Savvy move by cloudflare, once they have enough sites behind their service they can charge the AI companies to access their cached copies on a back channel
> The /metadata/lookup API endpoints (GET and POST versions) now require the caller to send an Authorization token in order for this endpoint to work.
> The ListenBrainz Labs API endpoints for mbid-mapping, mbid-mapping-release and mbid-mapping-explain have been removed. Those were always intended for debugging purposes and will also soon be replaced with a new endpoints for our upcoming improved mapper.
> LB Radio will now require users to be logged in to use it (and API endpoint users will need to send the Authorization header). The error message for logged in users is a bit clunky at the moment; we’ll fix this once we’ve finished the work for this year’s Year in Music.
Seems reasonable and no big deal at all. I'm not entirely sure what "nice things" we can't have because of this. Unauthenticated APIs?
At some point they must become more cost efficient by pure market economics mechanisms. That implies less load on sites. Much of the scraping that I see is still very dumb/repetative. Like Googlebot in like 2001.
(Blocking Chinese IP ranges with the help of some geoip db helps a lot in the short term. Azure as a whole is the second largest source of pure idiocy.)
This is frustrating to watch. MetaBrainz is exactly the kind of project AI companies should be supporting—open data, community-maintained, freely available for download in bulk.
Instead they’re:
∙ Ignoring robots.txt (the bare minimum web courtesy)
∙ Bypassing the provided bulk download (literally designed for this use case)
∙ Scraping page-by-page (inefficient for everyone)
∙ Overloading volunteer-run infrastructure
∙ Forcing the project to add auth barriers that hurt legitimate users
The irony: if they’d just contacted MetaBrainz and said “hey, we’d like to use your dataset for training,” they’d probably get a bulk export and maybe even attribution. Instead, they’re burning goodwill and forcing open projects to lock down.
This pattern is repeating everywhere. Small/medium open data projects can’t afford the infrastructure to handle aggressive scraping, so they either:
1. Add authentication (reduces openness)
2. Rate limit aggressively (hurts legitimate API users)
3. Go offline entirely (community loses the resource)
AI companies are externalizing their data acquisition costs onto volunteer projects. It’s a tragedy of the commons, except the “commons” is deliberately maintained infrastructure that these companies could easily afford to support.
Have you considered publishing a list of the offending user agents / IP ranges? Might help other projects protect themselves, and public shaming sometimes works when technical measures don’t
the more time passes the more i'm convinced that the solution is to—somehow—force everyone to have to go through something like common crawl
i don't want people's servers to be pegged at 100% because a stupid dfs scraper is exhaustively traversing their search facets, but i also want the web to remain scrapable by ordinary people, or rather go back to how readily scrapable it used to be before the invention of cloudflare
as a middle ground, perhaps we could agree on a new /.well-known/ path meant to contain links to timestamped data dumps?
I wish more resources were available legitimately. There is a dataset I need for legitimate research that I cannot even find a way to contact the repo owners.
Mind you I take effort to not be burdensome by downloading only what I need and taking time between each request of a couple seconds, and the total data usage is low.
Ironically, I supposed you could call it "AI" what I'm using it for, but really it's just data analytics.
I don’t know why anyone would still be trying to pull data off the open internet. Too much signal to noise. So much AI influence already baked into the corpus. You are just going to be reinforcing existing bias. I’m more worried about the day Amazon or Hugging Face take down their large data sets.
Bear in mind that some portion of this could be human directed research. I'm doing a research project right now with 1000 things that I'm building profiles on; to build a full profile requires an agent to do somewhere around 100 different site lookups. Where APIs exist, I've registered API keys and had the agent write a script to query the data in that manner, but that required me to be deliberate about it. Non technie plebs aren't likely to be directed to use an API by the agent.
There's something important here in that a public good like Metabrainz would be fine with the AI bots picking up their content -- they're just doing it in a frustratingly inefficient way.
It's a co-ordination problem: Metabrainz assumes good intent from bots, and has to lock down when they violate that trust. The bots have a different model -- they assume that the website is adversarially "hiding" its content. They won't believe a random site when it says "Look, stop hitting our API, you can pick all of this data in one go, over in this gzipped tar file."
