9 ms·

YouTube's Legal Team sent me a letter [video]

162 points by harporoeder 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
whydid 2y ago
Louis is great at everything except brevity. Not my app, here's a summary: https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/dqTYg6vnQvw?si=PLdzW5-ewouup7UF https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/dqTYg6vnQvw?si=PLdzW5-ew...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Quarrel 2y ago
  Very cool app, thanks for the link. It is too often that I get linked a 30 minute video that reading an abstract like this for most of them would really help me prioritise whether to watch it or not. Now I guess I just need it in an extension to appear below the video automatically or something :)
xoxxala 2y ago
[flagged]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anjel 2y ago
    https://usetldw.com/ https://usetldw.com/ See also: http://summarize.tech http://summarize.tech Perhaps someone knows of other services like these?
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
(IANAL) Seems like the right response would be something like: > We have no record of ever entering into any agreement or business relationship with Google. If our records are mistaken, please send us a copy of the contract you believe we signed. Google are not the police and they shouldn't be able to enforce their arbitrary terms on other companies just because they exist on the same internet.
- delecti 2y ago
  Do you think a guy with a 12+ year old channel and 2m subscribers has never entered into a business relationship with youtube?
  - op00to 2y ago
    How can you prove it was him and not someone else? Again, where’s the wet ink signature?
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Courts are not binary logic machines. If you go into one building your whole case around such an argument you will be laughed right out again.
  - lucb1e 2y ago
    This logic made a lot of sense to me standalone, but further down the thread I read <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242476>: > YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he [Louis] explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms. The point (of the person you replied to, too, presumably) is not that they don't have an agreement with Google, but that they're not violating these specific terms (as claimed by Google) because that's not what they signed up for. They run a channel, not an API client. (My understanding of their words, not saying I can judge the legal merit of this.) Not that it seems like a (at least short term) beneficial move to get this type of cross with the platform that can probably terminate your account at their sole discretion, but I'm happy he's trying to get Youtube content more liberated. For instance, you can mark your videos as having a creative commons license, but that means nothing because it's not like it spawns a download button for the users to exercise their granted license. Anyone besides the uploader still has to violate YT's ToS (which I'm sure forbids these third-party video downloaders) in order to get at that creative commons video data
Manuel_D 2y ago
TL;DR: Rossmann's team is developing Grayjay, a 3rd party YouTube (and other sites) client. Like Vanced. This makes YouTube unhappy, because they don't want 3rd party players which often do things like disable ads and telemetry.
- ilaksh 2y ago
  https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/ The name of the organization is FUTO. It's not just Rossman, it's also the rich guy that came up with the concept and hired Rossman and other people who are building multiple FUTOish software programs. https://futo.org/ https://futo.org/
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    As per your link it also allows downloading videos to watch offline, which almost certainly disabled ads.
  - Fnoord 2y ago
    Oh, cool. I didn't know Rossmann was related to Futo. I know Futo from [1]: 'The Voice Input app for Android that respects your privacy.' and I did not know Futo was more than 'Voice Input'. As for Grayjay. Yeah, this is exactly what we need: an application which allows us to watch video (offline) without being tied to a platform. We have a name for that: it is called a web browser. In a web browser, we use standards such as HTML and CSS. The user decides how a website looks, not the website (those are merely suggestions, the user is the one who in the end decides if they want to follow these). Something like Grayjay is following the spirit of the WWW. [1] https://voiceinput.futo.org/ https://voiceinput.futo.org/
  - codethief 2y ago
    Where can I find more information about who is behind FUTO?
    - fabrice_d 2y ago
      Lookup Eron Wolf
Nextgrid 2y ago
Unfortunately this response (as well as the previous one) is quite childish and doesn't address any of the points Google is making. I can only assume their legal team in the background advised them that they do not believe Google will take action (probably because of antitrust fears, etc) and thus no actual response is warranted. If I was them I'd actually provide a constructive response arguing that their app is just like a browser (not too dissimilar to Google's own Chrome) and doesn't seek consent from the platform owner just like Chrome doesn't seek consent from the visited websites.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  > doesn't address any of the points Google is making. Yes it does. YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms. They had no need to.
  - wmf 2y ago
