Audacity now considered spyware

[mojofilter]

It's streaming audio in this case. No hard cutoff at 16k like the audio demuxed from internet video. Still lossy, but with what looks like higher frequencies in spectral view. Up to 20k. So I segregate those files from the rest, because they're lossy.

[alphabeatles]

I find occasion to do this on the Mac, but not often. Only if I want something bad enough and there is no download option.

[mojofilter]

Same here. It's like, "do I want to try to buy a copy of "Egyptian Shumba" by The Tammys on vinyl, or will a HQ mp3 from the master tape supplied by the label that owns it do?" It's pretty much guaranteed to sound better than the record, with no labor-intensive cleanup required. And I can get a stereo alternate mix of it from the same place. It's how I was able to record the sound of some impossibly rare Capitol promotional discs from the 1940s. If I'm not likely to ever see a copy of any of them, recording them streaming from YouTube will do. Otherwise I'd never know about them, or hear them. Right?

[alphabeatles]

YouTube, such a candy store!

[fishbeardsunset]

Thanks for the heads-up! Everything is getting so ugly now...

Aside from the possible fork, maybe if we don't update the current version we are good?

Hi There- this may be of interest:

Extract taken from the Audacity Forum:

The "fuss" is about the Privacy Notice that has been published on the Audacity website on 2nd July 2021:
You can find the notice here: https://www.audacityteam.org/about/desk ... cy-notice/

The management have recently said that it will be updated soon, to clarify and address some of the concerns that have been raised.

If you are concerned about this privacy notice, it may be worth comparing it with some common ones that are accepted every day:

Google: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
Microsoft: https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-gb/privacystatement
Apple: https://www.apple.com/uk/legal/privacy/en-ww/
Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/
appleinsider.com: https://appleinsider.com/privacy
The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/service/p ... 84181.html
...

Up to, and including the current Audacity 3.0.2, Audacity software has no network code and is incapable of connecting to the Internet.
If you are uncomfortable with, or disagree with the new Audacity privacy notice, then you can continue using Audacity 3.0.2, or any earlier version, in the knowledge that it does not, and is incapable of sending any information to the Internet.

If you require further information, then I'd suggest you try emailing: feedback@audacityteam.org

[Darth Kybiel]

Cellphones and TVs are actually two-way cameras/screens and microphones/speakers, which is why you waive your rights to privacy when you register the warranty on electronics. Spyware can't run if you have a good mall/ad/spy ware blocker or if you simply turn off your internet connection on the device you are using Audacity on when you use it. I've used programs that claimed they had spy/ad ware and it was a gimmick cos the parent company that bought out the program wanted people to stop using freeware and get payware programs they also sold. Alsoif you use clear tags and use temp titles in Audacity and add that stuff afterwards All a spyware program is gonna report is gobbley gook. I question plugins at times more than I question programs themselves. I still have yet to see any of those scare tactics supposedly hidden in mp3's for decades either. Compile the open source files yourself and check each section with an anti spyware program. There's no reason for Audacity to have access to the internet anyway. Oh! There's a portable Audacity for thumb drives or micro sd, Get the portable version and only use it when your particular computer isn't using internet. Then you know the program can't report nothing at all.

[Doug]

Same here. It's like, "do I want to try to buy a copy of "Egyptian Shumba" by The Tammys on vinyl, or will a HQ mp3 from the master tape supplied by the label that owns it do?" It's pretty much guaranteed to sound better than the record, with no labor-intensive cleanup required.

Sorry for the sidetrack, but try to find a copy of the original 45. The CD versions are modern stereo remixes, and don't match the edit on the original single. I'm not aware of the streaming version you wrote about, but it sounds like the Jazzman 45, which rolls off the high-end and runs significantly faster than the original.

[alphabeatles]

Thanks fishbeardsunset! I suspected the current version was OK, since it's been out awhile.

[Lord Reith]

It's streaming audio in this case. No hard cutoff at 16k like the audio demuxed from internet video. Still lossy, but with what looks like higher frequencies in spectral view. Up to 20k. So I segregate those files from the rest, because they're lossy.

Are you talking about the videos uploaded by youtube with just the album cover?

[mojofilter]

Yes, those are the ones. The file description says "Provided to YouTube by Zebralution GmbH." They have higher frequencies than the sound on other videos uploaded by members of the public. That it was streaming audio was mansplained to me on a board that I no longer belong to.