I was thinking the same thing... paid access for high volume users or scrapers could actually help fund the non-profit. Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it. If news and other sites were getting paid, maybe they could go back to optimizing for good content instead of clicks.
replyThey already provide this service at https://archive-it.org/archive-it/ though for some reason they don't seem to publicize it. Some info at https://help.archive.org/help/archive-it-information/ as well.
replyI think that would get into murky water really quickly with the rights holders (/content creators) not exactly being thrilled the Wayback Machine is essentially monetizing their IP behind their back.
replyIt wouldn't be behind their back, like I said, "Maybe let website owners decide which scrapers are allowed to use their content, or allow them to get paid for use of it."
replyInteresting, in all the years I have never noticed that IP has 2 meanings (well probably more...) Yeah, I am an engineer and usually try to avoid the legal BS. Although I hate that AI has made stealing legal if you are big enough.
replyIf the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems
replyNo. What happened to their remote library scheme? They did not make if for profit, but still...
replyI'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years.
replyNo matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay.
replyAh, the old ad hominem attack. How refreshing.
replyBut anyway, no, I wouldn't keep finding reasons. I donate to them every year already. Somebody asked if I would be willing to pay and my answer was "yes, but".
It would need to be improved because certain aspects of it suck right now, not only the error this post is about. They only need go as far as their forums and github repos to see the community feedback.
Is it really an ad hom if he doesn't know the hom?
replyTheir reply is 100% based on the content of your post.
If you make up a person to insult then yeah it's still ad hominem.
replyIf you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions?
replyNot at all. I donate to Internet Archive, but we're talking here about paying for unobstructed access to but one part of their service: Wayback Machine. Two different things.
replyI mean we already paid for the article from the source itself. I guess I'd expect a better "diff" source from them, but if they dont even update the article itself, i guess i wouldn't expect a paid service to have those updates either?
replyah, i think i misunderstood your original post. if you mean the wayback-machine/arkive, then I suspect it'd be hard to justify? You are essentially paying a third-party source to validate that diffs didn't go through on the source material.
replywith llms, at some point it probably becomes easier to use your paid api connection to manage your own cached version yourself?
I wonder if there would be concern on their part about appearing to be a company that was basically offering paywall circumvention as a product.
replyIt wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source.
reply