Anna's Archive loses .org domain after surprise suspension
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
> This status code is set by your domain's Registry Operator. Your domain is not activated in the DNS.
> If you provided delegation information (name servers), this status may indicate an issue with your domain that needs resolution. If so, you should contact your registrar to request more information. If your domain does not have any issues, but you need it to resolve in the DNS, you must first contact your registrar in order to provide the necessary delegation information.
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/epp-status-codes-2014-...
(A judge in the Netherlands settled the question if there is a genocide going on and since then we've been on Israels naughty list lol)
https://www.whois.com/whois/genocide.live
(btw, that is an excellent website I didn't know about)
They published a blog post outlining their plans.
More importantly, they may sabotage their mission: If Spotify shuts them down, their exiting archives and especially future archives may be effectively lost.
(Edited for clarity)
Perhaps I misunderstood something, but according to my understanding
1. Spotify is registered in Luxembourg and has its operational headquarter in Sweden (Stockholm). Both are EU countries.
2. I guess it won't be Spotify that sues, but the individual music labels (very likely united).
But the real servers are hosted in kazachstan or russia I think. And they do not cooperate so much with EU courts.
So unless the EU installs a great firewall like china, they cannot really shut it down.
I believe the "official" AA servers only host the website + source code. The actual copyrighted content is stored by volunteers who seed the torrents.
Meta can admit to soullessly scraping books they don't own for their for-profit AI datasets [1], and it's not a problem because they're Meta. But if you're an artist? Nope. Sampling in hip hop songs, for example, is in a "complex legal gray area" (translation: "it's illegal but we don't want to admit that out loud") [2].
[1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-bo...
[2] https://urbanspook.com/copyright-laws-2025-impact-on-hip-hop...
I occasionally wonder how many enormous collections of culture like that of Marion Stokes[1] have been lost because their curators made no effort to realize the value of their collection.
The good news is I'd guess the number of (nonreligious/nonproprietary) institutionally managed pointless archives is dwindling.
One may collect/archive now (when the data is, well, "available"), and publish later, when copyright expires and the material will likely be harder to obtain.
If it is torrents only, what relevance does unregistering the domain make?
And there is a site idea!
Annasopponents.news --> Can inform passersby on anything related to Anna's Archive along with activism related material, how to's and the like.
Realistically, it's just a way for someone to say something is being done about this, even if it's not going to actually make a difference.
1. Generate slop music no _human_ will ever listen to
2. Use a botnet to "play" this music en masse
3. Profit
This is a whole arms race, with companies (such as Beatdapp) specializing in detecting fraudulent plays.
Source: I work for a niche music retailer that struggles with the same issues on a smaller scale.
They identify a huge surge in tracks that few listen to after gen AI started.
The analysis is worth reading. The distribution is (Pareto)^3 ~99% of the tracks played are 1% of the catalogue.
First off, it was striking to me how little of the "top 10 000" they published back on Christmas I recognize. I'm not sure what I expected, but 10 000 sounds like a big number, so it seemed likely to me, that if I get a random song from my playlist I could find it there. It turned out I hardly can find an artist I recognize. Ok, I can recall a song from Lady Gaga and even Billie Eilish, I've heard of Bruno Mars (cannot recall any song), but I have no idea what is "Bad Bunny", "Doechii", "Drake". I mean, I think I do have a pretty good idea what these things are (abstractly), and I probably wouldn't want to listen that. And while I knew that all this stuff is very popular, I didn't quite realize how little place in the top-10000 it leaves for the music I (and everyone I know) actually listen to.
I didn't download the metadata they released (it would be hard to process it on my laptop anyway), but now I wonder how much of my 3 TB music collection is in top 100 000, or heck, even top 1M Spotify, or on Spotify at all.
I also am sometimes surprised how little scrobbles some tracks get. I didn't bother to find out what this means, how many people still scrobble to Last.fm or ListenBrainz, but it is just surprising when I see that a track that I didn't consider to be obscure was scrobbled like 50 times this year.
