this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
62 points (95.6% liked)
Linux
61501 readers
562 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I haven't heard them say what format will be included in the torrent, say it's 20 TB blocks of secured archival format. Then you would have to download that full volume ( at least, there are ways to force you to download the full 15 set of 20 TB archives) before decompressing it and see files as is, that would rendering streaming or casual downloading impossible under current tech.
And that's ok.
Anna's archive isn't there to cater to today's wants but to protect what might disappear tomorrow.
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.
Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.
We were discussing both.
From a particular server.
Shit, where do I start:
NewPipe
FreeTube
GrayJay
Seal
Stacher
SimpMusic
AudioTube
Pipeline
Parabolic
Revanced
Should I go on?
Not in that sentence, and you know it. You're just arguing in bad faith now.
Doesn't matter.
I no longer believe you're interested in an honest discussion so I'm gonna stop wasting my time.
Absolutely none of those provide unauthorized access to copyrighted media files. It's perfectly legal to build a frontend to display publically accessible content like YouTube. It would not be legal for that app to provide public access to downloaded copies of those files on a separate server. You fundamentally don't understand the law.
So you're just debate trolling then, and not actually trying to have a discussion about my comment. What a surprise.
Of course it does, but you've debate trolled yourself into getting lost in the sauce.
Let me hold your hand:
There are 2 logical ways to look at this question. Either, it's a frontend that streams directly off of AAs servers, which is bad for bandwidth and draws a lot of legal attention. Or, it's a way to play torrents, which already exist. Odd question.