Eligible libraries, archives, and museums have a few exemptions to the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clauses that aren’t available to ordinary citizens, but these aren’t unique to the Internet Archive. For example:

Literary works, excluding computer programs and compilations that were compiled specifically for text and data mining purposes, distributed electronically where:

(A) The circumvention is undertaken by a researcher affiliated with a nonprofit institution of higher education, or by a student or information technology staff member of the institution at the direction of such researcher, solely to deploy text and data mining techniques on a corpus of literary works for the purpose of scholarly research and teaching;

(B) The copy of each literary work is lawfully acquired and owned by the institution, or licensed to the institution without a time limitation on access;

© The person undertaking the circumvention views the contents of the literary works in the corpus solely for the purpose of verification of the research findings; and

(D) The institution uses effective security measures to prevent further dissemination or downloading of literary works in the corpus, and to limit access to only the persons identified in paragraph (b)(5)(i)(A) of this section or to researchers or to researchers affiliated with other institutions of higher education solely for purposes of collaboration or replication of the research.

This exemption doesn’t allow them to publish the content, though, nor would it provide them immunity to takedown requests, if it did.

These exemptions change every three years and previously granted exemptions have to be renewed. The next cycle begins in October and they started accepting comments on renewals + proposals for expanded or new exemptions in April, so that’s why we’re hearing about companies lobbying against them now.

Dunno, I think regardless of the method used by the extension, I think any extension called “Bypass Paywalls” that does what it says on the tin can pretty unambiguously be said to be designed to circumvent “technological protection measures”.

“Bypass” and “Circumvent” are nearly synonymous in some uses - they both mean “avoid” - but that’s not really the point.

From a legal perspective, it’s pretty clear no circumvention of technological protection measures is taking place*. Yes, bypassing or circumventing a paywall to get to the content on the site itself would be illegal, were that content effectively protected by a technological measure. But they’re not doing that. Rather, a circumvention of the entire site is occurring, which is completely legal (an obvious exception would be if they were hosting infringing content themselves or something along those lines, but we’re talking about the Internet Archive here).

* - to be clear, I’m referring to what was detailed in the request, not the part that was redacted. That part may qualify as a circumvention.

In this case, it circumvents the need to login entirely and obviously it circumvents the paywall.

Following the same logic, Steam could claim that a browser extension showing where you can get the same game for cheaper or free circumvents their technological protection measure. It doesn’t. It circumvents the entire storefront, which is not illegal.

That’s the same thing that’s happening here - linking to the same work that’s legally hosted elsewhere.

Though as you said, these guys should probably be sending DMCAs to the Internet Archive

Yes - if they don’t want their content available, that’s what they should do. They might not want to do that, because they appreciate the Internet Archive’s mission (I wonder if it’s possible to ask that content be taken down until X date, or for content to be made inaccessible but for it to still be archived?) or they might be taking a multi pronged approach.

Maybe archive.today is the problem? Maybe they don’t honor DMCA requests.

Good point. If so, and if their site isn’t legally compliant in the same ways, then the extension becomes a lot less legally defensible if it’s linking there. That’s still not because it’s circumventing a technological protection, though - it’s because of precedent that “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses,” (Source), where “device” includes software. Following that precedent, plaintiffs could claim that the extension promoted its use to infringe copyright based off the extension’s name and that it had knowledge of third-party action because it linked directly to sites known to infringe copyright.

The Digital Media Law Project points out that there are two ways sharing links can violate the DMCA:

• Trafficking in anti-circumvention tools - which is obviously not what’s going on here
• Contributory copyright infringement - which is basically doing something described by the precedent I shared above.

I’m not sure how the extension searches web archives. It if uses Google, for example, then it would make sense to serve Google ae DMCA takedown notice (“stop serving results to the known infringing archive.piracy domain”), but if the extension directly searches the infringing web archive, then the extension developers would need to know that the archive is infringing. Serving them a DMCA takedown (“stop searching the known infringing archive.piracy domain”) would give them notice, and if they ignored it, it would then be appropriate to send the takedown directly to their host (Github, the browser extension stores, etc) citing that they had been informed of the infringement of a site they linked to and were de facto committing contributory infringement themselves.

Given that they didn’t do that, I can conclude one of the following:

1. The lawyers are incompetent.
2. The lawyers are competent and recognize that engaging in bad faith like this produces faster results; if this is contested they’ll follow up with something else, possibly even the very actions I described.
3. The archives that are searched by the extension aren’t infringing and this was the best option the lawyers could come up with.

How is the accused project designed to circumvent your technological protection measures?

The identified Bypass Paywalls technology circumvents NM/A’s members’ paywalls in one of two ways. [private]

For hard paywalls, it is our understanding that the identified Bypass Paywalls technology automatically scans web archives for a crawled version of the protected content and displays that content.

If the web archives have the content, then a user could just search them manually. The extension isn’t logging users in and bypassing your login process; it’s just running a web search for them.

I haven’t switched to Windows 11, but I also haven’t been using Windows 10, either. I’ve seen plenty of people say that Windows 11 is fine, but you should probably check with other students at your school who use the same software you do. Make sure your machine can be upgraded to 11, at least, since support for 10 is ending soon and that could result in software or services that you need being unavailable as well.

I use --format-sort +res:1080, which, if my understanding of the documentation is correct, will make it prefer 1080p, the smallest video larger than 1080p if 1080p isn’t available, or the largest video if nothing 1080p or larger is available.

res is the smallest dimension of the video (so for a 1080x1920 portrait video, it would be 1080).

Default sort is descending order. The + makes it sort in ascending order instead.

Does your script handle bi-directional sync or one-way only?

