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.
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?
“the lack of a central server that could limit bandwidth”… “The BitTorrent protocol can be used to reduce the server and network impact of distributing large files. Rather than downloading a file from a single source server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a “swarm” of hosts to upload and download from each other simultaneously”… “there is no single point of failure as in one way server-client transfers”… “publishers that value BitTorrent as a cheap alternative to a client-server approach”… “to increase availability and to reduce load on their own servers, especially when dealing with larger files”
Happy to explain this more if you’re still confused.
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.
The assumption is that someone will come along and develop a frontend that ravages their bandwidth? provides convenient access to the hosted files.
Of course they will.
Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.
No it is not. If it was, these apps would be gone as soon as they went up. Shit, if that was the case your browser would be illegal. Hosting the files is illegal, and I said said before, I’m not sure how AA gets away with that.
But we’re explicitly not talking about torrenting.
LOL we’re talking about software that facilitates access to copyrighted content. It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not. Is that why you seem confused?
then we’re back to my original comment about how music players already exist.
Not a trick. What you were saying did not reflect my statements, so I adjusted it so that it did while still getting the point across.
Agree to disagree with copyright law then.
Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?
Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists
LOL what? No, it’s just the opposite. Your point is about the playback of local music and the discussion at hand is about streaming remote music. You’re saying the software is illegal. The fact that it still exists, and has for many years suggests that it’s actually not.
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.
You’ve raised –
Anna’s Archive bearing the server-load (“slurp up their bandwidth”, “the traffic costs will inflate dramatically”)
Lawyers demanding a centralised takedown
Both of these are based on the idea of a client-server model. Torrents don’t have that model at all. It’s a peer-to-peer model as opposed to a client-server model
“the lack of a central server that could limit bandwidth”… “The BitTorrent protocol can be used to reduce the server and network impact of distributing large files. Rather than downloading a file from a single source server, the BitTorrent protocol allows users to join a “swarm” of hosts to upload and download from each other simultaneously”… “there is no single point of failure as in one way server-client transfers”… “publishers that value BitTorrent as a cheap alternative to a client-server approach”… “to increase availability and to reduce load on their own servers, especially when dealing with larger files”
Happy to explain this more if you’re still confused.
Do you not understand how threads work?
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.
Of course they will.
No it is not. If it was, these apps would be gone as soon as they went up. Shit, if that was the case your browser would be illegal. Hosting the files is illegal, and I said said before, I’m not sure how AA gets away with that.
LOL we’re talking about software that facilitates access to copyrighted content. It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not. Is that why you seem confused?
You do realize you can stream torrent files?
Neat trick.
Lol. Okay. Agree to disagree with copyright law then.
Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.
You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists
Not a trick. What you were saying did not reflect my statements, so I adjusted it so that it did while still getting the point across.
Law is not a matter of agreement, it is a matter of fact. Do you really think Google and Spotify would allow these software to exist if it were illegal?
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
LOL what? No, it’s just the opposite. Your point is about the playback of local music and the discussion at hand is about streaming remote music. You’re saying the software is illegal. The fact that it still exists, and has for many years suggests that it’s actually not.