The indemnification for IP is a standard term that exists in all SaaS terms. What it's saying is "if you upload copyrighted/infringing material to our service and someone sues us because of it, you have to pay our legal costs since we had nothing to do with it".
This is a pretty reasonable thing, you're the one who uploaded the material, you're responsible for it, especially since zoom isn't checking/filtering what you upload/share.
I don't think it's reasonable that a SaaS should be able to train their AI on anything that is uploaded (if you're paying for the service). In fact, I don't think it's reasonable that they should even have access to view what you're uploading and sharing in private meetings. If neither of those were true, then they wouldn't have to worry about IP infringement.
> In fact, I don't think it's reasonable that they should even have access to view what you're uploading and sharing in private meetings.
There may be a setting you can set in the application to disable this. I don't know, I don't use Zoom.
But in any case, I think you hit the nail on the head. Just from a plain English perspective:
10.1 says that content you (as host or participant) upload to Zoom, may be used by Zoom to provide derivative information. An example listed is transcripts. Both the information you upload, and the information Zoom provides, is "Customer Content". Customer Content is your responsibility.
10.3 and 10.4 covers a wide variety of purposes for which Zoom can use the Customer Content.
10.5 says that Zoom will reasonably protect Customer Content from unauthorized disclosure, etc., but that it has no other obligations with respect to Customer Content. In particular, it can share the Customer Content with their "consultants,contractors, service providers, subprocessors, and other Zoom-authorized third parties accessing, using, collecting, maintaining, processing, storing, and transmitting Customer Content on Zoom’s or your (or your End Users’) behalf in connection with the Services or Software".
17.1, the confidentiality clause, says that Customer Content is not confidential information. That suggest the obligations of confidentiality, such as disclosing to third parties only with a confidentiality agreement in place, do not apply.
So if I'm reading this right, Zoom can disclose your meeting transcripts [edit: I meant audio of your meeting] to a third party, without an obligation of confidence between Zoom and that third party, so long as it is for the purposes of providing you the transcript feature.
Which is really strange, to say the least. At minimum I would expect Zoom to treat Customer Content as confidential.
Wish a lawyer could read this and give us (free) insight.
There was a big controversy around Zoom calling it E2E with their server being one of the ends. Not sure what their new narrative is but I do not trust Zoom to do the right thing regardless.
I'll go out on a limb and propose that end-to-end encryption and many-to-many real-time multimedia communication are two things that aren't often combined in a single product.
> This is a pretty reasonable thing, you're the one who uploaded the material, you're responsible for it
Absolute BS, this isn't youtube, call it what it is... eavesdropping on two way communication for personal gain. They are misusing IP law to cover their arses for stealing information that is legal to share between the people in the call but not legal for them to steal.
Every business should be fleeing from Zoom right now. All your internal comms are going to be exposed to their LLM... if you have trade secrets discussed over zoom calls, you should assume they can be extracted by others with access to the LLM.
It totally stops being a reasonable thing when the content is used to train AI. I don't think you can discuss/use company's IP anymore on a Zoom call. Or at least if you do, zoom's AI will be able to reproduce it and it will be YOUR fault.
It might be a standard term, but this is still a big reason not to use Zoom if you expect that any copyrighted or NDA'ed material will be shared.
Zoom says they might use this data to train their AI. If the AI produces a close-enough copy of copyrighted material or if it spews out company secrets, someone _will_ sue Zoom for this.
Yep, and also terms are necessary that in so many words allow the SaaS provider to read, process, copy, share, store, redistribute, etc. all your content. This is so they can provide their services, which are basically sharing video, audio, and content amongst the meeting participants, providing meeting recordings, transcriptions, etc.
Other folks have already pointed out how this is unenforceable, but I'll give a very tangible example.
Twitter (and Instagram) ToS prohibit selling handles and yet I've been on both sides of those transactions before. You just offer the person a "consulting" contract, part of which is delivering the handle
Why wouldn't the buyer just pay the seller and not bother with smoke and mirrors? It's not as if Twitter or Instagram know about the "consulting" contract.
VW plans to produce 1.5 million EVs per year ~in their Zwickau plant~ worldwide from 2025 onwards. They are also evaluating more plants to switch to full EV production.
Tesla expects to make 500.000 cars per year in their German plant they are currently building.
Do you have a source for that? As far as I know, Zwickau has already made its last ICE and they're targeting 1k units a day - and not seven days a week. Are you sure you're not mixing up total VW BEV numbers?
Tesla has by far the early mover advantage here; the % growth of the traditional players moving forward will be key as Big Guys start taking the market more seriously.
Yes but that's not records that they actually have. The reason you need a wake word is because that processing is done locally on the device, it's not until you say the wake word that it starts streaming the audio data to the central server for processing.
Its certainly possible for Amazon/Google/Whoever to send your device a firmware update that turns it into an always-on microphone, but it doesn't do that by default
Two problems with that approach at large scale shows:
1) These days the cabling is run inside a run of barricade bisecting the crowd, so it's in a secure area the entire time
2) Modern PA systems at shows of that size have almost exclusively moved to digital snakes / audio networks, not analog
To realistically pull that off you'd need production access to the event to tap into the audio network and re-route things. That said, given the number of people with appropriate access and the fact that InfoSec isn't a high priority, that actually seems pretty doable.
Once they realized what was going on though, a few breakers flipped would drop power to the amps or speakers (depending on whether using powered or passive arrays) and it would be over (which would happen pretty quickly since the power distro is very well organized and labeled since quick troubleshooting is often necessary).
For context, I'm the GM of the Enterprise Team at Stack Overflow and have been working on it since we launched our full Enterprise product about 18 months ago.
Enterprise is intended for large teams (at least 500 tech staff) who want to have their own completely isolated and standalone Stack Overflow community that can be run on-prem or in a private cloud. Enterprise deployments have full control over the system and also get support from our Customer Success team to build up their community using all the lessons we've learned in 8+ years of building communities. As part of this we have all those features you'd expect like integration with SSO, audibility, massive 50 page contracts, etc
Channels on the other hand is meant for smaller teams (all the way down to just 2 people) who want to store their own knowledge (privately and securely) alongside the the public knowledgebase at stackoverflow.com. Any size team will be able to just walk up, put down their credit card and instantly be sharing knowledge with each other.
So the two products are very complimentary to each other, just depends on your team size and exactly what you're looking for feature wise.
> store their own knowledge (privately and securely) alongside the the public knowledgebase at stackoverflow.com
I know this won't go over well here, since many depend on Stackoverflow for their "programming skills", but this sounds about as believable as Google pushing companies to store their secrets "privately" using Google Docs.
@CK2 That's exactly what AskPatents is - a platform for the community to review patent applications and submit prior art to the USPTO during the application review process so that bad applications are never granted.
This is a pretty reasonable thing, you're the one who uploaded the material, you're responsible for it, especially since zoom isn't checking/filtering what you upload/share.