So I'm saying that music worlds seems to be terribly fragmented, even more than I imagined. So the very premise of AA backing-up 97% of Spotify (by the number of plays) may be much lesser achievement at "preserving culture" than it may sound. And of course we are about 8 years too late to backup everything, since by now half of it must be generative NN bullshit. And I'm not even sure it's in those leftover 3% (bots listen to bot-generated music too, right)?
I've heard of 9 of the top 10 and 15 of the top 20 at https://chartmasters.org/most-monthly-listeners-on-spotify/
You might not listen, but surely you have heard of Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Ed Sheeran, Coldplay and of course Christmas Staples of Mariah Carey and Wham?
Edit: Ok, I've finally googled "Coldplay". Yeah, definitely heard "Clocks" somewhere.
[0] https://annas-archive.li/blog/spotify/spotify-top-10k-songs-...
Let's reiterate. I am well aware that more people listen to that Bad Rabbit, Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber than they listen to <random name from my playilist>, it's not really a surprise. There even is a special name for people like that, it's "celebrity". In fact, that's probably how most people who are into music (including myself, I might say) would categorize them, as "celebrities", not as "musicians" (though, mind you, of course they are musicians, as everyone who ever sang a song is, it's just that when I hear the word "musician" I don't necessarily think of Taylor Swift). Hence these people indulge themselves for not knowing who these guys are, explaining it that "they are not into celebrities".
And it's no surprise that a lot of people listen to celebrities. I mean, if Trump would release a song right now, it would become #1 on Spotify in no time (for a very short time, but still). Well, maybe not #1, but close.
But I also suppose there are a lot of people who are into music. Maybe not so many, as there are people who are into celebrities, but it's still a lot. And after seeing that top-10 000 I suddenly find it very plausible, that a lot of tracks these people call "massive hits" may turn out to be "virtually unplayed". And hence not in those "97% of Spotify (by # of plays)" that AA archived. I am not even claiming it, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem to be impossible.
For instance, any DnB fan would say that "everyone knows Noisia and Black Sun Empire". It would be absolutely laughable attempt at "preserving human culture" not to include them. Surely all of their tracks must be at least in top-5M, right? Well, after seeing top 10K I'm not so sure anymore.
Maybe you've never heard of them, but surely you've heard of Prodigy. Not a single track from Prodigy on top-10K. Or Chemical Brothers. Or Burial, or Placebo, or Nighwish, or King Crimson. These are very famous names in respective circles. There are 2 tracks from Massive Attack — both featured in super-famous movies and trending on TikTok right now. For God's sake, there are only 8 tracks from Madonna in top 10K. Versus 26 from Imagine Dragons and 124 from "Bad Bunny", whatever it is. How do you like Madonna for an obscure artist?
So, my point is that there may be a lot of people listening almost exclusively to "virtually unplayed" music. Entire discographies of (niche) cult-artists may turn out to be buried in these 66% of "virtually unplayed" tracks.
I guess I should just get the metadata and check, but I'm pretty sure that would be outside of capabilities of the hardware I have on hand, so I'm not sure how to go about that.
https://annas-archive.li/torrents/spotify
Anyway, I think you should keep in mind 2 things:
1) 10,000 tracks really is not a lot. It sounds like a lot, but isn't. My own - relatively small - collection is nearly double that.
2) 10,000 tracks... out of 256,000,000 that AA archived.
I'd be very interested to see some more analysis done on this, particularly as it relates to, say, Last.fm statistics - but I suspect the missing music is not as significant as you think.
In any case, even if every one of those "niche" artists you list are missing from this collection, I don't think it's fair to say it's a "laughable attempt" - it's certainly better than nothing, even if it's not perfect.
If they were pre-streaming artists I probably would have heard a lot of their catalog because radio played it over and over. Unfortunately you just can’t get away from the Christmas music.
An while back, another site started with a pile of pirated music, and that was allofmp3.com Remember those peeps?
Their business model was to sell music by selling bandwidth. Basically is was all the music you want charged by the megabit download.