Or better still, this torrent file, where the bots would briefly end up improving the shareability of the data.
> they assume that the website is adversarially "hiding" its content. They won't believe a random site when it says "Look, stop hitting our API, you can pick all of this data in one go, over in this gzipped tar file."
I'm not sure why you're personifying what is almost certainly a script that fetches documents, parses all the links in them, and then recursively fetches all of those.
When we say "AI scraper" we're describing a crawler controlled by an AI company indiscriminately crawling the web, not a literal AI reading and reasoning about each page... I'm surprised this needs to be said.
> Or better still, this torrent file, where the bots would briefly end up improving the shareability of the data.
Depends on if they wrote their own BitTorrent client or not. It’s possible to write a client that doesn’t share, and even reports false/inflated sharing stats back to the tracker.
A decade or more ago I modified my client to inflate my share stats so I wouldn’t get kicked out of a private tracker whose high share ratios conflicted with my crappy data plan.
I feel the pain — it’s very difficult to detect many of the less ethical scrapers. They use residential IP pools, rotate IPs, and provide valid user agents.
Someone convinced me last time[0] that these aren't the well-known scrapers we know but other actors. We wouldn't be able to tell, certainly. I'd like to help the scrapers be better about reading my site, but I get why they aren't.
I wish there were an established protocol for this. Say a $site/.well-known/machine-readable.json that instructs you on a handful of established software or allows pointing to an appropriate dump. I would gladly provide that for LLMs.
Of course this doesn't solve for the use-case where the AI companies are trying to train their models on how to navigate real world sites so I understand it doesn't solve all problems, but one of the things I think I'd like in the future is to have my own personal archive of the web as I know it (Internet Archive is too slow to browse and has very tight rate-limits) and I was surprised by how little protocol support there is for robots.
robots.txt is pretty sparse. You can disallow bots and this and that, but what I want to say is "you can get all this data from this git repo" or "here's a dump instead with how to recreate it". Essentially, cooperating with robots is currently under-specified. I understand why: almost all bots have no incentive to cooperate so webmasters do not attempt to. But it would be cool to be able to inform the robots appropriately.
To archive Metabrainz there is no way but to browse the pages slowly page-by-page. There's no machine-communicable way that suggests an alternative.
Its not just AI scrappers doing it by themselves but now users are also being trained to put the link in the claude chat/chat gpt and ask it to summarise it. And off course that would show up on the website end as a scraper.
In fact firefox now allows you to preview the link and get key points without ever going to the link[1]
Those botnets are hitting random endpoints thousands of times a minute.
The problem is that each time they switch to a different residential IP so that they are untraceable.
That's the frustrating part: not only do they not play by the rules, but they use advanced methods to obfuscate and bypass any protections. That probably costs them a fair amount too, all that to access free data they can download as a tar file...
They won't be able to create thousands of API keys a minute, and if they reuse the keys they'll very easily be identified and blocked.
The worse thing is calendar/schedule. Many crawler tries to load every single day, with day view, week view and month view.
Those pages are dynamically generated and virtually limitless
llms-txt may be useful for responsible LLMs, but I am skeptical that llms-txt will reduce the problem of aggressive crawlers. The problematic crawlers are already ignoring robots.txt, spoofing user-agents and using rotating proxies. I'm not sure how llms-txt would help these problems.
Many years ago AWS came up with a "Requester Pays" model for their S3 storage, where you can make a request for someone else's object using your own account and it would charge the transfer cost to your own account instead of theirs.
I wonder if a model similar to this (but decentralized/federated or something) could be used to help fight bots?
I wish this wasn't necessary, but the next steps forward are likely:
a) Have a reverse proxy that keeps a "request budget" per IP and per net block, but instead of blocking requests, causing the client to rotate their IP, the requests get throttled/slowed down, without dropping them.
b) Write your API servers in more efficient languages. According to their Github, their backend runs on Perl and Python. These technologies have been "good enough" for quite some time, but considering current circumstances and until a better solution is found, this may not be the case anymore and performance and cpu cost per request does matter these days.
c) Optimize your database queries, remove as much code as possible from your unauthenticated GET request handlers, require authentication for the expensive ones.