    The normal YouTube TOS says things like "You are not allowed to: access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service ... circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service" https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 This pretty much bans alternative clients.
    - worik 2y ago
      IANAL just because they say it does not mean they can enforce it
    - trothamel 2y ago
      This bans the use of alternative youtube clients, but not the creation of such clients.
      - gpm 2y ago
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
I’ve said these about other platforms as well, but we need to heavily regulate large social media and content platforms like YouTube. They should not be able to arbitrarily demonetize, censor, shadow ban, or ban any content or users, which is where they are going unless Louis Rossman bends the knee. They also should not be allowed to operate in anti competitive ways like we see here. These big tech companies and social media platforms are too big and play too important a role in our modern society to just do whatever they want, and we should be treating them more like a utility. Alternatively, let’s split up all these big companies like Google and heavily tax all businesses that earn more than $10B in annual profit. Or both.
- mycologos 2y ago
  Who do you think should make the content decisions for these platforms?
  - azemetre 2y ago
    I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.
    - GauntletWizard 2y ago
      Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
      - azemetre 2y ago
        Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.
miduil 2y ago
[flagged]
- jdhendrickson 2y ago
  He's been frustrated with dating and women for a long time and there have been hints of that bullshit for a while. It's why I find it difficult to watch him anymore.
  - WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
    He's got over 2 mill followers. And can't get a date? Interesting, he should just switch his subject a bit towards things that women like. He'll have women breaking down his door just to talk to him.
    - azemetre 2y ago
      I don’t have experience with this but I would assume that dating fans is not emotionally healthy for either party.
      - WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
        Good point, they would get together for some superficial reasons. It's not the makings of a good relationship.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      > He'll have women breaking down his door just to talk to him. Perhaps. Or maybe not. Though I'd agree that appearing romantically frustrated or thirsty will certainly turn most away; no matter how they come to meet you.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
      Your theories about relating to women are very odd.
- knodi123 2y ago
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
pennybanks 2y ago
guy is a fear monger for his followers. but im sure hes popular here
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  wake us up when you're doing a better job with less fear mongering. meanwhile he will do
Exuma 2y ago
I love black cats
- aio2 2y ago
  I love them too
- yazzku 2y ago
  He applied at the Google legal team but then turned down the offer.
donatj 2y ago
Can someone give me the TL;DW? I don't have time to watch this right now
- idl8t3 2y ago
  - The creator received a letter from YouTube's legal team regarding the GRJ app, which they claim violates YouTube's terms of service. - The creator, representing Futo, responded by stating that the GRJ app does not use the YouTube API services and is therefore not subject to those terms of service. - The creator expresses frustration with how YouTube and other platforms often arbitrarily delete creator accounts and content, threatening people's livelihoods. - The creator sees the GRJ app as a solution to help creators connect with their audience even if their accounts are deleted from platforms. - The creator is critical of how the more users are willing to pay for content and software, the worse the experience and more abuse they face. - The creator shares a personal example of being unable to play downloaded YouTube content offline, despite paying for YouTube Premium. - The creator is done accepting the concept that the more one gives, the worse the treatment they receive in return. - The creator states they have the resources and intention to legally fight YouTube over the GRJ app, unlike "four kids in a college dorm room." - The creator emphasizes that Futo is a serious company, not just a hobby project, and is willing to spend significant money on legal representation. - The creator is committed to continuing to offer the GRJ app to serve their customers, despite YouTube's demands to cease and desist.
  - rerdavies 2y ago
    Presumably, this app, by Futo: https://grayjay.app/#sources https://grayjay.app/#sources
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
      they incorrectly (malicious?) claim "available on fdroid" and point to a way to add their custom repository. that's not cool. i would much prefer, since they are not two kids in a college dorm, they worked with fdroid to get properly vetted and included.
Something1234 2y ago
Here's the funniest part!!!! The app is on a .app TLD, and that's ran by google. So theoretically google just pull the domain registration. I wouldn't put it past them. Hooray for vanity domains! https://get.app/ https://get.app/ He needs to get better about posting the link to whatever he's talking about so I can read ahead and be more informed.

