191–200 of 230 posts
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
So I can backup my computer every day, encrypt the blob and upload it?
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 is a paid plan: SoundCloud Go. https://soundcloud.com/go
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'm not going to eat 25 plates of anything but, at a buffet, I have no issue with mostly going light on the cheaper fillers. And I'm not going to worry about it if I end up getting a "good deal" on the meal as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 infringe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Wait what? I mean the cost of admission is usually more like $50 but that's practically the SOP for Brazilian steakhouses. I have fasted for days just so that I could eat more.
Archiveteam seems like a really cool project, what I was wondering (and couldn't find in the FAQ) is who is paying for all the storage? Is it donated by big tech companies?
A decent amount eventually ends up at archive.org [not all, because archive.ort needs to be a bit more careful, but they have a decent symbiotic relationship]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 infringe…
Looks like they do hash matching to automatically scan for copyrighted content: https://torrentfreak.com/google-drive-uses-hash-matching-det...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why should the companies think twice? It's the users who end up suffering, not the companies. The companies will just put an end to abusive users or punish everyone uniformly by increasing prices.
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. 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…
In the United States for instance, making a copy of any digital media is generally illegal, period. The two major exceptions here are if you can prove "fair use", or if you are an archive or library.
"Fair use" is, of course, a very fuzzy term. Fuzzy enough to give companies enough wiggle room to terminate if, as probably most large archives would be, a person uploaded terabytes and terabytes of copyrighted media to their drive. (If said person shares copyrighted links in particular, that usually is explicitly called out in storage TOS clauses... but even if not, I think it would be difficult to claim "fair use" for a personal upload of Soundcloud to your Google drive.)
In the Archive Team's case, it looks like the Archive Team is using the Wayback Machine from archive.org. (http://archiveteam.org/index.php?title=Dev/Infrastructure) Libraries and archives have their own set of rules allowing limited copying (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108), in addition to the general "fair use case". My guess is due to questions of Soundcloud's longevity, archiving Soundcloud would qualify.
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 th…
Or if you worked with them, and both of you happened to be in Amazon, that could be a no-cost transfer.