What makes sourcehut better?

From a self-hosting perspective, it looks like much more of a pain to get it set up and to keep it updated. There aren’t even official Docker images or builds. (There’s this and the forks of it, but it’s unofficial and explicitly says it’s not recommended for prod use.)

Yes, but only in very limited circumstances. If you:

1. fork a private repo with commit A into another private repo
2. add commit B in your fork
3. someone makes the original repo public
4. You add commit C to the still private fork

then commits A and B are publicly visible, but commit C is not.

Per the linked Github docs:

If a public repository is made private, its public forks are split off into a new network.

Modifying the above situation to start with a public repo:

1. fork a public repository that has commit A
2. make commit B in your fork
3. You delete your fork

Commit B remains visible.

A version of this where step 3 is to take the fork private isn’t feasible because you can’t take a fork private - you have to duplicate the repo. And duplicated repos aren’t part of the same repository network in the way that forks are, so the same situation wouldn’t apply.

Misleading title.

The title literally spells out the concern, which is that code that is in a private or deleted repository is, in some circumstances, visible publicly.

What title would you propose?

If my thing was public in the past, and I took it private, the old public code is still public.

The “Accessing Private Repo Data” section covers a situation where code that has always been private becomes publicly visible.

Thanks for that! I recommend anyone who wants to minimize risk to follow their instructions for self-hosting:

Is the source code available and can I run my own copy locally?

Yes! The source code is available on Github. Its a simple static HTML application and you can clone and run it by opening the index.html file in your browser. When run locally it should work when your computer is completely offline. The latest commits in the git repository are signed with my public code signing key.

Generally people don’t memorize private keys, but this is applicable when generating pass phrases to protect private keys that are stored locally.

Leaving this here in case anyone wants to use this method: https://www.eff.org/dice

It sounds like they want a representative sample, which isn’t something I’d be confident in my ability to help them with directly, so I’d advise them to first scan for a person who’s very experienced in statistical sampling and to then work with that person to determine a strategy that will meet their goals.

If they weren’t on board with that plan, then I’d see if they were willing to share their target sample size. If I didn’t have an option for the count I would assume they would be contacting 1% of the population (80 million people). I’d also let them know that being representative and selecting for traits that will make encounters go smoothly are conflicting goals, so I’m prioritizing for representation and they can figure out the “please don’t pull a shotgun out, human!” trait on their own. Depending on all that, I’d recommend an approach that accounted for as much of the following as possible.

• gender (male, female, non-binary)
• race
• culture and sub-culture (so this would include everything from religion to music to hobbies)
• profession
• age, broken down into micro-generations
• mix of neurotypical and neurodivergent
• different varieties of neurodivergence
• range of intelligences

Doesn’t their API also require you to allow-list IPs, making it basically useless for dynamic DNS?

From https://www.namecheap.com/support/api/intro/ under “Whitelisting IP.”

Pretty sure you’re right - there’s the concern of the resources / energy needed for recycling but also, recycling decreases the need for new materials enough to offset that.

That said, AFAIK paper and cardboard are the only thing that can be both composted and recycled, so the advice of the person you replied to is still generally good.

This is the guidance I’ve seen on the topic:

Recycle:

• clean, dry paper
• clean, dry cardboard

But compost:

• soiled and wet paper/cardboard
• pizza boxes and other similar things
• paper towels
• paper/cardboard egg cartons

Don’t compost (throw away if unsuitable to recycle):

• glossy paper
• paper with plastic attached
• anything (e.g., paper towels) with cleaning chemicals or other substances unsuitable for composting on it

Ah, like using Edge to download Firefox!

Should I apologize for hurting your feelings by suggesting that Windows is bad?

Is there a right way to use Windows?

Every single App Store out there uses “free” to refer to propriety software today, because it’s free.

“Free” as an adjective isn’t the issue. The issue is the phrase “free software” being used to refer to things other than free software. And afaict, no app store uses the term ”free software” to refer to non-free software.

The iOS App Store refers to “Free Apps.”

Google Play doesn’t call it “Free Software,” either; they just use it as a category / filter, e.g., “Top Free.”

There’s a reason many are … starting to refer to such software as “libre”, not “free”

Your conclusion is incorrect - this is because when used outside of the phrase “free software,” the word is ambiguous. “Software that is free” could mean gratis, libre, or both.

There is no path to any future where someone will be wrong to use the word “free” to describe software that doesn’t cost anything.

Setting aside that doing so is already misleading, you clearly lack imagination if you cannot think of any feasible way for that to happen.

For example, consider a future where use of the phrase when advertising your product could result in legal issues. That isn’t too far-fetched.

They don’t become invalidated. They’re not capable of becoming invalidated.

They certainly can. A given meaning of a word is invalidated if it is no longer acceptable to use it in a given context for that meaning. In a medical context, for example, words become obsolete and unacceptable to use.

Likewise, it isn’t valid to say that your Aunt Edna is “hysterical” because she has epilepsy.

But more importantly, that’s all beside the point. Words don’t just have meaning in isolation - context matters. Phrases can have meanings that are different than just the sum of their parts, and saying a phrase but meaning something different won’t communicate what you meant. If you say something that doesn’t communicate what you meant, then obviously, what you said is incorrect.

“Free software” has an established meaning (try Googling it or looking it up on Wikipedia), and if you use it to mean something different, people will likely misunderstand you and/or correct you. They’re not wrong in this situation - you are.

That, or you’re trying to live life like a character from Airplane!:

This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.

A hospital? What is it?

It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.

Thought you were talking about Linux at first.

I use both Windows, Linux, and macOS - my opinion is that Windows is the least user-friendly of the bunch.