|
| ▲ | bonestamp2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | DaSHacka 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I 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. | | |
| ▲ | g-b-r 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the money was guaranteed to only be used to pay the costs, there probably wouldn't be any problems |
|
|
|
| ▲ | msephton 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd pay for it, but only if they implemented the changes the community of users have been requesting for years. |
| |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No matter what they did, you'd have a new excuse for why you won't pay. | | |
| ▲ | msephton 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, the old ad hominem attack. How refreshing. But 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. | | |
| ▲ | jakderrida 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it really an ad hom if he doesn't know the hom? Their reply is 100% based on the content of your post. | | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you're donating, then you are evidently willing to pay without any "buts". So aren't you arguing against your own actions? | | |
| ▲ | msephton 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bee_rider 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | cloakley 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | It wouldnt be a paywall, more like an option for companies to not pay scrappers. At least the payment deviates to the source. |
|
