munchinator

Sure. It's just curious to me that news article have a pirated knowledge link as the de facto top comment, but link submissions to, for example, books for sale on Amazon don't have a link to Anna's Archive or equivalent.

To make it an apples to apples comparison, look at submissions where the link submitted is the retail link to the IP. For example, look at all the book link submissions on AMZN...

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=amazon.com

None of these have the Pirate Bay or Library Genesis or Anna's Archive or the equivalent as the top comment.

Compare that to...

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nytimes.com

And almost all of these have an archived version as the top comment.

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim.

And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or any other form of IP, it is in fact very much _not_ the norm for the top-rated comment to be a Pirate Bay link.

I think that's something worth reflecting on, about why we feel it's OK to pirate news articles, but not other IP.

And the reason I bring this up, is that it seems like Open AI has the same attitude: scraping news articles is OK, or at worst a gray area, but what if they were also scraping, for example, Netflix content to use as part of their training set?

> What would it serve to bankrupt the IA, they can't pay anyway?

It would serve the termination of the infringement.

My point is that the Times doesn't particular seem to care about infringement per se, they care about getting their slice of the cut from that infringement.

It's like if a video game company or a movie company only attempted to sue illegal downloaders who had a certain net worth.

Why hasn't the Times also sued the Internet Archive? They've tried to block both the Internet Archive [1] and Open AI [2] from archiving their site, but why have they only sued OAI and not IA? The fact that they haven't sued IA which has comparatively little money would seem to indicate that this is not about fair use per se, but simply about profit-seeking and the NYT is selecting targets with deep pockets like OAI/MS.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2023/09/17/new-york-times-website-i...

[2] https://fortune.com/2023/08/25/major-media-organizations-are...

Thank you! And will SBF remain in jail while awaiting the sentencing?

I'm not too familiar with the American system, could someone please explain how after the verdict does the sentencing work? The judge is the one who will now decide the sentence? And how long does that decision take, so when will we know what the consequences of the guilty verdict actually are? (For example, how many years in prison, or not).

I'm not seeing that mentioned in this blogpost, was it mentioned in one of the other ones?

It wasn't clear to me from reading the blogpost that persistence _wasn't_ achieved?

In terms of prevention strategies, it seems that given that the initial vector was a malicious iMessage attachment, Lockdown Mode would have prevented this attack? (As it disables iMessage attachments).

Fascinating reading.

Would love to see a subsequent post in this series about attribution. Are there any code or other TTP similarities to APTs from known actors?

What I do is click the 'Report' button in the corner of that notification and then file a report saying that I received this pop-up, but that I do not have an adblocker.

I like to think that if enough of us file reports, Youtube will think their system is falsely detecting adblockers.