371–380 of 538 posts
I see, Industrial Espionage is now the norm. The telephone company, in this case zoom, will simply automate it and resell it on the open market. Also what’s so cool about zoom? I used it once and it was utter crap. Was its popularity largely due to cargo culting novelty or did i genuinely miss something?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-hosting Jitsi is the better option. Or BigBlueButton, and there are more self-hosted open-source Zoom alternatives.
Do you happen to know of others by any chance. For self-hosted video call solutions, looks like Jitsi and BigBlueButton (BBB) are the only decent options out there.
They have SFU support as of recently, so it should scale similarly to Jitsi et al.
edit: I'm retracting my earlier comment. Earlier I wrote that the headline didn't seem to match what was in the TOS, since OP never mentioned which part they're concerned about. I'm now assuming the part they don't like is §10.4(ii): > 10.4 Customer License Grant. You agree to grant and hereby grant Zoom a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license and all other rights…
Thankfully nothing like this is in Jitsi Meet’s TOS: https://jitsi.org/meet-jit-si-terms-of-service/ It never ceases to amaze me how companies choose the worst software!
I've refused to install zoom since they installed a Mac backdoor and refused to remove it until Apple took a stand and marked them as malware until they removed it. And that was far from their only skullduggery.
Thankfully nothing like this is in Jitsi Meet’s TOS: https://jitsi.org/meet-jit-si-terms-of-service/ It never ceases to amaze me how companies choose the worst software!
+1 for Jitsi. They are awesome, lightweight, and just work with the least hassle. Pretty bad that many nontechnical users are not aware of it compared to Google Meet or Teams.
Having used both I find the framerate more important as it's much easier to interpret quick facial expressions. But teams looks glossier which makes it easier to sell I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> solely for the limited purpose of operating and enabling the Service to work as intended for You and for no other purposes. To me (a former corporate lawyer) the "for You" qualifier would limit their ability to use content to train an AI for use by anyone other than "You". Is there an argument? Yes. But by that argument, they would also be allowed to "publicly perform" my videoconf calls for some flimsy reasons tha…
it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".
Maybe this can be our magic bullet to save free content after we killed ads: train AI on user input/behavior (at least for a brief period of time until the EU throws another fit and California follows suit). Perfectly fair tradeoff to me - it should be fair use for AI to train on anything at all in my view, same as it's fair use for a human to look at something and learn abstract lessons from it.
Oh not the "like a human" again. But would you really allow any human on every zoom call ? I think this is a good example where this analogy breaks pretty obviously.
I am curious if they have been silently saving voice to text transcription in the background on all calls and if AI will be permitted to ingest all of that data. A great deal could be learned from private one on one calls in the corporate world. The insider knowledge one could gain about corporations and governments would be fascinating.
It's quite common for corporate/government contracts to have totally different terms that prohibit any kind of AI training (or recording/access at all). This has been the case for years now. Precisely because of the risks you highlight. In these cases, companies train on content stored/transmitted in the free/individual consumer version only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".
Yep, I acknowledge that is a possibility, but it would also lead to them having permission to display literally the entirety of my videonconf calls to anyone, for advertising purposes or some other purpose that only incidentally benefits me. That would be a strained reading IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it isn't for you solely/exclusively. If it "improves" the service for everyone - that includes "you".
Yep, I acknowledge that is a possibility, but it would also lead to them having permission to display literally the entirety of my videonconf calls to anyone, for advertising purposes or some other purpose that only incidentally benefits me. That would be a strained reading IMO.
Basically "if you wanted it you could have asked for it, if you didn't then that is a problem".