lioeters 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Stop using archive.today, they've been found to inject malicious code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47092006

	▲	kristianp 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Do you mean this? https://gyrovague.com/2026/02/01/archive-today-is-directing-... the malicious code wasn't injected, it was served with their captcha. They shouldn't have used users to ddos someone's blog, but this seems like a one off attack against a perceived threat to the service's privacy. I don't condone that ddos attack, but it's been a very useful service over the years.
	▲	c420 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Here's a more functional alternative: https://pressreleased.alwaysdata.net/

▲

boplicity 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please understand that circumventing copyright makes it more difficult for journalists to make a living.

▲

unyttigfjelltol 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Is there a micropayment option or something? I wish I could friction-free, buy access to these sites al al carte without dealing with them directly or setting up a recurring subscription directly with them.

	▲	chihuahua 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Best we can do is a monthly subscription, with every dark pattern known to man to prevent cancellation.

▲

ericmay 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Copyright isn't being circumvented - the content of the website is made available for the public and the website just grabs what is publicly available.

▲

boplicity 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Redistributing copyrighted content is the literal definition of copyright infringement. Using it for your own purposes, without distribution, is another story.

This link was posted with intent to facilitate the distribution of copyrighted material. The person who posted it justified posting the link by saying some people don't have a subscription.

I understand that some people think copyright shouldn't exist, but it clearly is being circumvented here.

	▲	mrkstu an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In the context of use on hacker news, I think the fair use exemption for public comment is a sufficient justification, which is likely why they allow its use.
	▲	amelius 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'll start caring about copyright when the government starts caring about my personal information that is being traded around the internet (with the help of journalism). Information is money, and we're all being stolen from.

▲

blell 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They should learn to code.

▲

toomuchtodo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm a subscriber, but not everyone is.

▲

freitasm 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Subscribers can share the link as a gift, so readers can see the original, not the proxied version.

	▲	toomuchtodo 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I cannot trust that a gift link does not tie to my IRL identity I subscribe under. I can trust that archive links do not. The NY Times gets my money either way. It's an opsec concern. Trust no one. If someone wants to post gift links in every thread, just let me know who to pay to enable that, I am happy to.

▲

boplicity 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And by making it easy for them to circumvent copyright, they have even less incentive to support the journalists who did the reporting.

▲

afavour 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know why this is downvoted, it's the truth. NYT actually has a "gift article" functionality that makes it easy to share articles with non-subscribers.

▲

this-is-why 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You are 100% correct. I find the attitude that everything should be free a bit tedious. But then again, why does the truth have to be paywalled while lies are free. I believe it is a detriment to society that we cannot publicly find reporting. Yes I know now come the cynics who will argue bias. But that’s just a failure of reading comprehension, not fair reporting doctrine.

So yes. I’m with you 100%.