>SeedBox Lite is an open-source project provided for educational and personal use only. We do not endorse, promote, or facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form. This software is designed to be used with legal content only.
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!"
This is beautiful and hillarious. A disclaimer at the very bottom of the page who no one will ever notice. A huge colorful screenshot of the newest Marvel movie at the very top of the page everyone will see immediately.
> "Who cares if the words are objectively untrue? We have plausible deniability now that we said them!"
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.
I’m sorry but it is objectively untrue that this software does not “facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form”. What is the purpose of this project if it is not to “facilitate” watching torrented material?
This is more plausible deniability talk. No one has suggested that all torrent use is illegal. But this software absolutely “facilitates” illegal use cases. A gun can be used legally, it would still be ludicrous to say that guns never “facilitate” murder.
I think it's fair to say that the software itself could/does facilitate illegal uses cases. But with that line of argumentation, then all software facilitates illegal use-cases just by existing.
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.
I have the exact same reaction when I read about “licenses” attached to LLM weights, especially the “you can't use that in the EU” as if it sufficed to comply with European regulations.
How would this work well? I kinda thought that the whole benefit of torrents was being able to parallelize the downloads in chunks across the entirety of the file - wouldn't this negate that?
Aren't these torrent clients bad for the swarm? Requesting chunks in sequence and probably not sticking around to seed. Do they at least seed while watching?
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.
Outside of a private tracker (which takes measures to keep random untracked peers from getting on the torrent), not really. Individual seeder clients can detect bad behavior like leeching and ban by IP, but each torrent is likely to have a different seeding pool.
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...
Using "Seedbox" in the name is very misleading then... I would have been excited to see a Stremio style alternative that actually downloads and seeds content for an extended period of time.
In this context the word "leeching" has a specific meaning. In bittorrent, "leeching" is downloading, "seeding" is uploading. With a normal torrent client, every download has you starting as a leecher (downloader) and becoming a seeder (uploader), but this client skips that 2nd part.
If a torrent is already well seeded then downloading in random order isn't really a problem because there are already multiple complete copies out there. If it isn't, then the streaming client will likely receive less data from non-streaming peers due to the data it can offer being less rare and desirable, given several peers in the swarm downloads in sequence. That makes them all even less likely to be able to stream without pausing for buffering when there's not already a lot of capacity. So it probably works itself out alright.
This is awesome for some use cases, but the problem with having it replace my Jellyfin + qbittorrent + vpn setup is that Jellyfin is available on many smart TVs such as Roku or LG.
I'm looking through the frontend code, I mainly work with react and vite, same as this project.
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
> No human would write a Dockerfile with absolutely useless comments like:
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.
Maybe my message came a bit too negative, AI is fine. The scope of this app is incredible regardless.
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.
Browsers can't make torrent connections, or any others for that matter. Except for HTTP and WebRTC.
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.
Over a decade ago, there was a software in China called "Kuaibo(快播, meaning 'Fast Playback')", which offered a similar service. But different from it, Kuaibo had its own server, which allowed users to stream torrent videos very quickly. Eventually, the company was shut down due to copyright and porn issues.
>SeedBox Lite is an open-source project provided for educational and personal use only. We do not endorse, promote, or facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form. This software is designed to be used with legal content only.
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!"
This is beautiful and hillarious. A disclaimer at the very bottom of the page who no one will ever notice. A huge colorful screenshot of the newest Marvel movie at the very top of the page everyone will see immediately.
Great.
They've literally censored the pirated filename and the torrent hash. Begging to be sued.
I'm starting to regret supporting software freedom. /s
> "Who cares if the words are objectively untrue? We have plausible deniability now that we said them!"
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
I’m sorry but it is objectively untrue that this software does not “facilitate copyright infringement, illegal streaming, or piracy in any form”. What is the purpose of this project if it is not to “facilitate” watching torrented material?
Torrented material is not necessarily copyrighted material.
It's not unlawful to use bittorent.
