Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

archiveteam.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 230 posts

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#61

Post by snsr »

mmjaa wrote: post #22
cyphar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ArchiveTeam is putting the files in the Internet Archive archives. While IPFS is great, I'm not sure I agree it's good for archival because it depends on the availability of the IPFS network. The Internet Archive does work to make sure that there are sufficent backups to mean they can recreate their archive.

As long as there is a single party interested in content hosted on IPFS, the "IPFS Network" will persist. It would absolutely be the best move for IPFS to be used in this case - maybe something like the AkashaApp guys, albeit for audio-media. Edit: The Akasha App for those who aren't yet familiar with it - https://akasha.world - brings together IPFS and Ethereum to make a truly distributed peer network for persistent…

> As long as there is a single party interested in content hosted on IPFS, the "IPFS Network" will persist.

I imagine that's one of the reasons why it's not ideal for archival content.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#62

Post by firegrind »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #45
ldjb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. The Terms of Use state that uploaders grant users the ability to use, copy, repost, distribute, etc. content specifically "utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services". Which means you're only allowed to redistribute content through the facilities provided by Soundcloud. You're not allowed to simply download music and share it outside of…

>By uploading Your Content to the Platform, you also grant a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully paid up, license to other users of the Platform (...) to use, copy, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, adapt, prepare derivative works of, compile, make available and otherwise communicate to the public At least I read this only as "by defaul…

One of the reasons I prefer Soundcloud is that it's trivially easy for me to enable listeners to download tracks for free.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#64

Post by rangibaby »

milankragujevic wrote: post #53
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is clearly abusing intent behind the "unlimited" sales pitch, I still do not think it's in violation of it. There's also most likely more than just this guy owning copy of the files from SoundCloud, so once Google has copy of them all they can just cache it for the rest of the people. I.e. you don't need unique files for every user who has some file, instead you can just give out the one to anyone who requ…

Yeah, except people on DataHoarder encrypt their files so that the providers can't store one copy per unique file but have to store one copy per one file in any user's account.

Whyyy?

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#65

Post by Stella434 »

unicornporn wrote: post #42
StavrosK wrote: post #4

Hmm, I've been playing with IPFS lately, and just had an idea: Since IPFS is perfect for archival, Archiveteam could put their files on IPFS, and users could help out by pinning stuff on their local nodes. For example, I could ask their website to give me a 10 GB list of files to pin (if I wanted to "donate" 10 GB to them), and I'd keep them available. The only problem is that I don't know whether IPFS has any way to…

IPFS would not be considered suitable for digital preservation. Have a look at LOCKSS[1]. [1] https://www.lockss.org/

lm måκlng оvêя $7κ å mоnтн шояκlng påят тlmê. l κêpт нêåяlng отнêя pêоplê тêll mê нош mucн mоnêy тнêy cån måκê оnllnê Sо l DêclDêD то lооκ lnто lт. шêll, lт шåS åll тяuê ånD нåS тотålly cнångêD my llfê. This is what I do, ====https://sites.google.com/site/sandralopz78/

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#66

Post by pjc50 »

Bromskloss wrote: post #54
icebraining wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

indie stuff with no copyright There's no such thing, copyright is automatic, it applies as soon as the author puts the work in some tangible medium (like an hard drive).

I've never thought about the medium thing. If you write a song (and perhaps perform it in public and everything), but never commit it into writing or recording, does copyright not apply?

If you wrote it on paper, whether musical notation or just the lyrics, that would give you songwriter copyright.

If you then gave a performance and someone recorded it, the copyright in the recording would lie with them - but they would not be able to distribute it without also having your permission.

(People forget that these are different and the songwriter royalties are quite lucrative - famously e.g. the Beatles almost all the songs are joint copyright Lennon/McCartney, not the band as a whole)

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#67

Post by giancarlostoro »

milankragujevic wrote: post #53
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is clearly abusing intent behind the "unlimited" sales pitch, I still do not think it's in violation of it. There's also most likely more than just this guy owning copy of the files from SoundCloud, so once Google has copy of them all they can just cache it for the rest of the people. I.e. you don't need unique files for every user who has some file, instead you can just give out the one to anyone who requ…

Yeah, except people on DataHoarder encrypt their files so that the providers can't store one copy per unique file but have to store one copy per one file in any user's account.

Is there a valid reason for this aside from making sure if they delete it once, they don't delete it everywhere? Now I see the true issue against datahoarders... Wasting more space than needed to account for a situation that their own actions kinda put them under...

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#68

Post by nextlevelwizard »

milankragujevic wrote: post #53
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this is clearly abusing intent behind the "unlimited" sales pitch, I still do not think it's in violation of it. There's also most likely more than just this guy owning copy of the files from SoundCloud, so once Google has copy of them all they can just cache it for the rest of the people. I.e. you don't need unique files for every user who has some file, instead you can just give out the one to anyone who requ…

Yeah, except people on DataHoarder encrypt their files so that the providers can't store one copy per unique file but have to store one copy per one file in any user's account.

Definitely not all. For example the top post of all time (where the guy has 1 Petabyte of videos in Amazon drive) he talks about how only his personal files are encrypted. Then again his videos are recordings of camsites so they might be quite unique

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#70

Post by rnhmjoj »

syshum wrote: post #44
evook wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost certainly Google Drive unlimited.

And this is how Google Drive Unlimited becomes Google Drive Limited... Like every other Unlimited service, because people like this abuse the shit out of it then when it inevitably dies they run around exclaiming "dont blame me brah they said it was unlimited...., shouldn't have called it unlimited"

Well, companies should think twice before selling unlimited plans. Maybe set a really high cap that's enough to cover 90% of the users but unlimited means unlimited.
Post reply on HN