Yes, of course. Likewise, archiving is an exception/limitation to copyright law where you are allowed to store and even redistribute content, but that falls apart quickly when you become a competitor to the original publisher.
What I’m saying is that by using the Wayback Machine as a paywall-bypassing mirror, all that is accomplished is to shift the liability onto them. I like the Internet Archive, so I don’t think that’s the solution. (And frankly, I’m not really comfortable with helping people bypass the NYT’s paywall either, in this day and age of truth decay.)
I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered a factual news story that was reported on only by paywalled sources. Perhaps the Business Insider version of this story, which I don’t think is paywalled, or its licensed Yahoo News mirror, could have been used instead, possibly with a link to the NYT version in the comments?
Lemmy is a link-aggregation site, but tiny potatoes compared to bigger link-aggregators like Reddit and Twitter, and this page of bad-cop news is barely a tater tot even on Lemmy. Nobody’s sent a cease-and-desist letter to Reddit, let alone Lemmy, and I’ve been doing this for decades and never been blocked by the archival sites.
Your worries are about hypotheticals that haven’t even been threatened. I’m goiing to worry about bad cops instead.
??? Wow, hostile. You’re the one who brought up fear of copyright violation when I suggested including the content in the post itself, so IDK why suddenly you’re saying “Nobody’s sent a cease-and-desist letter to Reddit, let alone Lemmy”.
IDGAF about Lemmy, relatively speaking.
You’re abusing the Internet Archive, which is already under siege from publishers, and gets more important with every website that goes down or bad cop that tries to erase the past, is all.
I like your suggestion of seeking similar coverage from a different source, instead of the archive sites. That would be preferable, but would take serious time. Consider yourself invited to pitch in!
Non-hostility verified by adding a smiley-face. :)
Oh no. So maybe dont post them at all?
Those sites can go fuck themselves. Theres plenty of ads but i have to subscribe too. To each and every one of them. Soon im gonna buy more “news” subscriptions then beer in a month.
There’s the crux — unless you’re a library, a corporation, or a rich bastard, nobody can afford to buy a subscription to every publication on the web, or even every publication they read. I sure can’t.
A ‘micropayment’ system would be an answer and provide support for independent media. You purchase a subscription to many or most news sites, and those sites are paid incrementally based on what sites you visit and articles you read.
Newspapers hate that idea, though. They don’t want a few dollars from each of many people; they want bigger dollars from smaller audiences, I guess.
Brief excerpts are considered “fair use” and permissible, but republishing entire articles or even extended excerpts would be a copyright violation.
Yes, of course. Likewise, archiving is an exception/limitation to copyright law where you are allowed to store and even redistribute content, but that falls apart quickly when you become a competitor to the original publisher.
What I’m saying is that by using the Wayback Machine as a paywall-bypassing mirror, all that is accomplished is to shift the liability onto them. I like the Internet Archive, so I don’t think that’s the solution. (And frankly, I’m not really comfortable with helping people bypass the NYT’s paywall either, in this day and age of truth decay.)
I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered a factual news story that was reported on only by paywalled sources. Perhaps the Business Insider version of this story, which I don’t think is paywalled, or its licensed Yahoo News mirror, could have been used instead, possibly with a link to the NYT version in the comments?
Lemmy is a link-aggregation site, but tiny potatoes compared to bigger link-aggregators like Reddit and Twitter, and this page of bad-cop news is barely a tater tot even on Lemmy. Nobody’s sent a cease-and-desist letter to Reddit, let alone Lemmy, and I’ve been doing this for decades and never been blocked by the archival sites.
Your worries are about hypotheticals that haven’t even been threatened. I’m goiing to worry about bad cops instead.
??? Wow, hostile. You’re the one who brought up fear of copyright violation when I suggested including the content in the post itself, so IDK why suddenly you’re saying “Nobody’s sent a cease-and-desist letter to Reddit, let alone Lemmy”.
IDGAF about Lemmy, relatively speaking.
You’re abusing the Internet Archive, which is already under siege from publishers, and gets more important with every website that goes down or bad cop that tries to erase the past, is all.
I like your suggestion of seeking similar coverage from a different source, instead of the archive sites. That would be preferable, but would take serious time. Consider yourself invited to pitch in!
Non-hostility verified by adding a smiley-face. :)
Oh no. So maybe dont post them at all? Those sites can go fuck themselves. Theres plenty of ads but i have to subscribe too. To each and every one of them. Soon im gonna buy more “news” subscriptions then beer in a month.
There’s the crux — unless you’re a library, a corporation, or a rich bastard, nobody can afford to buy a subscription to every publication on the web, or even every publication they read. I sure can’t.
A ‘micropayment’ system would be an answer and provide support for independent media. You purchase a subscription to many or most news sites, and those sites are paid incrementally based on what sites you visit and articles you read.
Newspapers hate that idea, though. They don’t want a few dollars from each of many people; they want bigger dollars from smaller audiences, I guess.