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

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#121

Post by ghaff »

ipsum2 wrote: post #13

I'm interested in people's opinions on the legality of this. They mention "Archive Team considers the SoundCloud service in danger and, as it hosts a lot of original content, finds it important to prepare to save it selectively (a full grab would be too big and would raise concerns of mass copyright infringement).", but how is downloading any portion of artist's music not copyright infringement? I've written my own S…

It's really not much different from the Internet Archive as a whole. The vast majority of the content that the Internet Archive stores is copyrighted and not under CC, etc. The Archive mostly gets away with it because it is/was all public facing material and they bend over backwards (with retroactive robots.txt, etc.) to remove anything that the owner objects to.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#122

Post by supercoder »

syshum wrote: post #106
jackvalentine wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when it inevitably dies they run around exclaiming "dont blame me brah they said it was unlimited...., shouldn't have called it unlimited" Well... yeah? If you let people advertise 'unlimited' but they can't actually deliver, you end up with a kind of market for lemons situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Except for the fact that 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 Not backing up SoundCloud or the entire Internet for $5 a month

This is such a cool idea. Going to backup Soundcloud myself tomorrow !

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#123

Post by cyphar »

e12e wrote: post #118
snsr wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hu…

> 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.

This reminds me of one of the principles of camlistore's data schema, which explicitly says that they made their schemas overly-explicit so that future digital archeologists can re-create the schema purely from examples[1].

It's a shame that camlistore feels more like a very long experiment over a polished and usable backup/archive system.

[1]: https://camlistore.org/doc/principles ; There used to be a more explicit explanation, but I couldn't find it.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#124

Post by icebraining »

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.

That would be legally iffy, since they don't own the copyright, and so it's unlikely that they're allowed to bless an wholesale copy of their users' content to some third-party.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#125

Post by jackvalentine »

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…

I think there is real damage though, if you let someone advertise 'unlimited' but not deliver.

If my alternative service had a much more reasonable offering with a high limit, that 95% of both companies users data would fit in I'm going to get screwed because I refuse to lie and call it unlimited.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#126

Post by [deleted] »

syshum wrote: post #106
jackvalentine wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when it inevitably dies they run around exclaiming "dont blame me brah they said it was unlimited...., shouldn't have called it unlimited" Well... yeah? If you let people advertise 'unlimited' but they can't actually deliver, you end up with a kind of market for lemons situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

Except for the fact that 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 Not backing up SoundCloud or the entire Internet for $5 a month

[deleted]

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#127

Post by tripzilch »

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…

> You know the saying: "you are not wrong, you are just an asshole".

That's more applicable when the other party is not being wrong by calling a service "unlimited", when it is not.

(and, arguably, assholes when they inevitably take it down with because "oops we didn't mean, like, unlimited unlimited")

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#128

Post by acjohnson55 »

wastedhours wrote: post #100
dexterdog wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90% would likely be covered by a TB or 2. That would not work for marketing.

What would work for marketing if you can't compete on the raw number game is framing the amount - like Apple did with "1000 songs in your pocket". If you want to design a cap - Goog probably has an idea of the kinds of file people store (whether it's pics or docs or videos or sheets etc...), pick a number of those that's impressive and is just lower than what your 10% power users has, and then use that to influence t…

I prefer "libraries of Congress" as my storage unit of choice.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#130

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

cs2818 wrote: post #103
milankragujevic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I always encrypt because I worry an automated copyright scan will be the end of my account. If there was a policy that assured my non-shared files wouldn't be subject to these scans I would happily store content unencrypted. For reference, I don't store pirated content, rather content that I have a license for, but cloud providers have no way of knowing that. Unfortunately the dispute processes are unreliable, so whe…

> For reference, I don't store pirated content, rather content that I have a license for, but cloud providers have no way of knowing that.

I'm pretty sure that they just assert that the backup is illegal even if it came from a licensed copy. One argument (used by Nintendo IIRC) is that the official media/servers are too reliable to require backups, and thus anything purporting to be a backup is really for another purpose and thereby not exempt under the statutes authorizing backups.

Post reply on HN