6 ms·

> They basically wanted me to remove every feature that made ProTube what it is – that includes the player itself that allows you to play 60fps videos, backgrou

> They basically wanted me to remove every feature that made ProTube what it is – that includes the player itself that allows you to play 60fps videos, background playback, audio only mode and more. > background playback, audio only mode https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici... > You and your API Clients must not, and must not encourage, enable, or require others to: > separate, isolate, or modify the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available as part of, or in connection with, YouTube API Services. > promote separately the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available as part of, or in connection with, the YouTube API Services; > create, include, or promote features that play content, including audio or video components, from a background player, meaning a player that is not displayed in the page, tab, or screen that the user is viewing; The author blatantly violated YouTube's developer policies then complained that YouTube was upset? Why the victim complex? What did he expect? He's lucky they didn't choose to go down the lawsuit route instead. This doesn't seem like an arbitrary policy either. If he's playing the video where the user can't see it, the user can't see ads. If the user can't see ads, the video creator doesn't get paid.

comstock 9y ago
And this should be policed by Apple on Googles behalf, rather than potentially litigated in court? That's the main question in my mind. The functionality could all be implemented without access to the developer API. I think users have a legal right to use Ad blockers, but in this case it can't even be tested, because Apple decided to police their AppStore, against users interests. I'm by no means anti-Apple. I prefer their ecosystem to Android, and feel it is less driven by advertising. But this feels like an anti-user move.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  It's a paid app facilitating breach of contract at the least and possibly facilitating copyright infringement and a breach of the CFAA. And Apple takes a cut and therefore has legal liability for distributing it.
  - comstock 9y ago
    Could you clarify? If I'm using YouTube without signing in, which contract is being breached? The existence of YouTube facilitates breach of copyright doesn't it? I don't understand which copyright is being infringed by rendering without Ads. I guess the "Apple takes a cut" bit is where their liability comes from. But... I'm not really clear that any law is being broken here... I'm not sure how this is a breach of the CFAA, in particular given that scraping content (in light of recent LinkedIn case) seems to be fine. And there doesn't seem to be much of a case against adblockers in general.
    - Veratyr 9y ago
      > Could you clarify? The developer is using the YouTube API, which has terms which the developer agreed to. He is breaching those terms. > If I'm using YouTube without signing in, which contract is being breached? You're not breaching any terms. This isn't equivalent because the developer is using the API, which has terms he agreed to. > I don't understand which copyright is being infringed by rendering without Ads. The only license the developer has to display the copyrighted material uploaded to YouTube is the license YouTube grants him, which, per the API terms, requires him to show audio and video together. By violating the terms of his license, he's infringing on the content owners' copyrights.
      - comstock 9y ago
        Ok, this is reasonable. However, it doesn't seem to be the central issue to me. The app could be rewritten to use the public (possibly undocumented) interface, that we all use on the web. But it seems like issues would still exist then? Seems like Apple would still remove the app. Or is that not the case?
Spivak 9y ago
> The author blatantly violated YouTube's developer policies Well duh, but those policies only exist because YT is trying to sell those features. > He's lucky they didn't choose to go down the lawsuit route instead. Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads.
- jhanschoo 9y ago
  > a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. Regardless of your position on whether the law is right or wrong, this is not true as a matter of law. Depending on the pertinent applicable law, your ability to transform these bits may be restricted based on IP law or contract law.
  - comstock 9y ago
    Maybe, but we'll never find out if Apple just removes the software and it never goes to litigation...
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. He consented to a contract, violated it and caused actual damages (loss of ad revenue, profiting from copyright infringement). Given that he displayed content in violation of the license he was given and made money from it, it could even be a criminal copyright infringement case. > This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads. The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything. > I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream. Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? With DRM the way it is today, I'm not sure that's a battle we can win. Head down this path and we'll have DRM and eye tracking to make _really_ sure we're watching ads before we play a video.
rakshithbekal 9y ago
Wonder how MyTube is able to tackle this.

comstock 9y ago

And this should be policed by Apple on Googles behalf, rather than potentially litigated in court? That's the main question in my mind. The functionality could all be implemented without access to the developer API. I think users have a legal right to use Ad blockers, but in this case it can't even be tested, because Apple decided to police their AppStore, against users interests. I'm by no means anti-Apple. I prefer their ecosystem to Android, and feel it is less driven by advertising. But this feels like an anti-user move.

Veratyr 9y ago
It's a paid app facilitating breach of contract at the least and possibly facilitating copyright infringement and a breach of the CFAA. And Apple takes a cut and therefore has legal liability for distributing it.
- comstock 9y ago
  Could you clarify? If I'm using YouTube without signing in, which contract is being breached? The existence of YouTube facilitates breach of copyright doesn't it? I don't understand which copyright is being infringed by rendering without Ads. I guess the "Apple takes a cut" bit is where their liability comes from. But... I'm not really clear that any law is being broken here... I'm not sure how this is a breach of the CFAA, in particular given that scraping content (in light of recent LinkedIn case) seems to be fine. And there doesn't seem to be much of a case against adblockers in general.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > Could you clarify? The developer is using the YouTube API, which has terms which the developer agreed to. He is breaching those terms. > If I'm using YouTube without signing in, which contract is being breached? You're not breaching any terms. This isn't equivalent because the developer is using the API, which has terms he agreed to. > I don't understand which copyright is being infringed by rendering without Ads. The only license the developer has to display the copyrighted material uploaded to YouTube is the license YouTube grants him, which, per the API terms, requires him to show audio and video together. By violating the terms of his license, he's infringing on the content owners' copyrights.
    - comstock 9y ago
      Ok, this is reasonable. However, it doesn't seem to be the central issue to me. The app could be rewritten to use the public (possibly undocumented) interface, that we all use on the web. But it seems like issues would still exist then? Seems like Apple would still remove the app. Or is that not the case?

Spivak 9y ago

> The author blatantly violated YouTube's developer policies Well duh, but those policies only exist because YT is trying to sell those features. > He's lucky they didn't choose to go down the lawsuit route instead. Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads.

jhanschoo 9y ago
> a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. Regardless of your position on whether the law is right or wrong, this is not true as a matter of law. Depending on the pertinent applicable law, your ability to transform these bits may be restricted based on IP law or contract law.
- comstock 9y ago
  Maybe, but we'll never find out if Apple just removes the software and it never goes to litigation...
Veratyr 9y ago
> Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. He consented to a contract, violated it and caused actual damages (loss of ad revenue, profiting from copyright infringement). Given that he displayed content in violation of the license he was given and made money from it, it could even be a criminal copyright infringement case. > This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads. The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything. > I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream. Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? With DRM the way it is today, I'm not sure that's a battle we can win. Head down this path and we'll have DRM and eye tracking to make _really_ sure we're watching ads before we play a video.

rakshithbekal 9y ago

Wonder how MyTube is able to tackle this.