3 ms·

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

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?