[dead]
Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
31–40 of 43 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do but they don’t get to also bitch about workarounds.
Why wouldn't they have the right to ask others to follow the law?
> The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away [1]
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#33Maybe it's difficult to justify a takedown if simultaneously they're responding to requests from search engines with full content for indexing, as part of their business model. Either the full content is available to be indexed, or it isn't - which is it?
It's also a lot harder to actually shut a site down if they care to actually not be shut down, see: KiwiFarms for example. I've never seen a more coordinated attempt to remove a site from the Internet and yet they're not only still there and appear to be quite active, but their infrastructure seems to be stronger than ever as a result.
So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#34Sometimes I wonder why people don't have the foresight to reserve posts like this for their personal thoughts. Don't ruin a good thing with speculation of its demise.
Security through obscurity never lasts.
It does, though, up to a significant point.
I, and people I knew used Z Lib for years, and never wrote peep about it in public or mentioned it to people I did not trust. A lot of people used it this way.
Finally dumbos of tiktok made it viral. And the rich publishing industry reached court, and also made some calls, I guess.
Publishers, big tech desktop software vendor know about piracy channels, and they tolerate it up to a point. But when that starts to get viral, they make calls, meet people, and go through proper channels.
Collective self-vigilance at scale do work, and maybe because of the companies don't care at a small scale.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#35[dead]
doesn't work with lots of sites.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why wouldn't they have the right to ask others to follow the law?
> The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455
That comment is in the context of a discussion about data for which a license was granted or not necessary.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#37Bruh... delete this thread.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The unfortunate truth is that when you give data away… you give it away [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32686455
That comment is in the context of a discussion about data for which a license was granted or not necessary.
And the 9th Circuit Court has determined that publicly accessible data does not require a license and the provider cannot dictate the means in which a user can access it. If a provider wants to do that, they need to place that content behind a walled garden.
[1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/1...
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#39archive.today (and WayBack Machine, and many others) doesn’t do anything supernatural. It can get a full article because publishers let it. And that’s the main reason no one’s shutting down it.
Try it with Elsevier and see that they won’t give an article for free under no circumstanses. There’s no free copies of any of their articles on archive.today.
Re: Ask HN: Why doesn't archive.today get shut down?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That comment is in the context of a discussion about data for which a license was granted or not necessary.
And the 9th Circuit Court has determined that publicly accessible data does not require a license and the provider cannot dictate the means in which a user can access it. If a provider wants to do that, they need to place that content behind a walled garden. [1] https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/04/18/1...
> LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. And as to the publicly available profiles, the users quite evidently intend them to be accessed by others
> we cannot, on the record before us, conclude that those interests—or more specifically, LinkedIn’s interest in preventing hiQ from scraping those profiles—are significant enough to outweigh hiQ’s interest in continuing its business
These are key details of the decision you linked, and that's why that decision wouldn't apply to this situation.