Like everybody, I'm also a fan of free (anything). But you did not ask for the waves that pass through you (so you have the right to record it); but, you have to request a file from a server, not the same thing.
Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
201–210 of 253 posts
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram Signal WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
This isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot. Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
Signal would have to create a fake user for every integrated Whatsapp/Telegram user, and the client would have to create an e2e key pair. Signal's zero knowledge policy doesn't need to be compromised in order to achieve that. Hopefully it would be possible to opt out of the integrations.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot. Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
I'm not sure I understand? all three of those apps are end-to-end encrypted. Surely the recipient's phone has the key to decode and the company does not?
First of all, Telegram is not end to end encrypted. It has limited support for end to end encryption of direct messages only. There is zero support for E2E of groups, and zero support for E2E in a multiclient context, which makes the feature almost completely useless, and indeed, almost nobody uses it and I don't think even 1% of telegram users have ever used it or even know how to use it.
Integrating either Signal or WhatsApp clients with Telegram would to tantamount to a backdoor, or would require a redesign of Telegram so drastic that would upset its users. A perfect analogy is integrating WhatsApp and Twitter because Telegram is actually more similar to Twitter than it is to WhatsApp.
But even integrating Signal and WhatsApp which now share a similar encryption scheme and user ID isn't a good idea: Most Signal users don't want any interaction either directly or indirectly with WhatsApp. The two programs have completely different group implementations: WhatsApp keeps all the metadata server side, whereas Signal handles all of that client side with the server acting as a dumb router of opaque messages that wrap the group state updates. How would those two systems be reconciled? Would Signal have to accept WhatsApp users joining its group and then just leak all of the group metadata to WhatsApp servers for compatibility? Would WhatsApp have to re-write its entire service to be compatible with Signal's group semantics and see to it that all billion users are fully upgraded or kick them off the service?
These issues go on and on and on, and they increase exponentially the more messaging systems you try to add. The whole idea is just ridiculous.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great question. In the case where someone kills another (murder is a legal term) and the cases of many other 'crimes' eg stealing, abusing children, etc, these are immoral acts. One's heart knows this. In general, what people refer to as 'common law' is more or less in line with morality - I don't object to that so much. Now, if you wanted to impose a legal system (an external authority of morality) that doesn't cove…
Laws are not cash machines for those that write them. Laws are an attempt at solving coordination problems. They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Specifically, people will organize into groups that establish and follow rules. Not (just) through coercion, but because the alternative is untenable. Obviously at that point you get po…
> They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious.
Do animals or birds have 'laws'? Ok - not that state of nature...
Do you have laws at a family gathering? No.
I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. And that confusion is the point. If a controlling group can convince individuals to swap out their sense of morality (where each individual decides what's right and wrong for themselves) for a law book that can be controlled externally (a book that monied interests can write or re-write as they like) - then those individuals are harnessed to do what the controlling group say and call it right. That is domestication.
> Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution.
Right - that is the sales pitch. But in fact artists get a tiny fraction of the revenue. And the whole idea of the music industry as we have it, is itself an expression of corporate interests.
What I think you are missing is that music and whatever else, would go on without corporations and government and its laws, if people wanted it. However, if you want to harness that interest for parasitic monetary benefit, you need to make laws, enforce them, educate people into believing they are right, etc.
So, yes you can say that this is for the "greater good" but what is actually meant by "greater" are those corporations! Corporations are bigger (ie greater) than the individuals, right?
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#205It's important to keep a few things in mind: - When you recorded off the radio, you usually had someone talking over the beginning, end, or both (and this was by design, because the radio station knew that if you had a good copy you wouldn't listen to the radio anymore) - Your copy was a lot worse quality than what you could otherwise buy - You could at best distribute it to a few hundred or maybe even 1000 people if…
The similar comparison would be doing a screen recording of the video versus downloading the byte stream.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot. Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.
Signal would have to create a fake user for every integrated Whatsapp/Telegram user, and the client would have to create an e2e key pair. Signal's zero knowledge policy doesn't need to be compromised in order to achieve that. Hopefully it would be possible to opt out of the integrations.
It's not that simple. What do you do when a Signal user creates a group with members using Signal, WhatsApp, and Telegram?
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram Signal WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
Wait wait what? can you elaborate? I'd love to get back to the halcyon days of the late 90's where I could use whatever client I wanted to talk to people.
The best way to get there is to support Matrix then. I have elaborated in sibling comments on why trying to have the government force the existing systems to be compatible is a terrible, terrible idea.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why Section 1201(a)(2) needs to be struct from the law Perhaps it is becoming clearer that the law is an ass, written to serve special interests, and nothing to do with some sort of expression of morality or right and wrong. And that is all it has ever been. For myself, I cannot conceive of the hybris required in writing down a set of words that I would then expect others to follow. Imagine doing this at a…
Before we go and enact The Purge IRL, let's step back and think of what actually went wrong. Hollywood wanted a bill that would make it illegal to make certain copying tools. This was hot off the heels of the music industry getting a technology mandate for copy protection on digital audio tape (which would eventually be mooted by MP3 players, see RIAA v. Diamond). The problem is, technology mandates are difficult to…
> You don't want to know what kind of laws Tim Cook would write if he was freed from having to comply with US law.
You've missed the point I think. Tim Cook is fine with US law. His corporation and other corporations are the ones that draft it!
> If an entity is too powerful and abusing their power, we can use the law to cut them down to size.
You and I do not draft laws. Corporations have no interest in cutting themselves down to size. (What world are you on?!?)
The only interest corporations have is giving us just enough to carry us over the line. They need our acceptance, consent, buy-in to justify their insane nonsense.
All that disappears very easily and naturally, once you realise that one only needs to refer to one's own innate morality over what one can and cannot do.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd love to believe this, but said regulators don't seem particularly energetic these days.
In the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram Signal WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.
They don't have to explicitly require that of communications services. Just write interoperability into law and the problem goes away.
The reason they don't work with each other is there's a line in the terms of service that says you can't use anything but their official software to interact with their servers. WhatsApp will literally ban your number forevef if it detects this. That's the root cause of the shittiness of apps. They very much want you locked in and forced to use their shitty proprietary software. If society makes such terms illegal and unenforceable, free software clients will start showing up and other companies will start integrating with their competitors whether they like it or not. This will also fix all other apps of any kind, including social media apps. It will kill things like remote attestation and web environment integrity. It will just fix everything.