Pop titles were $0.10 to $0.25. A whole album at 256mbps was roughly $3 give or take.
What got me really thinking was how great the UX experience was. At the time, few came close.
The end of that site was packaged up with Russia's entry into the WTO.
I seem to remember hearing about huge torrents out there too. The right infohash can point a person to huge archives of various kinds, books, video, academic papers, music, the WikiLeak insurance files, which is password protected, as perhaps all of these are.
I don't like the idea of registrars doing moderation at all.
zionist mccarthyism isn't progressive
I generally give NC the benefit of the doubt (because of their principled stance on Ukraine, which to me means they can be principled elsewhere too), but in this case it's very difficult to explain it away.
In that case, it was the registrar (not the TLD owner) that put the domain under clientHold and clientTransferProhibited, etc (which disables DNS lookups).
The Genocide.live site is now back up (just yesterday) after they raised a fuss on social media, and were able to get the domain unlocked to transfer it to Trustname (out of Estonia) as their new registrar.
(The Namecheap founder/CEO Richard Kirkendall surprisingly came across as surprisingly unaware of how anything to do with domain name registries, TLDs, and DNS works on Twitter in an exchange where he thought the entity running the .live gTLD was the archive's new registrar [1], claimed the domain was unlocked for transfer when it was still on clientHold [2], and a raft of other silly mistakes.)
[0]: https://neosmart.net/blog/namecheap-com-revokes-domain-hosti...
[1]: https://x.com/namecheapceo123/status/2007139737379934559?s=2...
[2]: https://x.com/namecheapceo123/status/2007228146060259365?s=2... yet https://x.com/receipts_lol/status/2007984691476156443?s=20
I suspect this came from a court order. The only time I remember serverHolding things were from court orders or other legal requests(FBI/DHS/etc). Though the latter would often just ask for the nameservers to be changed instead.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42363727
But .org is managed differently from .io, so maybe a more formal legal action was taken.
"If we do not receive a response and the abusive content remains active, the referred domain will be suspended (-ServerHold-) twelve (12) hours after this notification, to limit any potential damage."
Yes, only 12 hours' notice. And this was in response to what looked like an automated scan, with a screenshot of a directory listing showing some files with (accurate) modification times in 2011. This would not have passed more than a quite cursory human review. And there is no chance that anyone was using the files, as they were at an unused path (which happened to be exposed via directory listings).
(How do I know that the files haven't been infected without my knowledge? Because I checked, but also because I know why they were flagged as malicious. The files contain an exploit, and will try to exploit your browser if you open them. But the exploit only works on 2011-era iOS! The iOS version numbers are right there in the filenames! The files are not real malware, but part of a jailbreak, JailbreakMe, that installs software of your choice on your phone… if your phone is an iPhone from 2011. I continue to host the jailbreak on purpose, for the sake of a handful of people that still use these devices. I guess you can call it retrocomputing. This particular subset of files was unused though.)
Those scans are automated but supposed to have human-in-the-loop, though that doesn't really mean much either. Unfortunately, once the process starts, receiving no response means an automatic suspension.
The mechanism used to shut down a website whose videos were fake and that was funded by actual terrorists? I don’t think Anna’s Archive is in the same category, no.
I wonder how wikipedia feels being used as DNS?
EDIT: Apparently this is a well known practice. Some interesting discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40008383
Then pastebin, never ending cat and mouse game.
Alternatively they pressure USA ISPs to block the addresses. That's already regularly done but it probably won't be enough to satisfy the extortion industrial complex which is out for blood.
sed "/Trump/US-Govt/g"
Why do people here always casually single out Trump? He's not an outlier, it's just how US foreign policy has worked for centuries.
A quick look at the last few administrations is all anyone needs to see how this one interprets the powers and duties that come with the office.
One of my favorite phrases coined during the last Trump administration was something like, "not just wrong, but wrong beyond normal parameters." It basically meant exactly what we are discussing here; namely, being an outlier of some sort.
https://sslip.io/ for instance.