This is more plausible deniability talk. No one has suggested that all torrent use is illegal. But this software absolutely “facilitates” illegal use cases. A gun can be used legally, it would still be ludicrous to say that guns never “facilitate” murder.
I think it's fair to say that the software itself could/does facilitate illegal uses cases. But with that line of argumentation, then all software facilitates illegal use-cases just by existing.
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 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.
While showing an image of Disney IP
I have the exact same reaction when I read about “licenses” attached to LLM weights, especially the “you can't use that in the EU” as if it sufficed to comply with European regulations.
Wait until you see the terms of service documents your corporate lawyer will tell you that you need in the footer of your website.
How would this work well? I kinda thought that the whole benefit of torrents was being able to parallelize the downloads in chunks across the entirety of the file - wouldn't this negate that?
Aren't these torrent clients bad for the swarm? Requesting chunks in sequence and probably not sticking around to seed. Do they at least seed while watching?
> Do they at least seed while watching?
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.
Sometimes I think private trackers are too uptight about ratios and hit-and-run rules, then I see something like this.
Wouldn't an app like this stop working after a few uses?
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?
Outside of a private tracker (which takes measures to keep random untracked peers from getting on the torrent), not really. Individual seeder clients can detect bad behavior like leeching and ban by IP, but each torrent is likely to have a different seeding pool.
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...
Using "Seedbox" in the name is very misleading then... I would have been excited to see a Stremio style alternative that actually downloads and seeds content for an extended period of time.
> I would have been excited to see a Stremio style alternative that actually downloads and seeds content for an extended period of time
That's just a standard torrent client + media player combo, isn't it?
If you're not uploading, you're not infringing/pirating (in some jurisdictions).
Isn’t piracy itself a form of leeching
In this context the word "leeching" has a specific meaning. In bittorrent, "leeching" is downloading, "seeding" is uploading. With a normal torrent client, every download has you starting as a leecher (downloader) and becoming a seeder (uploader), but this client skips that 2nd part.
A seeder is a peer which is serving a complete a set of all files. Peers which are not seeds also uploads, and this is not called seeding.
>Isn’t piracy itself a form of leeching
Actually i'm just collecting data to train an AI
well officers I see nothing illegal being done here, case closed
If a torrent is already well seeded then downloading in random order isn't really a problem because there are already multiple complete copies out there. If it isn't, then the streaming client will likely receive less data from non-streaming peers due to the data it can offer being less rare and desirable, given several peers in the swarm downloads in sequence. That makes them all even less likely to be able to stream without pausing for buffering when there's not already a lot of capacity. So it probably works itself out alright.
This is awesome for some use cases, but the problem with having it replace my Jellyfin + qbittorrent + vpn setup is that Jellyfin is available on many smart TVs such as Roku or LG.
This could be integrated into Jellyfin as a source and it would stream it from the server to whatever client.
Leech client, add to blacklists.
Should be called "not-a-seedbox"
Or "leechbox"
I'm looking through the frontend code, I mainly work with react and vite, same as this project.
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
It definitely is. No human would write a Dockerfile with absolutely useless comments like:
or Though, the question is... so what? It is open source. Who cares who/what wrote it.> No human would write a Dockerfile with absolutely useless comments like:
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.
Maybe my message came a bit too negative, AI is fine. The scope of this app is incredible regardless.
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.
Does it download torrents on your server or web torrent on your browser? - the readme really doesn't say.
Imo downloading on the server is more useful. Web torrent is great but I don't think it's very practical in many places.
Why does this need a server? Isn't the point to be able to add a torrent and start watching immediately?
Browsers can't make torrent connections, or any others for that matter. Except for HTTP and WebRTC.
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.
there are several hybrid desktop clients that do support WebTorrent peers
It could be a desktop app :shrug:
Over a decade ago, there was a software in China called "Kuaibo(快播, meaning 'Fast Playback')", which offered a similar service. But different from it, Kuaibo had its own server, which allowed users to stream torrent videos very quickly. Eventually, the company was shut down due to copyright and porn issues.
I know of a few of these types of services operating in Europe presently