Linux

hideshow 21 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (20 children)

The content will be there whether people are streaming it or not. When OP said “anyone”, they were not necessarily referring to AA.

Sure, not sure how that applies to what I said though.

I imagine they considered this before they acquired the content.

Why would they account for someone developing a tool to slurp up their bandwidth?

The question is not whether or not they will be hosting the files. They have already said they will. So that’s neither here nor there.

Why is that the question?

It’s made waves several times. Including the time Meta scraped all the books from it.

That's not even remotely comparable to someone creating a publically accessible, friendly UI for reading all those books.

Guess we’re going to find out!

I would guess we never find out because no one is ever going to make such an app, for all the reasons I listed.

hideshow 20 child comments

parent

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 9 months ago

That’s not even remotely comparable to someone creating a publically accessible, friendly UI for reading all those books.

I like this idea too!

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago (18 children)

not sure how that applies to what I said though.

Because if the files are hosted, they can be streamed. And they're going to be hosted. They can't control that.

Why would they account for someone developing a tool to slurp up their bandwidth?

Because it's an inevitable reality?

I would guess we never find out because no one is ever going to make such an app, for all the reasons I listed.

The reasons you listed specified why AA cannot or should not host the files. But that is not in question. They have said they are hosting the files. They have nothing to do with why anyone anyone else cannot or should not create an app to stream those files.

hideshow 18 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (17 children)

Because if the files are hosted, they can be streamed. And they’re going to be hosted. They can’t control that.

Who can't control that? AA? Of course they can. If their bandwidth spins out of control, they can just pull the torrent. The Law? They can compel whoever is hosting the frontend to take it down, or persue legal action against AA.

Because it’s an inevitable reality?

Not really, no.

The reasons you listed specified why AA cannot or should not host the files.

That's not true.

hideshow 17 child comments

parent

[–] Renohren@lemmy.today 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I haven't heard them say what format will be included in the torrent, say it's 20 TB blocks of secured archival format. Then you would have to download that full volume ( at least, there are ways to force you to download the full 15 set of 20 TB archives) before decompressing it and see files as is, that would rendering streaming or casual downloading impossible under current tech.

And that's ok.

Anna's archive isn't there to cater to today's wants but to protect what might disappear tomorrow.

parent

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

they can just pull the torrent

They cannot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

Can you link me to the part of that article that says that somehow once you put a torrent file on your server, you can never remove it from your server?

Or were you just trying to do a gotcha without understanding what I said?

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Once you put a torrent out, you don't have control of it. The uploader does not have a kill-switch. Torrents are peer-to-peer without a central server.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml [S] -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

You've raised –

Anna's Archive bearing the server-load ("slurp up their bandwidth", "the traffic costs will inflate dramatically")
Lawyers demanding a centralised takedown

Both of these are based on the idea of a client-server model. Torrents don't have that model at all. It's a peer-to-peer model as opposed to a client-server model

Can you link me to the part of that article that says that somehow once you put a torrent file on your server, you can never remove it from your server?

"the lack of a central server that could limit bandwidth"... "The BitTorrent protocol can be used to reduce the server and network impact of distributing large files. Rather than downloading a file from a single source server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a "swarm" of hosts to upload and download from each other simultaneously"... "there is no single point of failure as in one way server-client transfers".... "publishers that value BitTorrent as a cheap alternative to a client-server approach".... "to increase availability and to reduce load on their own servers, especially when dealing with larger files"

Happy to explain this more if you're still confused.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 1 point 9 months ago

Do you not understand how threads work?

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago (9 children)

If their bandwidth spins out of control, they can just pull the torrent

I mean sure. But then it all would have been for nothing. I don't think they're that dumb.

The Law? They can compel whoever is hosting the frontend to take it down

On what grounds? It's just software. It's not doing anything illegal. Lots of software like this already exists for YouTube and Spotify.

Not really, no.

LOL yes.

That's not true.

It is.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (8 children)

I mean sure. But then it all would have been for nothing. I don’t think they’re that dumb.

Only if the assumption is that the reason AA is hosting the scaped content is for someone to create a frontend that hooks into it and soaks up their bandwidth. Which is an absurd assumption.

On what grounds? It’s just software. It’s not doing anything illegal. Lots of software like this already exists for YouTube and Spotify.

And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Only if the assumption

The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.

And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.

They do what they can but they don't go anywhere because they're not illegal. Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (6 children)

The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.

The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ravages their bandwidth?

If that's truly your stance then we're essentially just done.

They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal.

Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.

Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.

But we're explicitly not talking about torrenting. Is that why you seem confused?

If we're talking about torrenting the files and playing them, then we're back to my original comment about how music players already exist.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ~~ravages their bandwidth?~~ provides convenient access to the hosted files.

Of course they will.

Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.

No it is not. If it was, these apps would be gone as soon as they went up. Shit, if that was the case your browser would be illegal. Hosting the files is illegal, and I said said before, I'm not sure how AA gets away with that.

But we're explicitly not talking about torrenting.

LOL we're talking about software that facilitates access to copyrighted content. It doesn't matter if it's torrented or not. Is that why you seem confused?

then we're back to my original comment about how music players already exist.

You do realize you can stream torrent files?

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (4 children)

~~Of course they will.~~ Different thing

Neat trick.

No it is not.

Lol. Okay. Agree to disagree with copyright law then.

It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not.

Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.

You do realize you can stream torrent files?

You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Neat trick.

Not a trick. What you were saying did not reflect my statements, so I adjusted it so that it did while still getting the point across.

Agree to disagree with copyright law then.

Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?

Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.

We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It's literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.

You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists

LOL what? No, it's just the opposite. Your point is about the playback of local music and the discussion at hand is about streaming remote music. You're saying the software is illegal. The fact that it still exists, and has for many years suggests that it's actually not.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?

Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.

We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.

We were discussing both.

streaming remote music.

From a particular server.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.

Shit, where do I start:

NewPipe
FreeTube
GrayJay
Seal
Stacher
SimpMusic
AudioTube
Pipeline
Parabolic
Revanced

Should I go on?

We were discussing both.

Not in that sentence, and you know it. You're just arguing in bad faith now.

From a particular server.

Doesn't matter.

I no longer believe you're interested in an honest discussion so I'm gonna stop wasting my time.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 0 points 9 months ago

Absolutely none of those provide unauthorized access to copyrighted media files. It's perfectly legal to build a frontend to display publically accessible content like YouTube. It would not be legal for that app to provide public access to downloaded copies of those files on a separate server. You fundamentally don't understand the law.

Not in that sentence, and you know it. You’re just arguing in bad faith now.

So you're just debate trolling then, and not actually trying to have a discussion about my comment. What a surprise.

Doesn’t matter.

Of course it does, but you've debate trolled yourself into getting lost in the sauce.

Let me hold your hand:

There are 2 logical ways to look at this question. Either, it's a frontend that streams directly off of AAs servers, which is bad for bandwidth and draws a lot of legal attention. Or, it's a way to play torrents, which already exist. Odd question.