Of course many sites can serve as "DNS" - Reddit, Github, X, basically anywhere you can put a URL. So DNS blocking is relatively useless.
What is illegal in one country can be illegal everywhere.
I don't remember Wikipedia removing LGBTIAQ++ articles just because that's illegal in Iran.
If a government thinks Wikipedia is illegal in their country, they can force local ISP providers to block it, but it's not Wikipedia's responsibility [1] to censor itself.
[1] at least should not be
It's not that they should, they often do though.
If you switch to some other languages, you'll find the links.
Can’t imagine they care too much given they themselves also run public dns servers.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/the-pirate-bay-has-a-new-log...
On their way down, the original creators made sure The Pirate Bay would continue to be that gift that keeps on giving.
Very highly recommended!
We should have considered these centralized and corporate driven core infrastructure components as interim measures while more independent alternatives were being developed. We have a few different alternatives right now. Can't we just choose one and switch over? (something not based on blockchains.) Something like GNU Name System, may be?
PS: They will probably block the IP if Server hold/DNS block is not useful anymore. That's a different problem though.
EDIT: Never mind, I forgot how the Tor software works. I still think also having Yggdrasil would be nice, though.
My point is, how many users would have access to something on Yggdrasil? How many could - what skill is required?
(as found on https://library-access.sk/#useful_link_tab)
"Check Wikipedia to evade the court order" just encourages legal action against Wikipedia. Even linking to copyright violations is, under current court precedent, able to bring civil liability upon third parties. It is draconian and our framers would have considered it a clear First Amendment violation, but unfortunately the current jurisprudence says that is the law.
> In 2024, in an article reporting on the project's funding, Business Insider claimed to have identified fiatjaf, and had found two websites previously published by this person to disseminate the work of Olavo de Carvalho, a far-right conspiracy theorist.
That... seems extremely irrelevant. If fiatjaf is contributing something useful and significant to the commons, why does it matter that he used to spread far-right conspiracy theories in the past?
> As a result of its ability to quickly and discreetly create accounts and publish posts to relays, Nostr can propagate spam much more easily if left unchecked. A notable example includes a case where multiple protocol bridges have been used to conduct spam waves on the Bluesky social network (itself connected to a competing protocol, the AT Protocol) by creating posts on Nostr, bridging the post to ActivityPub and bridging it again to Bluesky.
Surely they also had to create a Bluesky account for that? I don't see how Nostr is to blame here. Perhaps Bluesky forgot to use anti-spam measures when bridging things over from other sources? That's kind of on Bluesky, no?
This reads like a smear campaign against Nostr. I don't think I have the necessary Wikipedia karma to get it amended, but gee do I have opinions on this...
However, this isn't one of them.
You can edit it immediately, either with or without creating an account.
It's well known that corporations and governments pay people fulltime to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a whole article detailing the extent of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_o...
Of course, these days the people paid to do this have learned not to do edits from their own corporation or government office's announced IP blocks. But in times passed finding many of this category of edits was as simple as sorting edits on Wikipedia by the originating IP address and looking for which ones came from institutionally announced subnets.
Point being, massive amounts of capital and intelligence resources have been dedicated to censoring social media. There's nanny employees in every single social media company making sure "important" complainers are heard and their desires to silence voices fulfilled. I follow a large number of people on Nostr that have been banned from every other platform. Facebook. Twitter. Bluesky. "Free speech" sites like Gab and ActivityPub servers that advertise "free speech". But Nostr has the same entrance requirements and cryptographic sovereignty that Bitcoin provides. Generate a keypair and you can publish. People that want to find your content can simply subscribe to your public key. This results in a subversion of countless state and corporate capital expenditures. If people use Nostr, they will permanently lose the ability to moderate content in this oppressive manner. They absolutely do not want this to happen.
> Nostr can propagate spam much more easily if left unchecked.
Nowhere have I had a worse problem with spam than Twitter and Facebook. For all the alleged vulnerability of Nostr to spam, it has not currently materialized as an issue.
