I keep wanting to do this for old sites, make like a personal mini IA. Besides just using wget or curl, any tips for pulling down useable complete websites from IA?
Would you then say that in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most people running Linux aren't serving 700 million customers or operating military killbots with it after all.
> in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone?
Most of the qualities that come with open source (which also come with llama 3), matter a lot.
But no, it is not a binary, yes or no thing, where something is either open source and useful or not.
Instead, there is a very wide spectrum is licensing agreements. And even if something does not fit the very specific and exact definition of open source, it can still be "almost" there and therefore be basically as useful.
I am objecting to the idea that any slight deviation from the highly specific definition of open source means that it no longer "counts".
Even though, If something is 99.9% the same as open source, then you get 99.9% of the benefits, and it is dishonest to say that it is significantly different than open source.
If I build a train, put it into service, and say to the passengers “this has 99.9% of the required parts from the design”, would you ride on that train? Would you consider that train 99.9% as good at being a train? Or is it all-or-nothing?
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point about there still being value in mostly-open software, but I want to challenge your notion that you still get most of the benefit. I think it being less than 100% open does significantly decay the value, since now you will always feel uneasy adopting these models, especially into an older existing company.
You can imagine a big legacy bank having no problem adopting MIT code in their tech. But something with an esoteric license? Even if it’s probably fine to use? It’s a giant barrier to their adoption, due to the risk to their business.
That’s also not to say I’m taking it for granted. I’m incredibly thankful that this exists, and that I can download it and use it personally without worry. And the huge advancement that we’re getting, and the public is able to benefit from. But it’s still not the same as true 100% open licensing.
> If I build a train, put it into service, and say to the passengers “this has 99.9% of the required parts from the design”, would you ride on that train?
Well if the missing piece is a cup holder on the train, yes absolutely! It would absolutely be as good as the binary "contains a cup holder" train design.
So the point stands. For almost everyone, these almost open source licenses are good enough for their usecase and the limitations apply to almost noone.
And you have chosen a wonderful example that exactly proves my point. In your example, the incorrect people are claiming that "99.9%" of a train is dangerous to ride in, while ignoring the fact that the missing .1% is the cup holders.
> You can imagine a big legacy bank
Fortunately, most people aren't running a big legacy bank. So the point stands, once again.
> It’s a giant barrier to their adoption
Only if you are at a big legacy bank, in your example, or similar. If you aren't in that very small percentage of the market, you are fine.
I'm very interested in something like archive box but:
* Can also download Internet Archive snapshots
* Suitable for (read only) exposure to the open Internet, or saves sites as static content that you could host easily by slapping it into an Nginx or Apache directory.
Somehow both things are true, and I don't know how we disentangle them.
YouTube the site where people can dump videos is incredibly useful because there are visual tutorials for everything.
YouTube the site where people form parasocial relationships with flat-earth-fluencers and break their brains is the worst invention since leaded gasoline.
Some things cannot be disentangled. This is one of the biggest platforms in the Internet and you have to deal with the varying expectations of an incredibly diverse audience. Having to shape the policies on such platform in order to satisfy your users must be a very hard job as you never actually reach a "goal". All you can do is optimize the site for what you think the majority of users want from it and your own ethics. But tomorrow you might need to change direction entirely.
I am curious to see how this plays out for YouTube and all the social media platforms out there. I am certainly rooting for YouTube to be able to successfully walk that line as it is by far the most valuable platform to me personally.
I still don't get how so many 123movies clones can keep popping up with seemingly every TV show and movie there, with probably nearly all users using ad-blockers and very few possible advertisers in the first place. They get taken down regularly then presumably deal with the effort of moving elsewhere.
They don't seem to be p2p either, they have some server. Maybe it's stolen infra.
A lot of the pirate streaming services I see are either using torrents on the backend or they're abusing normal video hosting services and just replacing links that get taken down so that when the sites/apps themselves die they only need a new domain/app to point at the the same files on those same services instead of moving TBs of files around
They might pay creators a fraction of what they make on ads or other extras (digital bullshit like emotes), but none of that is in exchange for the content. The content is still being developed, written, produced, performed, and provided to the platforms entirely for free.
Unless there's some kind option where youtube or twitch signs a contract with select creators and then hands them huge sums of cash upfront for the costs of future content production, or to license the creator's existing content to distribute via youtube/twitch then the cost of getting that content is still just as free for youtube/twitch as it is for the pirate streamers that upload bluray rips.
Ad revenue is money gained from advertisers at the expense of viewers, it's entirely separate from the cost of the content being viewed.
> Unless there's some kind option where youtube or twitch signs a contract with select creators and then hands them huge sums of cash upfront for the costs of future content production, or to license the creator's existing content to distribute via youtube/twitch
That’s exactly how it works. And the fractions (on Twitch) are between 50% to 70%.
>Unless there's some kind option where youtube or twitch signs a contract with select creators and then hands them huge sums of cash upfront for the costs of future content production
For the record this exact thing does exist for bigger streamers. See Ludwig for example, he switched to YouTube exclusively because it was a better deal than his twitch offer.
I've seen paid exclusivity deals from youtube before (https://www.gamesindustry.biz/youtube-reportedly-paid-usd160...) and while I'm surprised they paid a streamer like Ludwig to defect I'm pretty sure those kinds of deals don't exist for 99% of the content that gets uploaded to the platform.
> The content is still being developed, written, produced, performed, and provided to the platforms entirely for free.
No, it is developed because the creator expects the platform to pay them for the views. Which the platforms does. Most big channels wouldn't exist without that money.
