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!
It never ceases to amaze me how companies choose the worst software!
> You give 8×8 (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works..., communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, and distribute such content solely for the limited purpose of operating and enabling the Service to work as intended for You and for no other purposes.
IANAL, but it seems like that would include training on your data as long as the model was used as part of their service.
Everyone who operates a video conferencing service will have some sort of clause like this in their ToS. Zoom is being more explicit, which is generally a good thing. If Jitsi wanted to be equally explicit, they could add something clarifying that this does not include training AI models.
They have SFU support as of recently, so it should scale similarly to Jitsi et al.
You would be well advised to use services where the traffic travels through https on port 443 on the server (because it's been my experience that it tends to get pretty good QOS favorability). My own little rule of thumb: "you can connect to any port you want, so long as it's port 443 https." ;)
Though tls/443 is usually still supported because it's most often allowed by even restrictive firewalls and networks
There's Galene, <https://galene.org>. It's easy to deploy, uses minimal server resources, and the server is pretty solid. The client interface is still a little awkward, though. (Full disclosure, I'm the main author.)
As I understand it, it refers to using meet.jitsi.si, not "another service" someone might provide by downloading the Jitsi software and running it on their own server.
Please correct me if I'm wrong since this would give me cause to reconsider running a Jitsi server.
The guys at 8x8 may be well intentioned, but their lawyers have done their best to not give the customer any basis to sue the company in any foreseeable circumstances. That is what company lawyers do, for better or worse.
Regardless, it appears that at present time jitsi is not including AI training in their service, and there is no explicit carve-out in their terms for AI training. However, by article 2 they do have the right to store user content, which might become a problem in the future.
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 that don't directly benefit me.
Basically "if you wanted it you could have asked for it, if you didn't then that is a problem".
My regrets :-p
>...any legal entity or business, such entity or business (collectively, “You” or “Your”)
And I might have a call with any other zoom user, too, potentially, maybe. So really they are doing me a service by using my content all over the place — who knows, it might benefit me at some point!
→ https://apps.apple.com/us/app/jitsi-meet/id1165103905
And Zoom:
→ https://apps.apple.com/us/app/id546505307
Looks like one company likes to gobble data more than the other even if both privacy policies are gobble-open.
Out of all those, Jitsi is the only one where I can't rely on the core functionality - video calls and screensharing for small meetings (5-6 people); I have had multiple cases when we've had to switch to something else because the video/audio quality simply wasn't sufficient, but a different tool worked just fine for the same people/computers/network.
Like, I fully understand the benefits of having a solution that's self-hosted and controlled, so we do keep using self-hosted Jitsi in some cases for all these reasons, but for whatever reason the core functionality performs significantly worse than the competitors. Like, I hate MS Teams due to all kinds of flaws it has, but when I am on a Teams meeting with many others, at least I don't have to worry if they will be able to hear me and see the data I'm showing.
That's personally not enough for many remote companies. So if we're going to have to have Zoom on our machines anyway (to handle an all-company meeting), why not just use it for the rest?
It's more of a large-scale broadcast situation. Think of large corporate town halls, town council meetings, etc.
Oh, and you can also do sub-rooms with Zoom, which has some applications in these types of meetings.
Giving all the data to zoom probably means also giving it to most US law enforcement agencies (should they request it), that would be a big no no for me.
If something they said in the main presentation was missing important details that you need to do you work, why do you need to wait days/weeks for them to gather all the questions, find all the answers, and publish a video, when they could just answer it live in a few seconds?!
"At that scale there'll be no interactivity during the meeting anyway."
And I suspect that for most people -- including me -- Zoom accounts are "effectively unlimited". I wouldn't expect that many people to attend one of my meetings. The Internal Events team have licenses that allow for more attendees; I have a 500 attendee limit and I doubt I've ever gone above 50.
that is called broadcast media -- it was actually better thirty years ago than it is now. If you want conversation then you make a panel, and have a single microphone for the rest.
Pretty bad that many nontechnical users are not aware of it compared to Google Meet or Teams.
Unfortunately, one big marketing resource is also owned by said competitor...opps. So where are those antitrust laws again?
It's a bit puzzling, actually. I don't think Skype and TeamSpeak had the same effect on computers back in the day. Just how much local processing are they doing these days? It's crazy
I feel certain the reason this is happening is because some middle-manager terrorist in a boardroom said "use this codec it won't require as much network data usage! value for the shareholder!" without asking first whether hardware encoding is beneficial even if there's a bit more network traffic with the older codecs.
Really burns me up. I do not want to use software encoding/decoding if I have hardware support.
But performance matters, too, of course. It's tricky to balance them.
Which only adds limited overhead to certain cases. Unless they are encoding/decoding video directly in JS...
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.
It's reliable and privacy preserving.
If you aren’t paying in either time (DIY) or money, you are probably being exploited.
For restrictions on what you can do with the code, you'll need to check the code's license, not the hosted-service's terms of use
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.
> I have tried most of them: Google Meet, Teams, Slack, Discord, Skype, Jitsi and so far I liked Jitsi the most and Skype the least.
I'm not sure who still has them
We clearly live in very different bubbles
> digital/fiber/whatever
VoIP
> cheaper than paying multiple cell bills
Nobody pays multiple cell bills unless they wanna use several data-only eSIMs from different carriers to get better speed/coverage. If you just want a lot of phone numbers, you can port your numbers to a VoIP provider and forward them. Way cheaper than a landline
Maybe it's cause old phone mics sucked but it wasn't great.
A local accounting firm with 4 employees just wants their conferencing software to work - Zoom does that better than anyone else.
There is nothing "worst" about that. In never ceases to amaze me that this community is so out of touch with the general populace.