Note that filtering out actual spam without a centralized moderator is one of the most solved problems on the Internet. If you've ever installed Spamassassin or other well subscribed to Bayesian filters on an email server, you know that you never see spam ever again. In actuality, spam is a much bigger problem when you are dependent on fickle human moderation.
Which is bizarre to me because aren't these the people that would want the ability to disseminate information in the face of fascism?
They are attacking their own side (again.) When will idealists learn that this is not the way?
Redifining fascism as meaning "racism and anti-semitism" (certainly attitudes which by the current definition far predate fascism) has been one of the most clever acts of sleight of hand by the regime, giving it unlimited freedom to enact the most totalitarian form of fascism ever conceived.
Here we go again.
As a 'left-leaning individual' it's funny because if you look up anti-war left leaning outlets and such on Wikipedia, they don't tend to have exactly glowing entries on there. Wikipedia and the other outlets described as 'left-leaning' are neoliberal institutions. Believe me that there's no love for these on the left.
When it's convenient for smears, neoliberals are left but then at other times it's the communists etc. In other words, 'left-leaning' is a grab bag of what one doesn't like these days, rather than any really meaningful group.
What exactly do you think 'neoliberal' means?
I do agree Wikipedia is not 'left-leaning', mainly because 'right' and 'left' are bullshit names that don't mean anything. But it doesn't even have the power to act in a situation that would make it neoliberal.
It means that entries on individuals, countries etc. are broadly in line with what you'd read in any mainstream media outlet and so is its outlook on 'Western civilization'.
That doesn't mean it's not a good project, or that it has some great power, just that its 'gatekeepers' are not exactly dissidents of any sort.
Let's see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
Right on the introduction it clearly says that any argument based on the curve is pseudo-science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
Is biased in claiming the consensus is a contentious topic, instead of only a tiny well founded minority ever supporting it. But it's the same bias you will see in any history book.
If we go extreme in another direction, this one has the same bias of representing fringe views as equally represented in a debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
If we go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_science
There's a clear neoliberal bias. But if instead we go here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_administration
There's a strong modernist bias, with a secondary classical liberal one. What is about exactly the same bias you would see on the main literature of both subjects.
So, no, except for behaving like an encyclopedia and reflecting the literature biases, I fail to see how the wiki is neoliberal as a whole.
I think you just answered your own question.
It can absolutely act in a way that makes it neoliberal.
Everybody wants free speech — but only for opinions they agree with. And they are against censorship — unless the "right people" are censored.
Recently, the left has been far more authoritarian, labeling everything they don't like as "far right hate speech", pushing to make dissent illegal, and demanding censorship. I guess the pendulum will swing the other way eventually.
It's not really a left VS right issue, but an authoritarian one. Free speech can be uncomfortable, that is the point. "Free speech, but…" does not work.
I'm not sure how a reasonable comparison of authoritarian behavior seemingly assigns more weight to random Wikipedia contributors lumped together as "leftists" compared to the literal government currently controlled by the right that is routinely threatening to pull FCC licenses for critical speech among other intentionally speech chilling threats.
I'd say the pendulum has already swung the other way, while swinging much, much further and more openly than nebulous mob demands for "cancel culture", over zealous Twitter moderation of hate speech or whatever else the previous go-to examples for the left were. Before 2025 showed what a truly authoritarian anti-free speech policy looks like when wielded by those with actual legal power and zero shame.
I find it pretty relevant who is behind what.
Given that most ccTLDs live in different jurisdictions, that's not really a huge problem.
The copyright-industrial complex is internationally very well-connected.
> It's almost impossible to seize and you control the keys. YOU ARE THE OWNER
This also remains true for Nostr.
