71–80 of 376 posts
Do you know Nanowar? They began there.
Also, as commercal music has been deliberately dumbed down for the masses (in paper, not by cheap talking), discovering Jamendo and Magnatune in late 00's has been like crossing a parallel universe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they don’t delete the archived content. When the domain’s robots.txt file bans spidering, then the Wayback Machine _hides_ the content archived at that domain. It is still stored and maintained, but it isn’t distributed via the website. The content will be unhidden if the robots.txt file stops banning spiders, or if an appropriate request is made.
In some cases they do appear to delete, on request. edit: "Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an explanation as possible as to what you are requesting be removed for us to better understand your reason for making the request.", https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support archival of films, books, and music, but those items need to be write-only until copyright expires. The purpose of the Internet Archive is to achieve a wide-reaching, comprehensive archival, not provide easy and free read access to commercial works. Website caches can be handled differently, but bulk collection of commercial works can't have this same public access treatment. It's crazy to think this wouldn…
I'd agree with you if you live in a country where you can walk into your local library and read these for "free." For people who live where there may not even be a library, your argument makes no sense except to make the publishers richer. They typically price some of these books at "library prices" so normal people won't be able to afford them, but libraries will.
What makes you feel entitled to the content of the publisher before the copyright expires? Do you feel that you deserve access to everything because you've deemed the concept of ownership around book publishing immoral?
You can't just take a digital copy of a physical book and give it to everyone worldwide. That isn't your choice or decision to make nor is it ethical to ascribe malice to simply retaining distribution rights to content they own.
"Make publishers richer", it's actually just honoring the concept of ownership...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they don’t delete the archived content. When the domain’s robots.txt file bans spidering, then the Wayback Machine _hides_ the content archived at that domain. It is still stored and maintained, but it isn’t distributed via the website. The content will be unhidden if the robots.txt file stops banning spiders, or if an appropriate request is made.
They do delete entire domains from the archive upon request & proof of ownership.
Even if it's not publicly available...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I support archival of films, books, and music, but those items need to be write-only until copyright expires. The purpose of the Internet Archive is to achieve a wide-reaching, comprehensive archival, not provide easy and free read access to commercial works. Website caches can be handled differently, but bulk collection of commercial works can't have this same public access treatment. It's crazy to think this wouldn…
> I support archival of films, books, and music, but those items need to be write-only until copyright expires. Which means no one alive today would ever be able to see them out of copyright. It also requires an unfounded belief that major copyright owning companies won't extend copyright lengths beyond current lengths which are effectively "forever".
> "It's dispiriting to see that even after being made aware of the breach weeks ago, IA has still not done the due diligence of rotating many of the API keys that were exposed in their gitlab secrets," reads an email from the threat actor. This is quite embarrassing. One of the first things you do when breached at this level is to rotate your keys. I seriously hope that they make some systemic changes, it seems that…
>"It's dispiriting to see that even after being made aware of the breach weeks ago..." These people are not dispirited whatsoever, if anything they are half-cocked that these script kiddies found an easy target.
We need archives built on decentralized storage. Don't get me wrong, I really like and support the work Internet Archive is doing, but preserving history is too important to entrust it solely to singular entities, which means singular points of failure.
Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe https://www.lockss.org/ This is a brilliant system relying on a randomised consensus protocol. I wanted to do my info sec dissertation on it, but its security model is extremely well thought out. There wasn't anything I felt I could add to it.
For a large-scale archival project, it might not be ideal. Maybe something based on erasure coding would be better. Do you know how LOCKSS compares?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some cases they do appear to delete, on request. edit: "Other types of removal requests may also be sent to info@archive.org. Please provide as clear an explanation as possible as to what you are requesting be removed for us to better understand your reason for making the request.", https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...
Nope. Nothing is deleted, just hidden.
Restating my love for Internet Archive and my plea to put a grownup in charge of the thing. Washington Post: The organization has “industry standard” security systems, Kahle said, but he added that, until this year, the group had largely stayed out of the crosshairs of cybercriminals. Kahle said he’d opted not to prioritize additional investments in cybersecurity out of the Internet Archive’s limited budget of around…
In security, industry standard seems to be about the same as military grade: the cheapest possible option that still checks all the boxes for SOC.