I haven't really looked but I wonder if there are any IP reputation services tracking AI crawlers the same way they track tor relays and vpns and such. If those databases were accurate it seems like you could prevent those crawlers from ever hitting the site. Maybe they change too often/too quickly.
The SQLite team faced a similar problem last year, and Richard Hipp (the creator of SQLite) made almost the same comment:
"The malefactor behind this attack could just clone the whole SQLite source repository and search all the content on his own machine, at his leisure. But no: Being evil, the culprit feels compelled to ruin it for everyone else. This is why you don't get to keep nice things...."
I actually deleted my web site early 2025 and removed the A record from DNS because of AI scraper traffic. It had been up for 22 years. Nothing important or particularly useful on it but it's an indicator of the times.
Nowadays people complain about AI scrapers with the same vain as they complained about search indexers a way back when. Just a few years later, people had stopped caring too much about storage access and bandwidth, and started begging search engines to visit their websites. Every trick on the planet Earth, SEO optimization, etc.
Looking forward to the time when everybody suddenly starts to embrace AI indexers and welcome them. History does not repeat itself but it rhymes.
Bummer. I have used them a lot when I was ripping my cds. Anonymity is a massive value of the web (at least the appearance of anonymity). I wonder if there is a way to have a central anonymous system that just relays trust, not identity.
So maybe something like you can get a token but its trust is very nearly zero until you combine it with other tokens. Combining tokens combines their trust and their consequences. If one token is abused that abuse reflects on the whole token chain. The connection can be revoked for a token but trust takes time to rebuild so it would take a time for their token trust value to go up. Sort of the 'word of mouth' effect but in electronic form. 'I vouch for 2345asdf334t324sda. That's a great user agent!'
A bit (a lot) elaborate but maybe there is a beginning of an idea there, maybe. Definitely I don't want to loose anonymity (or the perception there of) for services like musicbrainz but at the same point they need some mechanism that gives them trust and right now I just don't know of a good one that doesn't have identity attached.
67 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 75.8 ms ] thread> The ListenBrainz Labs API endpoints for mbid-mapping, mbid-mapping-release and mbid-mapping-explain have been removed. Those were always intended for debugging purposes and will also soon be replaced with a new endpoints for our upcoming improved mapper.
> LB Radio will now require users to be logged in to use it (and API endpoint users will need to send the Authorization header). The error message for logged in users is a bit clunky at the moment; we’ll fix this once we’ve finished the work for this year’s Year in Music.
Seems reasonable and no big deal at all. I'm not entirely sure what "nice things" we can't have because of this. Unauthenticated APIs?
(Blocking Chinese IP ranges with the help of some geoip db helps a lot in the short term. Azure as a whole is the second largest source of pure idiocy.)
i don't want people's servers to be pegged at 100% because a stupid dfs scraper is exhaustively traversing their search facets, but i also want the web to remain scrapable by ordinary people, or rather go back to how readily scrapable it used to be before the invention of cloudflare
as a middle ground, perhaps we could agree on a new /.well-known/ path meant to contain links to timestamped data dumps?
Mind you I take effort to not be burdensome by downloading only what I need and taking time between each request of a couple seconds, and the total data usage is low.
Ironically, I supposed you could call it "AI" what I'm using it for, but really it's just data analytics.
There's something important here in that a public good like Metabrainz would be fine with the AI bots picking up their content -- they're just doing it in a frustratingly inefficient way.
It's a co-ordination problem: Metabrainz assumes good intent from bots, and has to lock down when they violate that trust. The bots have a different model -- they assume that the website is adversarially "hiding" its content. They won't believe a random site when it says "Look, stop hitting our API, you can pick all of this data in one go, over in this gzipped tar file."
Or better still, this torrent file, where the bots would briefly end up improving the shareability of the data.
this should give us pause. if a bot considers this adversarial and is refusing to respect the site owners wishes, thats a big part of the problem.
a bot should not consider that “adversarial”
I'm not sure why you're personifying what is almost certainly a script that fetches documents, parses all the links in them, and then recursively fetches all of those.