But furthermore, as an operator of several Tor hidden services corresponding to public web services. I can assure you that many users, especially those on mobile devices, will stop using your service in large numbers if you direct them to a hidden service. iPhones don't allow background processes without special dispensation from Apple so the Tor/I2P circuit dies every time someone switches between apps. It's also an extreme development challenge, as they don't allow subprocesses either, and then of course your app will have to abide by the GPL at least for I2P (nonstarter for some). "Just ruin your experience for all iOS users and switch to the GPL for all your client code" is not a realistic suggestion. Not that Annas-Archive has a their own client app.
I don't know anything about Nostr since it does not focus on anonymity and isn't as old as Tor (more than 2 decades of research and application), I wouldn't rely on Nostr for anything serious.
I hope they follow the same pathway of The Pirate Bay or Rutracker.
Also relays (not exit nodes) are pretty safe to operate and running them is a decent thing, supporting free internet instead of a corporate ads machine, let's not frame it as a "crime support".
Well the purpose of using Tor is to prevent any network operators from knowing who you're talking to. Which AIUI is primarily a concern if either you're not allowed to talk to whoever ("great firewall" type things), or you risk getting in trouble for talking to whoever (Silk Road etc, or disfavored politics).
I guess if you're worried about hacks and doxxing rather than LE? Or if you only call things crime when they should be illegal rather than when they formally are?
That's false to some extent. Tor's promise comes from it's vast population of users. The more users it has, the better it is to improve everyone's anonymity. So in a way, even by using it, you are helping Tor network. And please, save the "criminal" bs (meant for the original comment).
This might not be how courts determine culpability of redistributing any potentially illegal content, of course.
Which is precisely the point of this discussion.
Might as well argue "By protecting the environment you're supporting the drug trade, because people that a climate catastrophe would wipe out will be able to be drug users".
What's "literally outlined" I'd guess is that the utility of the Tor network increases with adoption which nobody ever doubted.
What is discard is the tenuous over-stretched argument in this thread regarding fears of legality, that went like this:
GP: Using Tor browser and running a Tor node are different things, by using the browser you are not contributing to the network, you're just accessing it.
P: That's false to some extent. Tor's promise comes from it's vast population of users. The more users it has, the better it is to improve everyone's anonymity. So in a way, even by using it, you are helping Tor network.
As if that what was discussed...
And conversely, it's enough to visit a random website running WebTorrent or just a plain HTTP DDoS attack to possibly "use your connection for cybercrime".
Since RFC 3514 unfortunately never gained traction, distinguishing good, bad, and illegal traffic remains difficult.
Somehow it never got too the attention it deserved.
It was also the first known "altcoin"
You may own the keys but the non-profit The Tor Project owns the network. And when they decide to shut it down your "ownership" of the domain keys doesn't matter in the slightest. You might think this is a silly scenario but actually it happened in 2021/2022 when the tor project unilaterally decided to kill the entire Torv2 network and all domains were made inoperable. All links between sites, everything that made .onion a web, was lost.
The Tor Project does this whenever they feel that there's a security issue. It will happen again.
As someone that spent 10 years building completely legal community sites on the .onion network with the delusion of ownship it really hurt me. I'm never using .onion again. It is not a place to try to build communities. It is only for people that need 'security' as a highest priority and don't care if everything gets wiped out.
It's not only for high-security. It's for the state-of-the-art anonymity.
It doesn't matter that it was technical possible to try to manually reach out to random visitors of my sites and try to tell them that the entire domain name was changing. That didn't fix the web or links aspect at all.
As nostr relies on gossip, there is no guarantee you will have access to latest address.
But if you are going to build some nostr-based “resolver” into a browser you could instead use any of the other protocols - 2 of which are designed specifically for resolution, and the other already having a robust resolver implementation built on top of it?
I quite like nostr, but let’s not pretend it solves every problem.
When those relays get subpoenas and remove your resource, you're done. You can use some unknown relays to publish, but who's gonna use them as clients outside of the defaults? It's effectively designed for shadowbans.
Tor and I2P are great technologies. ZLibrary, for example, runs an excellent Tor hidden service and it is usually the most reliable way to access news from the site. However, this did not remain true for a while when two of the operators were arrested. Tor and I2P require you to have infrastructure online. The point of "check Wikipedia for news" is that you can have something persist even if you do not have your servers online. Nostr is the best technology available in this category.
