I know there’s a lot of music out there, but I would have guessed the number was still less than 86,000,000 on Spotify.
I was actually thinking that number is kinda low.
I mean, if one song was released every 10 seconds, it’d take 28 years to hit 86 million songs. That sounds like a lot of Spotify.
I read a bit of Anna’s article and if I remember correctly there are something like 256 million tracks on Spotify. Mind you this includes things like white noise tracks.
But 86 million tracks represent 99.6% of listens or something like that. Most tracks don’t get played much if at all
Thanks Luffy and the rest of the straw hats as they fight the world government
It’s both a *Ho*, *Ho*, *Ho* and a *Yarrr* moment.
Damn, I wish I could afford to buy 300TB of local data storage.
Looks like you can get refurbished 26TB drives for about £340, so 12 of those. PCIe -> 6x SATA adaptors run you about £40 each. Molex to SATA power adaptors about £5. So £4200 will let you store all that with a bit left over for postage and some duct tape to make a storage bay out of the boxes it all came in.
I’d probably want a few more drives for RAID6 and some hot spares, but if you go JBoD then at least you can just download the torrent again ;-)
Research RAID more effectively.
RAID-10 is far more efficient not only as a transfer speed but also as redundancy across large arrays. It’s only nerf is storage inefficiency.
RAID-6 requires serious computing oomph to create the parity bits, which dramatically slows down writes and rebuilds. It also needs only two drive losses across any one array before the whole array dies. Conversely RAID-10 has only duplication, no parity, so compute load is far lower and writes/rebuilds are a lot faster, and it can have up to half of all drives fail before the array is irretrievably broken.
Yeah yeah, I know RAID.
If OP can’t afford the storage for ‘just a bunch of disks’, then paying twice as much for 100% redundancy in RAID10 is doubly unaffordable.
Also, consider what is being stored here. It’s music files that we obtained from a torrent. We need sufficient raw performance to read a few megabytes per minute so we can listen to them. As a bonus, we may wish to upload the torrent again, and can use any spare capacity for that. What benefit are you going to obtain from your very expensive storage solution?
RAID6 can lose any two drives, but at most two. RAID-10 can lose only 1 drive with guaranteed no data loss. Losing two might lose the cluster, if you lose a drive and its mirror. Yes, if you’re really lucky, you can lose up to half, but ‘feeling lucky’ isn’t how we plan data storage. Doesn’t matter, we’ve got a backup - download the torrent again ;-)
🏴☠️"Drink up me hartys! YO-HO!"🏴☠️
If only I had a spare 300TB of storage
Fyi just to support Annas you can go and tell them how much space you have to spare and generate a few magnet links for you.
Tbh they’re probably fucked now they’ve painted a huge target on their backs.
As opposed to before …?
I reckon so, they were pretty low profile before and e-books and journal articles likely don’t draw the same audience as a huge open library of music.
I do have access to 300tb but do I want to use it for music?
What percentage of it would be something you actually enjoyed listening to?
Archiving/preservation is separate to consuming the content.
Precisely. This isn’t for people who want to use it. This is for people who want to clone it.
1
Maybe 20%
If they get caught, they can always say it was to train an AI model
I’d be so happy if they tried this in court and got away with it
This strategy really depends on their ability to bribe President Trump for a pardon.
Not necessarily. There is precedent, they’d just need to make a credible-enough attempt to actually do this with the data (and get the right judge/jury).
Remember what they took from us
https://qz.com/840661/what-cd-is-gone-a-eulogy-for-the-greatest-music-collection-in-the-world
News like this make me sad. I have not been able to replicate the amazing experience I had with Audiogalaxy or Soulseek. By looking for things you liked you could then search what the people who had that music also had lying around and I discovered so much great stuff that way. My taste in music is extremely eclectic but since I’ve been limited to Spotify, I am rarely discovering weird music anymore. Fuck corporations.
I have not been able to replicate the amazing experience I had with Audiogalaxy or Soulseek. […] My taste in music is extremely eclectic but since I’ve been limited to Spotify, I am rarely discovering weird music anymore. Fuck corporations.
Soulseek is still alive
I know. I haven’t been able to get it working, though.
This is interesting, thanks!
Don’t know that I would be active enough for what.cd, but I am drawn to archiving, lossless files and comprehensive metadata.
I ripped my hundreds of CDs to FLAC and spent a good while organizing before Spotify came along with its temptations. Have started buying again on Bandcamp lately and been thinking about spinning up jellyfin.
Musicbrainz Picard + Emby/Jellyfin is a great combo. Emby servers double as navidrome servers so you can use myriad apps to listen.
Hmmmm, I need a new nas…
Damn, I’d be open to if somone could host this, I’d actually pay a monthly subscription to an individual rather than spotify
That was my first thought as well
kek
Does spotify already have lossless? Because fuck mp3s for archiving.
"Relatively popular songs are stored in their original 160kbit/s OGG Vorbis quality, while the rest use 75kbit/s "
I don’t know OGG files but if that is comparable to MP3s of the same quality then it is all pretty shitty quality.
75kbit OGG Vorbis is like maybe 128kb mp3, while 160kb Vorbis is indistinguishable from CD quality for most people on most equipment.
But MY equipment is special
/s
75kbit??? 💀 💀 💀
What’s wrong? That’s just standard audio quality.
Even YT has 128kb/s, and YouTube audio quality is the bare minimum for the majority of people not to complain
Youtube doesn’t define what’s standard and what’s not because it’s backed by a multi-billion dollar company which could make all audio playback there 100% lossless if it wanted to.
Spotify has flac for premium users. The releases are ogg.
Great, because I remember checking years before, and they still didn’t have lossless. Finally they caught up.
Still won’t pay.
Who actually cares? This stuff was already available.
It is this just bait to get y’all riled over “sticking it” to Spotify over what amounts to an utterly inconsequential action?
Personally I think the metadata alone is pretty valuable. Being able to use it as an agent for something like my Plex library would be great from my understanding.
it starts to become comical that any time I see you around you are just stirring shit
“Most music is terrible” so I’m not particularly drawn to having this vast archive. I want to listen to the things I really like.
It’s also not lossless, so from an archive standpoint that seems to diminish its value.
That said, I do think the insights they post on their blog about statistics and distribution are interesting. And just because that music is currently available via paid services doesn’t mean it will always be as accessible in one place. There would be a lot of manual collection and labeling you’d have to do to get something like this otherwise. And you wouldn’t have nearly as much confidence about how comprehensive such a database was if you did it yourself.