When we say "AI scraper" we're describing a crawler controlled by an AI company indiscriminately crawling the web, not a literal AI reading and reasoning about each page... I'm surprised this needs to be said.
Depends on if they wrote their own BitTorrent client or not. It’s possible to write a client that doesn’t share, and even reports false/inflated sharing stats back to the tracker.
A decade or more ago I modified my client to inflate my share stats so I wouldn’t get kicked out of a private tracker whose high share ratios conflicted with my crappy data plan.
So, is this a new profit center for sleazeball household ISPs?
I wish there were an established protocol for this. Say a $site/.well-known/machine-readable.json that instructs you on a handful of established software or allows pointing to an appropriate dump. I would gladly provide that for LLMs.
Of course this doesn't solve for the use-case where the AI companies are trying to train their models on how to navigate real world sites so I understand it doesn't solve all problems, but one of the things I think I'd like in the future is to have my own personal archive of the web as I know it (Internet Archive is too slow to browse and has very tight rate-limits) and I was surprised by how little protocol support there is for robots.
robots.txt is pretty sparse. You can disallow bots and this and that, but what I want to say is "you can get all this data from this git repo" or "here's a dump instead with how to recreate it". Essentially, cooperating with robots is currently under-specified. I understand why: almost all bots have no incentive to cooperate so webmasters do not attempt to. But it would be cool to be able to inform the robots appropriately.
To archive Metabrainz there is no way but to browse the pages slowly page-by-page. There's no machine-communicable way that suggests an alternative.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46352723
In fact firefox now allows you to preview the link and get key points without ever going to the link[1]
[1] https://imgur.com/a/3E17Dts
I'm not saying the API changes are pointless, but still, what's the catch?
They won't be able to create thousands of API keys a minute, and if they reuse the keys they'll very easily be identified and blocked.
We should add optional `tips` addresses in llms.txt files.
We're also working on enabling and solving this at Grove.city.
Human <-> Agent <-> Human Tips don't account for all the edge cases, but they're a necessary and happy neutral medium.
Moving fast. Would love to share more with the community.
Wrote about it here: https://x.com/olshansky/status/2008282844624216293
I wonder if a model similar to this (but decentralized/federated or something) could be used to help fight bots?
a) Have a reverse proxy that keeps a "request budget" per IP and per net block, but instead of blocking requests, causing the client to rotate their IP, the requests get throttled/slowed down, without dropping them.
b) Write your API servers in more efficient languages. According to their Github, their backend runs on Perl and Python. These technologies have been "good enough" for quite some time, but considering current circumstances and until a better solution is found, this may not be the case anymore and performance and cpu cost per request does matter these days.
c) Optimize your database queries, remove as much code as possible from your unauthenticated GET request handlers, require authentication for the expensive ones.
"The malefactor behind this attack could just clone the whole SQLite source repository and search all the content on his own machine, at his leisure. But no: Being evil, the culprit feels compelled to ruin it for everyone else. This is why you don't get to keep nice things...."
https://sqlite.org/forum/forumpost/7d3eb059f81ff694
Is there a standard mechanism for batch-downloading a public site? I'm not too familiar with crawlers these days.
Looking forward to the time when everybody suddenly starts to embrace AI indexers and welcome them. History does not repeat itself but it rhymes.
So maybe something like you can get a token but its trust is very nearly zero until you combine it with other tokens. Combining tokens combines their trust and their consequences. If one token is abused that abuse reflects on the whole token chain. The connection can be revoked for a token but trust takes time to rebuild so it would take a time for their token trust value to go up. Sort of the 'word of mouth' effect but in electronic form. 'I vouch for 2345asdf334t324sda. That's a great user agent!'
A bit (a lot) elaborate but maybe there is a beginning of an idea there, maybe. Definitely I don't want to loose anonymity (or the perception there of) for services like musicbrainz but at the same point they need some mechanism that gives them trust and right now I just don't know of a good one that doesn't have identity attached.