Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Acquires Pocket

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–456 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#451

Post by tertius »

stymaar wrote: post #445
tertius wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is not a legitimate way to do business. You're not the arbiter of this. > but people who don't want to pay aren't doing anything wrong. Not wanting to pay isn't wrong. Circumventing the Youtube's restrictions is though.

> Circumventing the Youtube's restrictions is though. That's exactly my point: it's not. It may be bad for Youtube's business, but it's not morally wrong. We owe nothing to Google.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

Look at 5b. Downloading Youtube videos, except with Youtube Red, is a breach of contract.

Breaking contract is wrong.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#452

Post by slrz »

tertius wrote: post #424
stymaar wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's the user's prerogative to build and use tools to circumvent artificial[1] limitations. [1]: reminder: technically, streaming isn't different from download, what your computer does when watching a video in streaming is downloading . Forcing users to delete the video they have downloaded (which is exactly what's happening with streaming) so they pay the premium service for off-line use, is not a legitimate way…

> is not a legitimate way to do business. You're not the arbiter of this. > but people who don't want to pay aren't doing anything wrong. Not wanting to pay isn't wrong. Circumventing the Youtube's restrictions is though.

What restrictions?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#453

Post by stymaar »

tertius wrote: post #451
stymaar wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Circumventing the Youtube's restrictions is though. That's exactly my point: it's not. It may be bad for Youtube's business, but it's not morally wrong. We owe nothing to Google.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms Look at 5b. Downloading Youtube videos, except with Youtube Red, is a breach of contract. Breaking contract is wrong.

> Downloading Youtube videos, except with Youtube Red, is a breach of contract.

Too bad, then every single user of Youtube is violating this rule: the browser needs to download the video to play it, streaming is just the act of automatically removing the video chunk after it's played. I don't seen written anywhere that the user is forbidden to prevent the deletion of the video chunk he downloaded.

Even if Youtube updated its rules to fill this loophole, I would still be allowed to do it. In France people are protected by «l'exception de copie privée» which allow them to have their own copy of video or music which their are legally allowed to see/listen.[1] That's why we are allowed to record TV broadcast. I guess there must be a similar law in the US but I'm not really aware of the regulation there.

[1] sharing the video with somebody outside of your family is forbidden though.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#454

Post by pbhjpbhj »

eriknstr wrote: post #443
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, if that article is true then not only were Mozilla [indirectly] taking money for the integrations but they also lied to us all about it. Is there corroboration that Mozilla had/has revenue sharing with Pocket and Telefonica? I've always trusted Mozilla, this suggests that trust has been badly misplaced. I can't help but feel that I'm being suckered somewhere here - who from Mozilla is benefiting personally out o…

Where did Mozilla say that they didn't have revenue sharing with those?

In that article the Mozilla spokesman says that they had no financial interest in the integration of Pocket. If they get revenue from customers introduced through the integration that seems like a barefaced lie.

>Chad Weiner, Mozilla's director of project management told PC World in an email back then that "there [was] no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration" and that Pocket "didn't pay for placement in the browser". (ibid) //

vs.

>Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies. (Wired, as quoted ibid) //

They seem directly conflicting statements to me barring a monumental coincidence. Even if it were considered not contradictory, per se, then it's highly misleading. If I say "I wasn't paid to write this car review" and it turns out I get a cut of sales of the cars ... pretty fraud-y.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#455

Post by alphapapa »

bttf wrote: post #254
alphapapa wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lists and tags are the same thing, where with "tags" URLs can be on multiple lists. Tags are essential. Think about this: a user saves this link to a list of stories about Pocket. He also collects links about Mozilla's management, so he puts it on a list of stories about Mozilla. Then he remembers that he wants to talk about this link with a friend, so he adds it to a list of links he wants to share with his friend.…

sorry alphapapa, it may not be obvious on the site as it is currently, but you are able to save 1 link to multiple lists

Okay, so how is that different than tags? A rose by any other name...?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#456

Post by SZJX »

Seems that the user data/behavioral patterns is really always the most important thing for this type of services huh? The aim was mostly to get acquired and it seems that the acquirer always has an eye on the vast amount of data etc.
Post reply on HN