41–50 of 230 posts
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.
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…
The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that Archiveteam are actually detrimental (in the long run) to the well-being of the Internet. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work they do, and without them lots of content would simply disappear. But solving this problem should be at the core of the protocol itself (Xanadu, anyone?[1]), not depending on the resources and goodwill of a single team. Just like…
I disagree. Expecting networks and software to act as an immutable medium is a fool's errand. The internet was never meant to provide a permanent cultural archive, and it's not actually a "problem" that it doesn't, because that's not what it's for.
Backups should be a service, not a feature of the network or the protocol itself. I think that what Archive Team does represents the correct way to approach the issue.
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.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC they said "selective backup" To me that means "stuff that's most likely fine to preserve and most likely isn't found on other places". Also according to Sound Cloud's ToS by using them you are granting all users rights to "to use, copy, listen to offline, repost, transmit or otherwise distribute" your content. So if Archive Team downloads everything they can (that does not in itself violate copyright (i.e. they…
Not quite. The Terms of Use state that uploaders grant users the ability to use, copy, repost, distribute, etc. content specifically "utilizing the features of the Platform from time to time, and within the parameters set by you using the Services". Which means you're only allowed to redistribute content through the facilities provided by Soundcloud. You're not allowed to simply download music and share it outside of…
At least I read this only as "by default you are granting all users permission to do whatever you like", then you can restrict the access rights according to next part.
>You can limit and restrict the availability of certain of Your Content to other users of the Platform, and to users of Linked Services
I'd guess there are still plenty of stuff to backup even if some artists/performers/bands use more restrictive licensing.
What's the current context here? Is SoundCloud going away anytime soon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost certainly Google Drive unlimited.
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"
Just remembered cases like Deutsche Bank vs Leo Kirch which are legal nightmares.
Someone has already backed it up: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/6n1pap/soundcl...
I know I routinely use that to get songs from Soundcloud for offline listening.
The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that Archiveteam are actually detrimental (in the long run) to the well-being of the Internet. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work they do, and without them lots of content would simply disappear. But solving this problem should be at the core of the protocol itself (Xanadu, anyone?[1]), not depending on the resources and goodwill of a single team. Just like…
I downvoted this. Maybe we will get to this point one day, but in the meantime I think we should all appreciate the amount of conservation work they do for the future generations. Exactly how NGOs help feed people hoping that one day the system will be fixed.