Maybe they should allow the Internet Archive access to their article after a week or 2.

But I think this will hurt them as time goes on more then help. IIRC, one news org blocked free access and their revenue fell. I think that was in Australia.

But seems they are using AI as the reason. So allowing after a week will not avoid AI access.

But, what happens of an AI Company subscribes to the news site using a person's name (or a fake name) ? They will still get the article and avoid hassles.

▲

celsoazevedo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It may be easier to convince them if the Internet Archive doesn't allow access for <period of time>. Not good for the average user now, but at least it would be archived for the future. Better than having no archive at all.

	▲	fragmede an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah IA needs to get their heads out of their asses and just do that. It's an archive, but if it's available at the same time as it's relevant, then it's being used as alternate access.

▲

ranger_danger 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That sounds like a good idea to me.

One of the tests for Fair Use in the US, as I understand it, would be whether the archived work "competes" with the original.

If people start going to IA instead to read the news, the newspaper might have a claim. But if they're doing it to get around paywalls, or purely for archival/historical/research purposes, that may be allowed.

But the reality is such decisions are subjective and will be up to whatever judge happens to get such a case in front of them if this is challenged.

	▲	PaulHoule an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In general judges seem to understand that the copyright holder has some interest in these situations but not seem to understand that the rest of the community has some rights too.