965
The Wayback Machine is back as a read-only service after cyberattacks (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

edit: adjusted title slightly

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Strong disagree. If I make a website people like, and Google links to it, should Google have to pay me? If so, Google basically can't exist. The record keeping of tracking every single little website that they owe money to or have to negotiate deals with would be untenable. And what happens if a large tech journal like CNET or ZDNet Links to the website of a company they are writing an article about? Do they have to pay for that? Is the payment assumed by publicity? Is it different if they link to a deep page versus the front page?

What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

I will absolutely give you that what Google is doing is shitty. If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load. But I think that 'should' falls in line with being a good internet citizen treating a non-profit fairly, not part of any actual requirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

    It might if I was suggesting any kind of legislative solution here. I'm not. I'm merely saying that IA should be more selective about how it can be accessed.

    For example, if a journalist is doing a piece about how websites secretly change content, I think it's entirely reasonable for them to pay for accessing IA for the purposes of that article, because it's directly related to a commercial endeavor. However, I don't expect random internet users to pay for access to that same information, because it's not related to a commercial endeavor.

    In general, you should pay for content that you're going to use commercially.

    If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load.

    And that's precisely what I'm saying. I'm also taking it a step further and suggesting that IA should be on top of it so companies like Google (who are profiting from their service) pay, while regular internet users don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In general, you should pay for content that you're going to use commercially

    Sure, but merely linking to a page isn't reusing the content. If said content was being embedded, rehashed or otherwise shown then a compensation would be fair. But merely linking to a page should absolutely be free. That's a massively important cornerstone of the internet that shouldn't be compromised on.

    Linking directs traffic which can be monetized by the website itself, it shouldn't require additional fees on top.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    There's a difference between primary content like a website, and secondary content like a cache of a page. I think services doing the latter should be a bit more aggressive about charging fees for commercial entities linking to them, since they're providing a service separate from the primary source.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent