211–220 of 376 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Gaza video archive is https://genocide.live , and it was Namecheap that took it down. https://x.com/receipts_lol/status/2006732606164152651
It looks like it has been restored, and responsibility attributed to a moderator acting hastily due to the extreme nature of the content: https://sunur.substack.com/p/namecheap-stole-the-domain-of-g... I don't like the idea of registrars doing moderation at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anna Archive is a notable project. Wikipedia displays links to projects. It's not about "being used as DNS" but about providing basic info about the topic, URL being an important part of it.
Kiwifarms is also a notable web site but they do not show a link to it. This means there is editorialisation going on.
Funny how HN is usually ripe with folks crawling out of the woodwork to defend IP ownership as a fundamentally important principle, both on moral and economic grounds. Yet, as of 08:37:36 MST Monday, 5 January 2026 there isn't a single comment on this thread complaining about Anna's IP theft. Don't get me wrong, that makes me VERY happy, I am a firm believer that the very notion of IP ownership needs to die a horribl…
The leading AI labs are not killing IP. They are taking IP and reshaping/combining it to produce their own highly lucrative proprietary IP package which they sell to you.
The mirror image of IP defenders are AI boosters who argue against IP when it comes to slurping up media but squirm when you say "ok, then publish all of the inputs that go into making your frontier models, and publish the model weights too."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fortunately, Spotify does not have that power. They are not based in US or EU jurisdictions. Perhaps I misunderstood something, but according to my understanding 1. Spotify is registered in Luxembourg and has its operational headquarter in Sweden (Stockholm). Both are EU countries. 2. I guess it won't be Spotify that sues, but the individual music labels (very likely united).
Annas archive is not based in the EU (sorry for being not clear). So the law in EU is limited to enforce a ban. In germany it is already "banned" via ISP but just DNS. But the real servers are hosted in kazachstan or russia I think. And they do not cooperate so much with EU courts. So unless the EU installs a great firewall like china, they cannot really shut it down.
I believe the "official" AA servers only host the website + source code. The actual copyrighted content is stored by volunteers who seed the torrents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they weren't not going to, given that their mission is to archive all cultural content, by hook or by crook.
Archiving it and publishing it are different things. More importantly, they may sabotage their mission: If Spotify shuts them down, their exiting archives and especially future archives may be effectively lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kiwifarms is also a notable web site but they do not show a link to it. This means there is editorialisation going on.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yggdrasil provides an IPv6 address in a formerly reserved and therefore unused block, so you just run Yggdrasil and visit the IPv6 address.
How do you run Yggdrasil? Explain it like I'm an end-user who has no idea what IP is, much less IPv6. My point is, how many users would have access to something on Yggdrasil? How many could - what skill is required?
It might be a sincere effort in the beginning, but at this point, Anna is merely AI company’s foot soldier.
Do you mean, intentionally? It's an interesting question; is there any evidence?
I certainly don't consider taking money from AI companies while giving data to everyone else for free makes them AI company footsoldiers, but that offer is presumably what's being alluded to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Linking to illegal services can be illegal, that’s why. What is illegal in one country can be illegal everywhere. I don't remember Wikipedia removing LGBTIAQ++ articles just because that's illegal in Iran. If a government thinks Wikipedia is illegal in their country, they can force local ISP providers to block it, but it's not Wikipedia's responsibility [1] to censor itself. [1] at least should not be
The Wikimedia Foundation is a US corporation. There are national chapters in some other countries, which are corporations in the respective country. The internet isn't the Wild West; websites are subject to the laws of the countries they operate in.