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

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#111

Post by icebraining »

sk0g wrote: post #99
empath75 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you publish it. If you just sit on it, you don't. (At least not in the sense that you can get away with suing someone that publishes the same rift later)

What would publish imply? Would putting it on a private Google Drive work? What about a Drive that's searchable and anyone can have a listen, if they so desired?

IANAL, but unlike patents, copyright violation only occurs if you actually copy the work - independent creations are not infringing, even if similar. While the standard for showing that the work was actually copied is usually not high, especially since these are usually civil suits, some link in a random Google Drive might not be enough.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#113

Post by avian »

Steeeve wrote: post #85

If these kind of entities actually want to preserve resources, they shouldn't be generating a petabyte of bandwidth charges. Contact soundcloud and come to an agreement that will be responsible.

I imagine a company with its funds running out will not be particularly interested in dedicating resources to the archive team. Not to mention that doing that would be kind of signing their own death certificate. It's hard to argue that you are "on path to profitability" when you're busy handing off your assets to a museum.

How much does a petabyte of bandwidth go for these days anyway? It might as well be cheaper than paying engineering, legal and management to arrange for some kind of off-line data transfer.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#114

Post by TeMPOraL »

syshum wrote: post #108
SeanDav wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car company says: "You can have any colour car you want as long as it is black..." I am sure there will be people defending the car company as really offering unlimited colours, but obviously they have to restrict it to black, because some clients were unreasonable to expect the company to paint their car Neon Vermilion. Or to put it another way, "You can have unlimited storage, except that it is limited..."

Nothing is unlimited, it does not exist. Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service. In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include bac…

> Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service.

Well, that's doublespeak then, and if someone calls them out on it by actually testing the claim they make, so be it.

I don't understand why people seem not to mind being lied to their faces, as long as it's "just marketing".

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#115

Post by TeMPOraL »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #81
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> abuse the shit out of it It wouldn't be abuse if it was actually unlimited. They uploaded a finite (if large) amount of data to a service advertising infinite capacity.

You know the saying: "you are not wrong, you are just an asshole". I don't think OP is arguing that it's against ToS or anything like that. He is arguing that if people just upload stuff in these "unlimited" services all willy nilly soon they won't be unlimited anymore. The price will be the same, but they will drop the capacity to something reasonable. Which in turn might hurt some legitimate users. I'm all for peop…

Except they're not an asshole.

Companies should be responsible for what they put in their marketing. If someone calling the bluff on the "unlimited" plan makes them "downsize" the plan to actual ~10TB + $x per Y additional TB, then so be it. It probably doesn't change the reality in any way, and at least the company is no longer lying about its service.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#116

Post by mcintyre1994 »

evook wrote: post #38
ipsum2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems a bit ridiculous. 900TB costs $22000 in hard drives (assuming $100/4TB HDD), without any redundancy. I wonder what their storage solution is like.

Almost certainly Google Drive unlimited.

I'm more interested in how they did this:

> Not a home connection, just google abuse. GCE has ~40Gbit to each server and >400Gbit peering with amazon

It sounds like they paid GCE for 900TB of data transfer?

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#117

Post by ghaff »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #81
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> abuse the shit out of it It wouldn't be abuse if it was actually unlimited. They uploaded a finite (if large) amount of data to a service advertising infinite capacity.

You know the saying: "you are not wrong, you are just an asshole". I don't think OP is arguing that it's against ToS or anything like that. He is arguing that if people just upload stuff in these "unlimited" services all willy nilly soon they won't be unlimited anymore. The price will be the same, but they will drop the capacity to something reasonable. Which in turn might hurt some legitimate users. I'm all for peop…

In the terabytes for personal backup these days is pretty reasonable. I think my backup to Backblaze is about 3TB. A lot of that is photos; I have relatively little video.

I agree with your general point though. One thing that helps is that there's a certain throttle because of network bandwidth even if that isn't capped or deliberately throttled.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#118

Post by e12e »

snsr wrote: post #61
mmjaa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think ipfs is very interesting, and will hopefully evolve to become a viable archive solution - but that'll only happen once you have a few serious organizations running their own redundant ipfs "intranet" storage networks, with geographical redundancy (or at least good local availability). Then we might see "archive peering" between such organizations.

The time horizon of "archival storage" probably starts at a hundred years - that will need some structure to have a likelihood of persisting for so long.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#119

Post by syshum »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #114
syshum wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is unlimited, it does not exist. Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service. In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include bac…

> Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service. Well, that's doublespeak then, and if someone calls them out on it by actually testing the claim they make, so be it. I don't understand why people seem not to mind being lied to their faces, as long as it's "just marketing".

>>I don't understand why people seem not to mind being lied to their faces,

Because most rational people use common sense and logic to come to the understanding that when a company is offering you "unlimited" storage for your PERSONAL FILES, they do not intend for you to go out and download SoundCloud as backup in case the SoundClould Service goes under

Just like when a "All you can Eat" buffet does not intend this to mean "All you can eat in your entire life" where by you fill grocery bags full of food to take home with you

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#120

Post by icebraining »

syshum wrote: post #108
SeanDav wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A car company says: "You can have any colour car you want as long as it is black..." I am sure there will be people defending the car company as really offering unlimited colours, but obviously they have to restrict it to black, because some clients were unreasonable to expect the company to paint their car Neon Vermilion. Or to put it another way, "You can have unlimited storage, except that it is limited..."

Nothing is unlimited, it does not exist. Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service. In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include bac…

Unlimited is a marketing term used to express simply to the consumer there are not overall limits placed on your storage provided you adhere to the rest of the terms of service.

Which specific clause of the TOS is this violating?

In the context of data cloud data stroage when Google, Amazon and the rest talk about "unlimited" they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL storage of data you create as a person, this would include backups of your personal computer, photos, important documents,etc

That's your interpretation. Nowhere do they actually claim or imply that you're only supposed to use it for data you create as a person. In fact, it'd be absurd, considering that sharing files is built into the system.

--

That companies lie to us repeatedly under the guise of "common sense", as if they followed the same standard when applying their unreadable TOSs against us, is bad enough.

Corporations are not your friends, and they won't hesitate to block you if you start becoming a liability. Assuming good faith is absurd, defending it publicly is grotesque.

Post reply on HN