Regardless, this remains a far more resilient persistent source of information that you don't operate than "check Wikipedia".
I totally agree with the Wikipedia argument though.
The current focus are new rust and go implementations, but embedding lib for applications is also in the roadmap.
I also agree on hindrance. I don't understand why they don't provide a simple docker-compose at least for daemon deployment for immutable management with controlled scopes. There is an image in the dockerhub, but no proper instructions. People have to spend several hours to ensure that everything works correctly.
If you're talking about the Tor Browser bundle, I2P has this: https://geti2p.net/en/download/easyinstall
It's also incredibly slow.
Nation-state hackers deliver malware from "bulletproof" blockchains - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45860258 - November 2025
According to the certificate of service, Tucows, the registrar for the .org domain, has been made aware of the litigation
The Court has stated that "browserwrap" agreements, e.g., OCLC terms and conditions, may be unenforceable in Ohio and it's unclear whether "scraping" violates Ohio tort law. It has certified these questions to the Ohio Supreme Court, but unless the defendant responds, it looks like a default judgment will be granted
https://dn721602.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohsd.28...
https://dn721602.ca.archive.org/0/items/gov.uscourts.ohsd.28...
Anthropic paid a settlement of $1 500 000 000 to authors.
I'd take that deal, but until it becomes and option, we have a clearly broken system. Rules for thee; not for me, etc.
I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust.
Worst of both worlds IMO.
Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
I said this before but if you've got some spare GB/TB on a computer/server, consider "donating" it for culture preservation purposes:https://annas-archive.se/torre nts
I wonder if it could be revived.
The only problem is the mutable torrents standard is in draft and not adopted widely. I think I saw someone proposing using DHT in a way that allows them to host websites. If feasible becomes very difficult to take down.
And I don't mean the copyrighted part (I don't care about that) but the actual content which might be questionable
Yet, as of 08:37:36 MST Monday, 5 January 2026 there isn't a single comment on this thread complaining about Anna's IP theft.
Don't get me wrong, that makes me VERY happy, I am a firm believer that the very notion of IP ownership needs to die a horrible death, something that AI may very well make happen in short order, yay.
But still, I can't help but wonder why the "this is IP theft" crowd is completely silent when it comes to the like of pirate bay and Anna.
The leading AI labs are not killing IP. They are taking IP and reshaping/combining it to produce their own highly lucrative proprietary IP package which they sell to you.
The mirror image of IP defenders are AI boosters who argue against IP when it comes to slurping up media but squirm when you say "ok, then publish all of the inputs that go into making your frontier models, and publish the model weights too."
I agree with the disdain for IP, especially with what it had grown to become nowadays. But while I was also initially optimistic that AI companies may find a way to make IP go away as a byproduct of their activities, now it seems more like the big businesses will cut deals with one another and leave us commoners with nothing. Entertainment megacorps and AI companies rule the world, and I have no doubts that they'd find a way to become close allies. The AI companies get their near-endless stream of training data, the entertainment industry gets a cut of that juicy AI money and gives away their data willingly, while the IP remains locked away from ordinary people for eons more, just the way they like it. No one but us wants IP reform, or at least no one with real power, so it will probably never happen.
AA is not stealing every byte of data they can get in order to make billions of dollars, collect personal data about people, and then sell that for even more money.
The DNS is much too fragile in light of all of the recent developments.
As you probably know, this is a very old idea, dating back almost from the birth of bitcoin [1] [2].
Real shame it didn't take off.
[1] https://www.namecoin.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
(I mean: You wouldn't steal a car. :-) ).
Regarding 3D made parts recently there was an accident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152941. One may expect increasing regulation. At least in the air.
https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/registering-as-a...
