4 ms·

How could it be nonconsensual? The policy is provided when installing the software. This may certainly be a bad decision for the Audacity team, but nobody is be

by akerl_ 5y ago

How could it be nonconsensual? The policy is provided when installing the software. This may certainly be a bad decision for the Audacity team, but nobody is being forced to use their product.

anonymousab 5y ago
It is nonconsensual when the starting premise is "using Audacity". "Consensual" in that case would mean opt-in telemetry.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  That’s some serious mental gymnastics. I’ll be sure file a complaint at the supermarket for nonconsenual collections: I wanted to take the vegetables home, but they don’t let me opt out of paying.
  - elmo2you 5y ago
    Unless the telemetry is somehow a form of payment for using the (open source) product, I think your argument falls under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      Given that the context here is “a producer of something setting the terms under which they’ll give it to somebody else”, my grocery store hardly sounds like an extreme example.
      - Dagger2 5y ago
        It is when you add telemetry to your vegetables. Imagine if your grocery store terms were that you have to pay to take them home... and also that you must consent to a grocery store employee following you home and sitting in your kitchen, watching your vegetables. They'd take note of how and where you store them, when you use them, how you prepare them, how much you eat in each sitting, what meals you eat them with, and how satisfied you seem to be with them. They'd report all of this information back to the grocery store. They'd also report anything else they see or hear and decide they might be interested in later on. Does that really not sound extreme?
elmo2you 5y ago
I don't think it's always that easy. Once people are committed to a certain product, quitting or switching to an alternative isn't always simple or even possible. There can even be substantial financial damage involved. Maybe not in a way that the producer can be held legally liable for, but damage nonetheless. I believe this argument of "users have a freedom to either take it or leave it" has been repeatedly debunked many times over. It just isn't accurately describing reality.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  It does reflect reality, as evidenced by what’s about to happen for Audacity: if they keep the terms as-is, people will either use the software as the terms are written or they’ll stop using it. As an example, UK schools are likely to have to either negotiate an alternate license or switch products. What’s been “debunked” is that products die off because of things like adding telemetry, because plenty of people don’t consider that a dealbreaker
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Nobody reads much less agrees to these idiotic policy texts. I don't care who made the software or their "conditions" for using it. If it's running on my machine, it answers to me and me alone. This "we put it on the terms and conditions so it's fine" bullshit needs to go away.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  I wonder if this is what the folks on the Copilot team thought, shortly after cloning all those licensed repos to their machines. If you’re not concerned with the licensing on software once you’ve managed to get a copy, I guess Audacity’s behavior shouldn’t be an issue: just compel it to behave differently on your machine.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > just compel it to behave differently on your machine Oh I will. The thing is I shouldn't have to do this. We're all tired of these obnoxious companies forcing this sort of crap on us. Why can't they just release their stupid thing with no strings attached? If this is their "contribution" I'd rather they just did nothing.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    > "just compel it to behave differently on your machine." Right there you name one of the biggest joys of FOSS for me. On my machine, I sure do love that all my tools do my bidding the way I want them to. :)

by akerl_ 5y ago

How could it be nonconsensual? The policy is provided when installing the software. This may certainly be a bad decision for the Audacity team, but nobody is being forced to use their product.

anonymousab 5y ago

It is nonconsensual when the starting premise is "using Audacity". "Consensual" in that case would mean opt-in telemetry.

akerl_ 5y ago
That’s some serious mental gymnastics. I’ll be sure file a complaint at the supermarket for nonconsenual collections: I wanted to take the vegetables home, but they don’t let me opt out of paying.
- elmo2you 5y ago
  Unless the telemetry is somehow a form of payment for using the (open source) product, I think your argument falls under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    Given that the context here is “a producer of something setting the terms under which they’ll give it to somebody else”, my grocery store hardly sounds like an extreme example.
    - Dagger2 5y ago
      It is when you add telemetry to your vegetables. Imagine if your grocery store terms were that you have to pay to take them home... and also that you must consent to a grocery store employee following you home and sitting in your kitchen, watching your vegetables. They'd take note of how and where you store them, when you use them, how you prepare them, how much you eat in each sitting, what meals you eat them with, and how satisfied you seem to be with them. They'd report all of this information back to the grocery store. They'd also report anything else they see or hear and decide they might be interested in later on. Does that really not sound extreme?

elmo2you 5y ago

I don't think it's always that easy. Once people are committed to a certain product, quitting or switching to an alternative isn't always simple or even possible. There can even be substantial financial damage involved. Maybe not in a way that the producer can be held legally liable for, but damage nonetheless. I believe this argument of "users have a freedom to either take it or leave it" has been repeatedly debunked many times over. It just isn't accurately describing reality.

akerl_ 5y ago
It does reflect reality, as evidenced by what’s about to happen for Audacity: if they keep the terms as-is, people will either use the software as the terms are written or they’ll stop using it. As an example, UK schools are likely to have to either negotiate an alternate license or switch products. What’s been “debunked” is that products die off because of things like adding telemetry, because plenty of people don’t consider that a dealbreaker

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Nobody reads much less agrees to these idiotic policy texts. I don't care who made the software or their "conditions" for using it. If it's running on my machine, it answers to me and me alone. This "we put it on the terms and conditions so it's fine" bullshit needs to go away.

akerl_ 5y ago
I wonder if this is what the folks on the Copilot team thought, shortly after cloning all those licensed repos to their machines. If you’re not concerned with the licensing on software once you’ve managed to get a copy, I guess Audacity’s behavior shouldn’t be an issue: just compel it to behave differently on your machine.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > just compel it to behave differently on your machine Oh I will. The thing is I shouldn't have to do this. We're all tired of these obnoxious companies forcing this sort of crap on us. Why can't they just release their stupid thing with no strings attached? If this is their "contribution" I'd rather they just did nothing.
- blooalien 5y ago
  > "just compel it to behave differently on your machine." Right there you name one of the biggest joys of FOSS for me. On my machine, I sure do love that all my tools do my bidding the way I want them to. :)