Considering there is a file called "verify-no-uploads.js" ((https://github.com/hotheadhacker/seedbox-lite/blob/6a89d1974...)) in the repository, which contains "This script monitors network activity to ensure zero uploads", it seems to me like they're actively trying to just be leechers.
Actually i'm just collecting data to train an AI
As I understand, the protocol penalizes users that don't contribute to the upstream, although I never checked the details.
Or do this kind of app keep changing the identity to avoid getting downgraded? Does Stremio work like this too?
So the penalty is mostly just on individual torrents. Of course, trying to pull something like this on a private tracker would get you banned real fast...
Uploaders get priority. But if you show up to a torrent past the initial ramp of growth there will be plenty of bandwidth to go around and you'll experience a high speed download regardless of your ratio.
That's just a standard torrent client + media player combo, isn't it?
What the duck did I just read?
100% this was vibecoded and the author doesn't understand what they are doing…
> // Function to monitor network activity (macOS specific)
I'm guessing all macOS computers use exactly the same NIC name, and come with netstat preinstalled?
I always find legal disclaimers like this funny. It's like kindergarteners giving each other cootie shots. Just some magic words said out of some combination of tradition and hope that they might have some actual protective qualities. "Who cares if the words are objectively untrue? We have plausible deniability now that we said them!"
Great.
I'm starting to regret supporting software freedom. /s
But they are not "objectively untrue". You can argue all day long that you don't believe the author are being truthful, it doesn't make it true.
edit: that being said, in juxtaposition with a copyrighted Marvel image, I could see it being used in court against the author to prove they were all along catering to piracy.
edit2: clearly, I'm not a lawyer
It's not unlawful to use bittorent.
The statement "We do not endorse, promote, or facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form", might be poorly written with regards to the fact that just by existing this torrent streaming program _does_ facilitate piracy, but I don't think this was your original argument.
I’ll be honest, I really don’t know what argument you think I’m making or that you yourself are making.
The truth here is that this software will overwhelmingly be used in an illegal manner. The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer. Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening. Your comments here seem to just be continuing that charade.
I’m not even condemning this software or illegally pirating movies and TV shows. I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.
> The creators knew that when they wrote that disclaimer and we all know that reading the disclaimer.
This is the idea I'm pushing back against.
Yes, you are very likely correct in your assessment that the creators know that their software will be used illegally.
No, you are incorrect, in saying this is 1- "objectively untrue" and 2- implying the statement might _not_ have some protective qualities.
To take a purposefully exaggerated analogy: you can believe all day long someone committed murder, it still doesn't make it true. You can argue all day long the authors aren't being truthful, it still doesn't make it true.
> Yet the disclaimer is still placed there like it has some reason for existing beyond allowing everyone to pretend something that is happening isn’t happening
I'd agree with this, and, add that, at the same time, (assuming the USA here) it's probably placed there for legal reasons (whether it factually matters legally or not is a question for an actual lawyer, which, objectively, I am not).
> I’m just remarking on the silliness of the disclaimer.
It feels a bit silly, yes, and at the same time... needed?
Also, I don't know what compelled you to speculate on the legal value of the disclaimer while also admitting you have no actual insight into that issue. That feels like posting just to post. You're not even baselessly speculating that I'm wrong, you're baselessly speculating that I might be wrong.
If your original comment is solely about this revised 6 words statement, then, yes, you are correct, the claim is objectively untrue.
I'm no mind reader though, I assumed you were talking about the whole thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Or does it make sense to put a disclaimer on there, not just from a legal perspective, but to actively discourage those users who haven't made up their mind already? While people absolutely can use their software for pirating content—which is in open debate about the ethics—I've known very few individuals who torrent to actually profit from others material, but I know of plenty anti-piracy advocates who use stolen content for profit.
I've also known bucketloads of people that have paid $50+ for a movie in the theater or $10+ for a rental at home, only realize how badly they were duped by the industry to give money for something that was practically garbage, which they ended up not watching anyway yet the purchase was nonrefundable, which unfortunately happens several times because of all the fake interest in something actually being advertising, which appeals to their desire to fit in. It is often very exploitative.
I've also known a descent amount of people that discovered content they found joy in by torrenting, maybe at the time being depressed... struggling to get out of bed or find inspiration, and as a result improved their condition to become pretty big supporters of those who made that content later on, which they would then gladly pay for thereafter.
Seriously, any actual good artist I've known usually would be the first to encourage someone to pirate their content because they understand that the people that like it will support them, and the people that don't... they have no desire to exploit them.
Like you can claim people shouldn't shoot up heroine, while still giving them clean needles if they're still going to do it.
Not a great example because very few guns will be used to kill people whereas an overwhelming majority of the users of this software will use it to view pirated material.
Ok, that's not actually what I believe, I don't even know if you could make this argument. This is just for the arguments sake, sorry.
but do you think we were all born yesterday? Are you suggesting _most_ people using a bittorrent client are downloading public domain movies like sherlock holmes shorts? Or linux ISO’s for fun?
You are technically correct. But it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the disclaimer here is a total joke.
It was refreshing to see a plain standard vite initial setup used as is but the way authentication is handled makes it feel like it's all AI generated. It does the standard authprovider, useauth setup all AI tools give with the same variable names
# Copy source code
COPY . .
# Expose port
EXPOSE 3001
I've only just began working on these things. Just curious to see what other methods people use to do auth than the same thing all tutorials do. Expected to learn something and got disappointed that's all.
One small correction: no human with more than a passing familiarity with Dockerfiles would write those comments, But I've definitely seen humans learning Docker for the first time write useless comments almost exactly like that. Especially if their coworkers have given them a list of what they need the Dockerfile to do.
I think the original concept of torrents is to ensure the chunks with the least amount of copies in the network get duplicated earliest (in worst case there's only 1 copy, if that peer goes offline you won't get a complete download).
But this concept would be interesting to see when people stop watching.. if 1000 clients have the first 20% of the movie but only 600 have more, it means many quit watching at 20% of the movie..
IceWreck•5mo ago
Imo downloading on the server is more useful. Web torrent is great but I don't think it's very practical in many places.
koakuma-chan•5mo ago
immibis•5mo ago
WebTorrent is a hack to run torrent protocol over WebRTC, but obviously it only connects to other WebTorrent programs and not to normal torrent programs. I think PeerTube uses it.
koakuma-chan•5mo ago
majorchord•5mo ago