91–100 of 438 posts
I wonder if there are any search engines dedicated to indexing these kinds of libraries. I know there's a decent one just for scihub, but it would be awesome if I could do a Google-style search that returned the contents of books, magazines and journal articles instead of just websites.
Book metadata is widely available via sites like e.g. Open Library. With good metadata, full text search is not as relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The homepage has a link to the onion site.
So why does it have a clearnet address? To have more reach? What’s their threat model such that a clearnet presence could possibly out the people behind this?
I wonder if there are any search engines dedicated to indexing these kinds of libraries. I know there's a decent one just for scihub, but it would be awesome if I could do a Google-style search that returned the contents of books, magazines and journal articles instead of just websites.
They offer a clearnet and a hidden service .onion incase you don’t want ISPs blocking access to it.
To be fair, Z-Library doesn't charge unless you want to download more than 10 books per 24 hour period. That's per account and although they ask you not to open multiple accounts they don't seem to do anything to stop you.
What kind of fairness can there be in charging for stolen books? I believe in free access to education, but charging for these books they have no rights to is a whole other thing.
HTTP-only makes me weary of visiting a self-professed piracy site. They couldn't even spring for a Let's Encrypt cert?
I wonder if there are any search engines dedicated to indexing these kinds of libraries. I know there's a decent one just for scihub, but it would be awesome if I could do a Google-style search that returned the contents of books, magazines and journal articles instead of just websites.
Wasn't that what google books was supposed to be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really want your ISP to know which piracy sites you frequent? This is all being sent in plain text. Or they could change the content, insert a redirect, or inject ads without your knowledge. TLS is needed on all websites - not just those with interaction.
They still know which sites you visit even with https.
When the prosecutor is looking through your internet records and they see 50 wikipedia hits in some relevant time period, they're going to be upset that https exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume Google abandoned this along with all their earlier mission statements in favour of building another chat app.
Could you take a moment to check it Google Books search still exists? I'll give you a hint: https://books.google.com/?hl=en > Search the world's most comprehensive index of full-text books.
If only it still worked well enough to use. I use to use it every day, but how the mighty have fallen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it exists, but it has appeared to languish for years. They rely on third parties now for inclusion of books, whereas in the early days they innovated on their own with specialized scanning technology. They seemed quite proud of it a decade ago. When was the last time Google has touted their books project? Have they even integrated searching books into their main search (which was supposed to catalogue And make…
It was paralyzed by legal disputes with book publishers. In the years the lawsuits were going on, nearly everyone left the project. And then the lawyers have put in so many red lines that it's nearly impossible to make any changes to it.
Given Google's behaviour since the end of their period of true innovative excellence, I don't cut them much slack.
HTTP-only makes me weary of visiting a self-professed piracy site. They couldn't even spring for a Let's Encrypt cert?
*wary For some reason I'm seeing this mistake more and more lately. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weary vs https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wary