Another even more common strategy is to "restore" a classic car using some extremely small number of parts from some really old pre-emissions and pre-safety equipment car. This is often done for hod rods, dune buggies, etc. where it will be, say a "1930 Ford" but contain only some minuscule amount of that original car it is titled and registered as. There's a sizable industry of homemade "kit cars" that require you to start with a legally registered VW Beetle, but ultimately they often retain nothing except parts of the thin sheet metal floor pan, and somehow that is apparently legal.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
Try this: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=s...
Try with any music piracy (or hell, piracy in general) related search terms and you'll see a similar trend.
On the YGG network, I've used streaming without many issues, plus BT. And people have been even gaming over YGG.
Altough they could use YGG for a static address and then just use IPFS for the data but outside of YGG.
And even after multiple requests of supporting a Tor mode, have routinely ignored that with "but its too hard!"
And, I quit running IPFS back in the .31 version after adding some chat logs to my local machine's share, and found a google crawler within 1 hour and fully indexed them.
No thanks.
And no, I dont my whole internal network enumerable because of 'convenience'.
It takes very little to set up IPFS to just listen to tun0, disable routing (let ygg do its job) and throttle the bw a little so it doesn't hog the whole network.
I would be surprised if the Kubo/IPFS developers didn't already configure Ygg for themselves, as both are software written in Go.
The author of NNCP https://nncp.mirrors.quux.org/ (and the other author from Tofuproxy) are pretty much aware of Yggdrasil.
Anna is welcome here on the Group W bench.
I for one support their efforts. The same way we store seeds in vaults deep in the depths of the earth, we should do this for digital content too, and without retaliation from any specific industry.
They went after Pirate Bay by literally threatening trade war repercussions with Sweden which is far more destructive than any files downloaded
The comsequence of resolving the symptoms is that illegitimate use piggy back on it. Artistic literature that would legitimately deserve protection get hoarded as well.
Sweating authors of clearly copyrightable arts, typically novels, manuals, are seeing their work accessed free of royalties. For the sake of freely distributing scientific literature.
It makes it impossible to make then distinction given the legitimate utility is operating in a dark domain.
But retaliation will happen, and I worry that it's going to pull down one of the most incredible archives along with it.
So this effectively re-releases into the public domain a lot of the user contributions during the 1990s.
How do you know?
> and there's simply no way to know that they're not taking in loads of money and pocketing it.
Or that they are, right?
No. In UK, many an unregistered association is a non-profit e.g. sports clubs, volunteer groups, societies.
Anyway, "non-profit" is (i.e. "only makes sense defined as...") a legal status, it isn't just a way to say "not making money" (after all, we wouldn't call any failing business a non-profit, right?), so it really doesn't make any sense to ask if an illegal underground gang is "non-profit". GP is correct to point that out.
Incorrect.
‐--------
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/non-prof...
noun [ C ]
uk /ˌnɒnˈprɒf.ɪt/ us /ˌnɑːnˈprɑː.fɪt/
(also not-for-profit)
an organization whose aim is to make money for a social or political purpose or to provide a service that people need, rather than to make a profit
(Definition of non-profit from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
‐--------
That's Cambridge UK.
> However, there is a "charity" status in UK, and you'd have be a registered organization to obtain it.
Again incorrect.
Both I and GP have pointed out the crux of the matter, and you are ignoring it.
"They're not 'a' non-profit".
> and you are ignoring it.
No. I am challenging it.
I've seen no evidence either way and so far it seems nor have you. So let's wait and see.
And yes, you are technically correct in that there's no way to know that they are or are not pulling in money and pocketing it. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the questions asked but okay.
In UK, a non-profit association does not have to be legally registered to be legal.
NB: I'm not trying to imply anything about whether Anna's Archive is non-profit or not. Just that the fact that it aggressively tries to raise money isn't a relevant factor.
I've seen people claim this a lot, but is there a single proof that supports this? The only potential insights into AA owners was an arrest of a few people suspected of running the site, and they were Latin American, not Russian.
I certainly don't consider taking money from AI companies while giving data to everyone else for free makes them AI company footsoldiers, but that offer is presumably what's being alluded to.