Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud • Hacker News Board

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#171

Post by PeterisP » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:02 PM UTC

sk0g wrote: post #90

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).

Huh, didn't know that! So if I record and master a random riff, I technically have a copyright on it? To be fair, I was mostly talking about ones with a record label, where you might be hounded by a label with a lot of legal representation.

Yes, sure, if you record a riff or write a few sentences on paper, then you own the copyright to that - there is no "magic importance limit" that needs to be surpassed for works to become copyrightable.

Shitty drawings made by five year olds get the same legal treatment as Picasso, etc, etc.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#172

Post by cyphar » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:05 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #165

cyphar wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ht…

Yeah, more likely you'd get a Cease-and-Desist. But once the ArchiveTeam publishes it, they'll likely get DMCA'd (though they've survived things like that before).

Not to mention that dying websites or recent acquires are likely to be able to have the legal muster to start threatening archivists.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#173

Post by pweissbrod » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

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…

am i wrong?

no youre not wrong.

am i wrong?

youre not wrong walter. youre just an asshole!

all right then.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#174

Post by Veratyr » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:11 PM UTC

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…

> Since IPFS is perfect for archival

I don't believe this is true. IPFS doesn't have any built in way of easily distributing parts of an archive, doesn't support (as far as I know) any form of erasure coding, making overhead quite high and requires that you use its own weird block + hash scheme for integrity.

It's also very immature, we don't know if IPFS will be around in 10 years and we don't know what kinds of bugs it will have.

IPFS is a great tool and it has its uses but I don't think archiving is one of them yet.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#175

Post by zitterbewegung » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

radarsat1 wrote: post #139

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 having weird issues myself downloading my own tracks that are hosted on soundcloud. When I login as myself even though I have set my songs to be able to be downloaded I can't. For one song I was able to log off and log back in and download that one but I was unable to do it for another.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#176

Post by syshum » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:24 PM UTC

Veratyr wrote: post #166

syshum wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Jesus H Christ..

People are too f'in litteral, first

Unlimited === Store everything every created

PERSONAL in the context of the discussion would include documents created by a person in general course of business, my point is very clearly and only pedantic trolls do not understand the meaning of point I was attempting to address.

Business use would be for the business that signed up for the service, not for storing an entire copy of SoundCloud

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#177

Post by syshum » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:28 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #115

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is they dont downsize to a "reasonable" 10TB, they over correct in the opposite directly like Amazon did, and people that used the service as intended get fucked.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#178

Post by syshum » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

dungle6 wrote: post #134

syshum wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 t…

All you can eat is actually quite specific, but for knuckleheads like yourself it is usually clarified in writing in other places. It's all you can eat while at the establishment.. not all you can take. They don't advertise it as "unlimited" either as many places in busy markets have a posted time limit. This is clearly part of their terms of service as most buffets I know both clearly state that you can't use takeou…

>>All you can eat is actually quite specific, but for knuckleheads like yourself it is usually clarified in writing in other places. It's all you can eat while at the establishment..

How am I a "knuckle Head" in this situation, when I go to a buffet I eat a normal human portation of food inline with price I am charged for the meal

I do not eat 25 plates full of prime rib for $5.

I do not abuse business simply because "I technically can because it is in the rules"

I fucking hate people that look for these types of technicalities to exploit in society. These types of people are exactly why there are pages of Terms of service, and why we can not have nice things, because people can not be trusted to not abuse shit.

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#179

Post by pfg » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

makerbraker wrote: post #161

pfg wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fr…

I'd expect their S3 data transfer pricing to be closer to the assumed $0.02 CDN price. The price available to the public goes down to $0.05 once you hit 200 TB, and AWS is known to give significant discounts to large clients.

The storage cost is a good point, and I don't know which CDN they use, but I expect the songs that weren't "hot" would be evicted from edge caches pretty fast, so that should be no significant increase.

To put things into perspective, an article from 2009 estimates that Spotify used 84TB of traffic per day[1], back when they had 5 million users. Soundcloud claims to have had 40 million registered users in 2013 and 175 million unique monthly listeners in 2014. These numbers aren't easy to compare, but either way I think it's safe to say that 900TB should be a small fraction of their monthly traffic, and shouldn't make a huge dent in their financials.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2009/oct/08/spot...

Re: Archiveteam are backing up SoundCloud

#180

Post by throwaway2048 » Mon, Jul 17, 2017, 4:57 PM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #51

syshum wrote: 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

Reposting my comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14716912

-----------------------------

There is a strongly utilitarian argument to not allowing such false statements.

It devalues the products of people that aren't bullshitting you. Say with fake-unlimited the "real limit" is 4TB before they start terminating you, but a different provider provides 5TB of capacity.

Because the former is allowed to outright lie, there is no way for the latter to effectively communicate that they are in fact offering a better product, instead they too have to make a bullshit "fake unlimited" claim to compete. Now because nobody has to actually back their claims with anything, they are infact massively incentivised to cut the "real storage" limits, because it will cut their costs, and they can still keep making the same claims.

Its a market for lemons[1] race to the bottom, and everyone loses, producer and consumer because scamming liars cannot be reliably assessed beforehand. So consumers lose faith in the entire market segment, and providers offering actual legitimate services become unsustainable.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

-----------------------------

If you allow sellers to lie about information-opaque things like this, you drive the entire market to a shittier equilibrium, it should absolutely not be allowed.