this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
60 points (94.1% liked)
Linux
47841 readers
1877 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So since I've never owned an iPod I've never truly listened to a podcast? Or does the person creating it have to own the iPod?
You never needed an iPod to listen to a podcast.
But it's not called droidcast. And Wikipedia says video podcasts exist so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Not sure what your point is? The technology and the name was popularized by Apple, not Google. If Google had done it, they could have just as well called it that and it would make no tangible difference.
Are you aware that Wikipedia is also user-editable? I don't care what Wikipedia says, use your brain.
Ask yourself what is a podcast? Why is it not called "radio"? Why is it not called "video"? Are all podcasts audio interviews? Apply some basic sense here. Watch the old videos from when Steve Jobs introduced it and listen to how he described it.
Are you aware Wikipedia has sources? And that those sources disagree with you?
Then cite the sources, there's no reason to use Wikipedia as an unnecessary middleman.
Once again I'm going to ask you to appeal to a sense of logic and reason instead of authority. These definitions make zero sense.
For example your second source says "downloaded over the internet" and since YouTube doesn't allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.
Everything on the internet is "downloaded" to your device, otherwise you can't view it. It just means receiving data from a remote server.
No it is not. You're using wrong definitions to back up other wrong definitions.
"Download" means to make a copy and store it on your local device.
No, that's "Download to file" or "Download and save". Just because some people like to refer to downloading and saving as just "downloading", doesn't mean that that magically now means that. You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.
The CS definition has never directly implied that downloading must also store the received data.
No it is not.
https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms
I do. You do not.
Can you read?
...I can read just fine. I have no idea what your point is. Did YT expressly authorize you to download videos?
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn't really reinforce any of your points.
But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It's legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).
In legalese here, the "downloading" specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that's not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.
That is not what "expressly" means. "Expressly" means they've delivered you personal permission to download videos. Add this to the slew of words you don't understand.
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. Downloads are stored on your local storage device.
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we're done here.
Did you completely fail to read the part "except where authorized"? That bit of legalese is a blanket "you can't use this software in a way we don't want to".
Ah, you just have zero clue what you're talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.
I'ma listen to respected sources, not some rando on Lemmy.
Okay, well then, according to your own "respected sources", this is also not a podcast, so go on with yourself.
Also https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/steve-jobs-at-the-d-all-things-digital-conference-video/id529997900
...yes? What about it?
The apple podcast website has video podcasts.
No. It does not. It has podcasts. And some of those podcasts have an optional video component.
Adding video doesn't make it not a podcast. Not distributing it as a podcast makes it not a podcast.