they haven't released any of the files yet, just metadata
this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
63 points (95.7% liked)
Linux
62429 readers
523 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
I would recommend against a new player when existing scriptable ones like vlc and mpv already exist.
Instead what I would do is a plugin for either, eventually repackaged as its own player (if somehow installing the script itself is too much for some) for which the script would
- include a very small torrent client
- point that client to the torrent (which AFAICT is still not public, so for now a reconfigurable URL)
- include a search function that when it fails, proposes to search within the trimmed cleaned torrent metadata then does the torrent download then plays.
I want to upvote for your first half, but your second half is just leeching.
You'd have settings for when to stop seeding, e.g. 1:1 ratio minimum, duration of the track xN, etc with a reasonable default. Suggestions welcomed.
? Download and play the file, no?
Yeah, it's an odd question. Spotify is that frontend.
If they mean for local playback, then yeah, that's just any media player.
If they mean something hosted somewhere, then good luck getting funding for hosting costs, and lawyers for the barrage of C&D's.
I assumed that they meant a streaming torrent client with some sort of search within that torrent’s file listing.
Then it's not an odd question. Spotify is the frontend for Spotify, not Anna's Archive. Local playback is different from streaming. And the content is already hosted somewhere (or will be soon).
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.
The content will be there whether people are streaming it or not. When OP said "anyone", they were not necessarily referring to AA.
the traffic costs will inflate dramatically.
I imagine they considered this before they acquired the content.
They can host what they have currently because it's low-profile enough that it doesn't make waves.
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.
That will not be true if my mom can roll up and easily pirate her favorite songs.
Guess we're going to find out!
The content will be there whether people are streaming it or not. When OP said “anyone”, they were not necessarily referring to AA.
Sure, not sure how that applies to what I said though.
I imagine they considered this before they acquired the content.
Why would they account for someone developing a tool to slurp up their bandwidth?
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.
Why is that the question?
It’s made waves several times. Including the time Meta scraped all the books from it.
That's not even remotely comparable to someone creating a publically accessible, friendly UI for reading all those books.
Guess we’re going to find out!
I would guess we never find out because no one is ever going to make such an app, for all the reasons I listed.
not sure how that applies to what I said though.
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.
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.
If their bandwidth spins out of control, they can just pull the torrent
I mean sure. But then it all would have been for nothing. I don't think they're that dumb.
The Law? They can compel whoever is hosting the frontend to take it down
On what grounds? It's just software. It's not doing anything illegal. Lots of software like this already exists for YouTube and Spotify.
Not really, no.
LOL yes.
That's not true.
It is.
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.
Only if the assumption
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 it will be, regardless of intent. Saying otherwise is absurd.
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.
They do what they can but they don’t go anywhere because they’re not illegal.
Providing access to copyrighted content without a license is indeed illegal.
Not say to anything of actual torrenting software like qbittorrent or Stremio that have been around for years.
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.
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.
You do realize you can stream torrent files?
~~Of course they will.~~ Different thing
Neat trick.
No it is not.
Lol. Okay. Agree to disagree with copyright law then.
It doesn’t matter if it’s torrented or not.
Again, the bandwidth ramifications are dramatically different. Keep up.
You do realize you can stream torrent files?
You do realize that strengthens my point that it already exists
Neat trick.
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.
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?
Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.
We were not discussing bandwidth, we were discussing legality. It’s literally in the previous sentence. Keep up.
We were discussing both.
streaming remote music.
From a particular server.
Name a software they are allowing to exist that provides easy access to a repository of copyrighted media files.
Shit, where do I start:
-
NewPipe
-
FreeTube
-
GrayJay
-
Seal
-
Stacher
-
SimpMusic
-
AudioTube
-
Pipeline
-
Parabolic
-
Revanced
Should I go on?
We were discussing both.
Not in that sentence, and you know it. You're just arguing in bad faith now.
From a particular server.
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.
Not in that sentence, and you know it. You’re just arguing in bad faith now.
So you're just debate trolling then, and not actually trying to have a discussion about my comment. What a surprise.
Doesn’t matter.
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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
First off, the traffic costs will inflate dramatically.
Not how torrents work
Second, lawyers would be all over it.
Also not how torrents work
it’s low-profile enough that it doesn’t make waves.
It was covered in many major news outlets.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Aah, the streaming generation.
Anna's Archive is a site for downloading pirated material. They already host a bunch of pirated books and other media. Don't ask me how they get away with it.
Recently they pirated the entirety of Spotify library. OP is asking for a frontend to stream that library.
Yup, my comment was made with that understanding.
it's 300TB
It’s one file?
it's in big batches
Get torrent archives when they are ready, select the music you like and share that. Way more sustainable than streaming from a hobby project that already costs them insane amounts
I wonder could it be done as a plug-in for Popcorn Time
Or all the arr things
Havent heard of popcorn time yet
Edit: while I like the idea, I hope that the software at least seeds to ratio 1 by default. Otherwise it is pretty unsustainable for the network
Who's Anna? What is this about?
Anna's archive, known for "open-sourced" books. They scraped spotify recently.
Anna's Archive is the world's largest collection of pirated books, scientific papers and more. Recently they turned to pirating music as well, starting by dumping 86 million tracks from Spotify.
All of the scraped content is available in the form of BitTorrent shares, so you can always download parts of it and spread them further.
The OP wants a convenient way to access this collection and play music from it.
Are you looking for something like Lidarr?
What features would people expect/want such software to have?
- Search
- Play
- Edit and save playlists
Those are the main ones. Sharing playlists would be nice but not necessary for a minimum viable product. I like the architecture @utopiah@lemmy.ml proposed too.
view more: next ›