Live data from Hacker News

Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

archiveteam.org

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#161
post #154

Their website seems to be down: I'm just wondering, are they downloading everything accessible through the player, or just songs marked "Download"? Even given that they could restrict themselves to songs marked okay to download, how much of that will be DJ mixes containing copyrighted songs? I'm just wondering because Soundcloud actually has support to specify your copyright terms, which does not default to "everyone…

> I'm sure SC serves up a lot of content per day, but how do you think they will react by suddenly having someone download all of their 900 TB or whatever it is in one day? How much will Archiveteam be contributing to SC's downfall by suddenly causing them a huge unexpected bill? Obviously, there's more than just the bandwidth cost, but assuming they pay $0.02/GB for CDN traffic, we're talking about $18k. It's not no…

That's making the incorrect assumption that all 900TB is hosted by the CDN... you typically only have a fraction of your content, known as your working set, in the CDN's working cache.

So you should factor in the bandwidth cost for CDN traffic AND origin pulls, which if you're serving from AWS (and not using CloudFront), is $0.08/GB.

The size of your working set also influences your overall CDN bill. Storage isn't free.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#162
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…

Copyright only covers distribution. Merely having a copy of something is fine. When you download something from Soundcloud, that's them distributing a copy to you; presumably they have permission to do that. If you then distribute copies of it to other people, then it might be a copyright violation (there are exceptions, and varying laws, and, etc). Just holding on to something that was distributed to you isn't a copyright violation.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#163
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

> 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

It's like you go to a restaurant that offers unlimited refills and they don't allow you to keep refilling your cup while you're throwing the drinks onto the floor. False advertising!

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#164

Just from a legal standpoint: isn't „...considers the SoundCloud service in danger...“ slander? Especially since the Internet Archive isn't a nobody (with maybe some inside information?). Just remembered cases like Deutsche Bank vs Leo Kirch which are legal nightmares.

Maybe in Germany it could be, but not in the US.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#165
post #153

Their website seems to be down: I'm just wondering, are they downloading everything accessible through the player, or just songs marked "Download"? Even given that they could restrict themselves to songs marked okay to download, how much of that will be DJ mixes containing copyrighted songs? I'm just wondering because Soundcloud actually has support to specify your copyright terms, which does not default to "everyone…

I think in most cases ArchiveTeam's actions have been copyright-infringement on some level. They just don't care and find that keeping user content safe from unrepentant deletion to be more important. If you've ever seen a Jason Scott talk, he isn't the sort of guy who gives a shit if you DMCA him while he's sucking up all of your bandwidth archiving your content two days before your servers shut down.

Also, DMCA takedown notices properly order certain kinds of intermediaries (not people who have consciously chosen to publish something) to stop facilitating access to allegedly infringing material. They're not properly directed to an alleged copyright infringer himself or herself, and they don't order people to stop downloading things, even if their reason for downloading is apparently to publish the information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...

This is not to say that people don't send "DMCA notices" for anything and everything to anyone and everyone, but those notices are not following the law. (Also, a lawyer can always send a demand letter demanding that someone stop any behavior, but a properly-constructed DMCA notice gives the recipient an extra reason to follow it compared to a run-of-the-mill legal demand—"[a]n OSP who complies with the requirements for a given safe harbor is not liable for money damages", as Wikipedia puts it.)

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#166
post #106

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

> they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL

Actually Google only offers unlimited to business and education accounts, so they're absolutely not referring to personal data.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#167
post #106

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

> they are referring to unlimited PERSONAL

Actually Google only offers unlimited to business and education accounts, so they're absolutely not referring to personal data.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#168

Why doesn't SoundCloud want my money ? There are no ads, and no paid plans for listeners. A lot of songs in my library disappear once the artist gets big and wants some cash from iTunes. I would have no problem paying for access to these songs but it's just not possible. I would also like to buy some band posters / t-shirts, vinyls, cds, show tickets etc, not possible either. It's like they are actively avoiding reve…

There are ads — at least on mobile.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#169
post #103

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…

IANAL but Google's ToS for copyright seem to be pretty safe so long as you don't share links to copyrighted content https://support.google.com/docs/answer/148505

> Respect copyright laws. Do not share copyrighted content without authorization or provide links to sites where your readers can obtain unauthorized downloads of copyrighted content. It is our policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement. Repeated infringement of intellectual property rights, including copyright, will result in account termination. If you see a violation of Google's copyright policies, report copyright infringement.

Given that they cater to businesses, I don't think they could do automated scans.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#170
post #106

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

So I can backup my computer every day, encrypt the blob and upload it?
Post reply on HN