. If they don't want free readers, they can set up a hard paywall. If they offer free samples and I occasionally take one I'm not going to feel bad about it, or worry about that specific type of copyright infringement making it more difficult for journalists to make a living.
  - slopinthebag 9mo ago
    If OpenAI doesn't need to respect copyright why should we?

lioeters 9mo ago

Stop using archive.today, they've been found to inject malicious code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

kristianp 9mo ago
Do you mean this? https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-a-ddos-attack-against-my-blog/ https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-... the malicious code wasn't injected, it was served with their captcha. They shouldn't have used users to ddos someone's blog, but this seems like a one off attack against a perceived threat to the service's privacy. I don't condone that ddos attack, but it's been a very useful service over the years.
c420 9mo ago
Here's a more functional alternative: https://pressreleased.alwaysdata.net/ https://pressreleased.alwaysdata.net/