ehh it's a distinction without a difference. The point is that alternative links are available to circumvent paid access for anyone that wants them.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.
They're different sites, with different goals, run by different people.
That isn’t the point being discussed. The point being discussed is that it’s bad form to abuse a service (archive.org) that is provided for free, for the public good in order to run commercial scraping operations.