4 ms·

The installer also doesn't even let you view the Terms and Conditions. It's styled as a link but it literally can't be opened: https://imgur.com/CUzLdRQ https:/

The installer also doesn't even let you view the Terms and Conditions. It's styled as a link but it literally can't be opened: https://imgur.com/CUzLdRQ https://imgur.com/CUzLdRQ This is ironic considering how aggressive the language is on their branding page: https://voice.ai/branding-guidelines https://voice.ai/branding-guidelines > WARNING: > We use technology to check for infringement on the Internet and on social platforms and may automatically (or manually) issue takedown notices for content that infringes on our IP. Simply add our approved clip to your content to avoid takedown notices. We reserve all rights.

user3939382 4y ago
Now it works: https://voice.ai/tos https://voice.ai/tos
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
  [dead]
- sva_ 4y ago
  So they're reading this thread, I suppose. But no statement yet.
  - b112 4y ago
    Someone should just hack them, put the code on github, and respond to dcma requests with GPL legalities. They should be fined too, but the above at least would solve their miscreantic behaviour.
    - jahewson 4y ago
      No that would be equally wrong.
      - hackmiester 4y ago
        It would be legally wrong, but morally, it would be less cut and dry. I'm not saying it is moral either, but I would like to point out that those two things aren't equal.
      - jeroenhd 4y ago
        Would it, actually? The EU allows for decompilation in very specific cases and the GPL license means that they must provide their source code because of the way they used the GPL'd code. If someone in the EU were to request the source code, wait a while to give them a decent amount of time, and then get the source out themselves, I don't know if the court would argue in favour of Voice.ai. You could argue that distributing the decompiled source would violate some kind of copyright, however the GPL also includes the freedom to redistribute the requested code. Alternatively, only contributors to the GPL'd software have any legal standing against voice.ai as a random user's freedoms being violated are probably not enforced by the users themselves. The Praat people (a university) and the libgcrypt people (GnuPG) are the ones whose license has been violated so they should be the ones free to sue, possibly with external help (EFF etc.) I've read about more unexpected turns happening in IP court, who knows what will happen. Morally decompiling would be right, but in a legally speaking I wouldn't risk it.
        EMIRELADERO 4y ago
        Even assuming you beat the DMCA takedowns, there's the whole thing about you hacking them to get the code in the first place.
        efreak 4y ago
        > The EU allows for decompilation The comment you're replying to doesn't advocate hacking
        bombolo 4y ago
        > Alternatively, only contributors to the GPL'd software have any legal standing against voice.ai Wasn't the EFF in a lawsuit just to prove that also users have a legal standing?
- post-it 4y ago
  Someone hurriedly moved an </a>

user3939382 4y ago

Now it works: https://voice.ai/tos https://voice.ai/tos

mrtweetyhack 4y ago
[dead]
sva_ 4y ago
So they're reading this thread, I suppose. But no statement yet.
- b112 4y ago
  Someone should just hack them, put the code on github, and respond to dcma requests with GPL legalities. They should be fined too, but the above at least would solve their miscreantic behaviour.
  - jahewson 4y ago
    No that would be equally wrong.
    - hackmiester 4y ago
      It would be legally wrong, but morally, it would be less cut and dry. I'm not saying it is moral either, but I would like to point out that those two things aren't equal.
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      Would it, actually? The EU allows for decompilation in very specific cases and the GPL license means that they must provide their source code because of the way they used the GPL'd code. If someone in the EU were to request the source code, wait a while to give them a decent amount of time, and then get the source out themselves, I don't know if the court would argue in favour of Voice.ai. You could argue that distributing the decompiled source would violate some kind of copyright, however the GPL also includes the freedom to redistribute the requested code. Alternatively, only contributors to the GPL'd software have any legal standing against voice.ai as a random user's freedoms being violated are probably not enforced by the users themselves. The Praat people (a university) and the libgcrypt people (GnuPG) are the ones whose license has been violated so they should be the ones free to sue, possibly with external help (EFF etc.) I've read about more unexpected turns happening in IP court, who knows what will happen. Morally decompiling would be right, but in a legally speaking I wouldn't risk it.
      - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
        Even assuming you beat the DMCA takedowns, there's the whole thing about you hacking them to get the code in the first place.
        efreak 4y ago
        > The EU allows for decompilation The comment you're replying to doesn't advocate hacking
      - bombolo 4y ago
        > Alternatively, only contributors to the GPL'd software have any legal standing against voice.ai Wasn't the EFF in a lawsuit just to prove that also users have a legal standing?
post-it 4y ago
Someone hurriedly moved an </a>