It’s one thing to host a gigantic torrent somewhere.
It’s another thing entirely to offer up a nice frontend for everyone to play files from that torrent. First off, the traffic costs will inflate dramatically. Second, lawyers would be all over it.
They can host what they have currently because it’s low-profile enough that it doesn’t make waves. That will not be true if my mom can roll up and easily pirate her favorite songs.
It’s another thing entirely to offer up a nice frontend for everyone to play files from that torrent… we’re talking about streaming directly from AAs servers
Because if the files are hosted, they can be streamed. And they’re going to be hosted. They can’t control that.
Why would they account for someone developing a tool to slurp up their bandwidth?
Because it’s an inevitable reality?
I would guess we never find out because no one is ever going to make such an app, for all the reasons I listed.
The reasons you listed specified why AA cannot or should not host the files. But that is not in question. They have said they are hosting the files. They have nothing to do with why anyone anyone else cannot or should not create an app to stream those files.
Because if the files are hosted, they can be streamed. And they’re going to be hosted. They can’t control that.
Who can’t control that? AA? Of course they can. If their bandwidth spins out of control, they can just pull the torrent. The Law? They can compel whoever is hosting the frontend to take it down, or persue legal action against AA.
Because it’s an inevitable reality?
Not really, no.
The reasons you listed specified why AA cannot or should not host the files.
Can you link me to the part of that article that says that somehow once you put a torrent file on your server, you can never remove it from your server?
Or were you just trying to do a gotcha without understanding what I said?
Once you put a torrent out, you don’t have control of it. The uploader does not have a kill-switch. Torrents are peer-to-peer without a central server.
I mean sure. But then it all would have been for nothing. I don’t think they’re that dumb.
Only if the assumption is that the reason AA is hosting the scaped content is for someone to create a frontend that hooks into it and soaks up their bandwidth. Which is an absurd assumption.
On what grounds? It’s just software. It’s not doing anything illegal. Lots of software like this already exists for YouTube and Spotify.
And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.
The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.
And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.
They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal. Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.
It’s one thing to host a gigantic torrent somewhere.
It’s another thing entirely to offer up a nice frontend for everyone to play files from that torrent. First off, the traffic costs will inflate dramatically. Second, lawyers would be all over it.
They can host what they have currently because it’s low-profile enough that it doesn’t make waves. That will not be true if my mom can roll up and easily pirate her favorite songs.
Not how torrents work
Also not how torrents work
It was covered in many major news outlets.
Buddy, we’re talking about streaming directly from AAs servers, not torrenting as a concept.
???
Do you not know how torrents work?
that’s my point: no bandwidth or centralised-takedown issues
Do you usually just jump into random parts of threads to weigh in with tangents?
Yes.
About 15, why?
The content will be there whether people are streaming it or not. When OP said “anyone”, they were not necessarily referring to AA.
I imagine they considered this before they acquired the content.
The question is not whether or not they will be hosting the files. They have already said they will. So that’s neither here nor there.
It’s made waves several times. Including the time Meta scraped all the books from it.
Guess we’re going to find out!
Sure, not sure how that applies to what I said though.
Why would they account for someone developing a tool to slurp up their bandwidth?
Why is that the question?
That’s not even remotely comparable to someone creating a publically accessible, friendly UI for reading all those books.
I would guess we never find out because no one is ever going to make such an app, for all the reasons I listed.
I like this idea too!
Because if the files are hosted, they can be streamed. And they’re going to be hosted. They can’t control that.
Because it’s an inevitable reality?
The reasons you listed specified why AA cannot or should not host the files. But that is not in question. They have said they are hosting the files. They have nothing to do with why anyone anyone else cannot or should not create an app to stream those files.
Who can’t control that? AA? Of course they can. If their bandwidth spins out of control, they can just pull the torrent. The Law? They can compel whoever is hosting the frontend to take it down, or persue legal action against AA.
Not really, no.
That’s not true.
They cannot. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent
Can you link me to the part of that article that says that somehow once you put a torrent file on your server, you can never remove it from your server?
Or were you just trying to do a gotcha without understanding what I said?
Once you put a torrent out, you don’t have control of it. The uploader does not have a kill-switch. Torrents are peer-to-peer without a central server.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I mean sure. But then it all would have been for nothing. I don’t think they’re that dumb.
On what grounds? It’s just software. It’s not doing anything illegal. Lots of software like this already exists for YouTube and Spotify.
LOL yes.
It is.
Only if the assumption is that the reason AA is hosting the scaped content is for someone to create a frontend that hooks into it and soaks up their bandwidth. Which is an absurd assumption.
And YouTube and Spotify target that software legally wherever they feel they are being harmed by it.
The assumption is that it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.
They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal. Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.
The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ravages their bandwidth?
If that’s truly your stance then we’re essentially just done.
Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.
But we’re explicitly not talking about torrenting. Is that why you seem confused?
If we’re talking about torrenting the files and playing them, then we’re back to my original comment about how music players already exist.