Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

selectedintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 317 posts

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#261

Post by [deleted] »

amelius wrote: post #219
dorian-graph wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, it's becoming a sad state to be able to own things and not be dependent upon the whims of others. I went from buying all my music (physical and digital copies), and sometimes had to remove DRM from the digital copies, to stopping that and just using Spotify. I'm slowly planning to stop paying for Spotify, but it would be very expensive to buy all the music I listen to. I think this will lead to at least 2 things…

I used to save tracks by recording them through the "analog hole", using the following commandline in Linux: parec | sox -t raw -r 44100 -Lb 16 -c 2 -e signed-integer - -t wav raw.wav It still requires a lot of manual work, such as cutting the tracks, and making sure there are no "skips" (which somehow can happen). Skips could theoretically be removed using a consensus algorithm (using multiple recordings). I just wi…

[deleted]

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#262

Post by gnode »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #244
gnode wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in a top-level comment, you can use robots.txt to disable Internet Archive's (Wayback Machine) archiving of your site. If you dislike your site being archived, I suggest you do this. Their intention is not to be a monster of the Internet who embarrass creators against their will.

This is a major issue with the internet archive because it allows subsequent owners of a domain to blackhole the previous content.

One solution to this might be to maintain separate archives when a domain changes ownership, based on WHOIS information. Previous owners could still request deletion via email as is currently possible.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#263

Post by Arzh »

blux wrote: post #254
Arzh wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because 99% of the time the streaming service for music is better than trying to build your own library. It also seems to have a lot less attribution than video stream right now so people don't have to pay attention to where they can stream a specific song, they can use just about any app and get what they are looking for.

One major drawback to me is the recurring cost. My feeling is that building an offline library that you truely own is much cheaper than using some streaming service with monthly recurring costs that inflate over time.

After ten years maybe, I have too much of an eclectic musical taste to get away with that.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#264

Post by Semirhage »

ryanSrich wrote: post #225
dorian-graph wrote: post #202

Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.

One of the first things I do with any article that I've enjoyed is download an HTML copy and create a PDF. Too many times I've bookmarked something only to come back a year later and it's gone.

Me too, and I don’t rely on cloud or streaming services. If I really like a song or article or book, I buy it some form and then download (if necessary through alternative channels) a copy. I bought a bunch of audio books from Audible years ago, and taking the time to convert them to MP3 has made my life much easier.

Streaming, clouds and DRM protection are fine for discovery, but if you love something, archive it. Storage is so cheap after all!

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#265

Post by srean »

lenocinor wrote: post #253
twostoned wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the copyright, file sharing, music piracy arguments and debates from the 90s (Metallica, Napster! Hah) and 00s. But when I talk about this stuff now with people in their early 20s there seems to be less awareness. DRM & 'Stream everything' are the way it is, as if…

As someone who used to have a lot of CDs and MP3s and basically got rid of all of them for Spotify, I can cite a number of reasons why I switched: 1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about) 2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass d…

I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ?

EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#266

Post by 8_hours_ago »

srean wrote: post #265
lenocinor wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who used to have a lot of CDs and MP3s and basically got rid of all of them for Spotify, I can cite a number of reasons why I switched: 1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about) 2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass d…

I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ? EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.

Yes. I have done this with Spotify on many car trips :)

clarifying edit: This is for the paid version of Spotify. I've never used the free version but I believe that it plays ads in between songs.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#267

Post by Doxterpepper »

srean wrote: post #265
lenocinor wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who used to have a lot of CDs and MP3s and basically got rid of all of them for Spotify, I can cite a number of reasons why I switched: 1. Convenience (I never download or upload anything, and my playlists work and are automatically updated on the devices I care about) 2. Breadth of music (it doesn't have everything I want but it has a surprising amount of breadth in things I'd never care enough to amass d…

I have never used Spotify, so a genuine question: would Spotify play the Dark Side of the Moon from start to finish ? EDIT: Thanks for the answers folks, and yes, playing it out of order, or with interruptions would ruin its sonic beauty.

If you have Spotify premium then yes. I've had premium for some time now so I don't know if it's changed but without premium shuffle is always toggled. So without premium you could listen to dark side of the moon, but it'd be out of order.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#268

Post by chipotle_coyote »

twostoned wrote: post #217
amelius wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.

Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the copyright, file sharing, music piracy arguments and debates from the 90s (Metallica, Napster! Hah) and 00s. But when I talk about this stuff now with people in their early 20s there seems to be less awareness. DRM & 'Stream everything' are the way it is, as if…

In a science fiction novel I wrote, the main character has trouble understanding the concept of data that has a physical location; to her, it's something that's just there. While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable.

It does require some mind-shifts on all sides, including those of content creators/providers, though. I don't know that I need to "own" any of my media in an everything-available-all-the-time world, but that requires, well, everything to be available all the time. If content availability comes and goes like the tide based on contracts and deals that I'm not a party to, it makes me a lot more skeptical of the implicit everything-everywhere promise.

Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?

#270

Post by paulie_a »

amelius wrote: post #209
dorian-graph wrote: post #202

Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.

The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.

I just use Usenet. I tend to purchase media, or use a streaming service but I no longer pay attention to copyright. I have legal and non legal options. Whatever is easiest is all I care about. Drm/copyright has tilted so far I simply don't care anymore.
Post reply on HN