162 points by harporoeder 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

whydid 2y ago

Louis is great at everything except brevity. Not my app, here's a summary: https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/dqTYg6vnQvw?si=PLdzW5-ewouup7UF https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/dqTYg6vnQvw?si=PLdzW5-ew...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Quarrel 2y ago
Very cool app, thanks for the link. It is too often that I get linked a 30 minute video that reading an abstract like this for most of them would really help me prioritise whether to watch it or not. Now I guess I just need it in an extension to appear below the video automatically or something :)

xoxxala 2y ago

[flagged]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- anjel 2y ago
  https://usetldw.com/ https://usetldw.com/ See also: http://summarize.tech http://summarize.tech Perhaps someone knows of other services like these?

fallingsquirrel 2y ago

(IANAL) Seems like the right response would be something like: > We have no record of ever entering into any agreement or business relationship with Google. If our records are mistaken, please send us a copy of the contract you believe we signed. Google are not the police and they shouldn't be able to enforce their arbitrary terms on other companies just because they exist on the same internet.

delecti 2y ago
Do you think a guy with a 12+ year old channel and 2m subscribers has never entered into a business relationship with youtube?
- op00to 2y ago
  How can you prove it was him and not someone else? Again, where’s the wet ink signature?
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Courts are not binary logic machines. If you go into one building your whole case around such an argument you will be laughed right out again.
- lucb1e 2y ago
  This logic made a lot of sense to me standalone, but further down the thread I read <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40242476>: > YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he [Louis] explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms. The point (of the person you replied to, too, presumably) is not that they don't have an agreement with Google, but that they're not violating these specific terms (as claimed by Google) because that's not what they signed up for. They run a channel, not an API client. (My understanding of their words, not saying I can judge the legal merit of this.) Not that it seems like a (at least short term) beneficial move to get this type of cross with the platform that can probably terminate your account at their sole discretion, but I'm happy he's trying to get Youtube content more liberated. For instance, you can mark your videos as having a creative commons license, but that means nothing because it's not like it spawns a download button for the users to exercise their granted license. Anyone besides the uploader still has to violate YT's ToS (which I'm sure forbids these third-party video downloaders) in order to get at that creative commons video data

Manuel_D 2y ago

TL;DR: Rossmann's team is developing Grayjay, a 3rd party YouTube (and other sites) client. Like Vanced. This makes YouTube unhappy, because they don't want 3rd party players which often do things like disable ads and telemetry.

ilaksh 2y ago
https://grayjay.app/ https://grayjay.app/ The name of the organization is FUTO. It's not just Rossman, it's also the rich guy that came up with the concept and hired Rossman and other people who are building multiple FUTOish software programs. https://futo.org/ https://futo.org/
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  As per your link it also allows downloading videos to watch offline, which almost certainly disabled ads.
- Fnoord 2y ago
  Oh, cool. I didn't know Rossmann was related to Futo. I know Futo from [1]: 'The Voice Input app for Android that respects your privacy.' and I did not know Futo was more than 'Voice Input'. As for Grayjay. Yeah, this is exactly what we need: an application which allows us to watch video (offline) without being tied to a platform. We have a name for that: it is called a web browser. In a web browser, we use standards such as HTML and CSS. The user decides how a website looks, not the website (those are merely suggestions, the user is the one who in the end decides if they want to follow these). Something like Grayjay is following the spirit of the WWW. [1] https://voiceinput.futo.org/ https://voiceinput.futo.org/
- codethief 2y ago
  Where can I find more information about who is behind FUTO?
  - fabrice_d 2y ago
    Lookup Eron Wolf

Nextgrid 2y ago

Unfortunately this response (as well as the previous one) is quite childish and doesn't address any of the points Google is making. I can only assume their legal team in the background advised them that they do not believe Google will take action (probably because of antitrust fears, etc) and thus no actual response is warranted. If I was them I'd actually provide a constructive response arguing that their app is just like a browser (not too dissimilar to Google's own Chrome) and doesn't seek consent from the platform owner just like Chrome doesn't seek consent from the visited websites.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
> doesn't address any of the points Google is making. Yes it does. YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms. They had no need to.
- wmf 2y ago
  The normal YouTube TOS says things like "You are not allowed to: access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service ... circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service" https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms#c3e2907ca8 This pretty much bans alternative clients.
  - worik 2y ago
    IANAL just because they say it does not mean they can enforce it
  - trothamel 2y ago
    This bans the use of alternative youtube clients, but not the creation of such clients.
    - gpm 2y ago

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

I’ve said these about other platforms as well, but we need to heavily regulate large social media and content platforms like YouTube. They should not be able to arbitrarily demonetize, censor, shadow ban, or ban any content or users, which is where they are going unless Louis Rossman bends the knee. They also should not be allowed to operate in anti competitive ways like we see here. These big tech companies and social media platforms are too big and play too important a role in our modern society to just do whatever they want, and we should be treating them more like a utility. Alternatively, let’s split up all these big companies like Google and heavily tax all businesses that earn more than $10B in annual profit. Or both.

mycologos 2y ago
Who do you think should make the content decisions for these platforms?
- azemetre 2y ago
  I think removing section 230 protections from these companies would be sufficient enough. You can’t have it both ways on being an editor of content (the algorithms) then claim you aren’t a publisher.
  - GauntletWizard 2y ago
    Would you also remove section 230 protections from every forum with a spam filter? How about human moderators (like this one)?
    - azemetre 2y ago
      Obviously not, I should have been more specific but I’m obviously referring to the large corporate internet gatekeepers (Google, Meta, Twitter, TikTok, Amazon, etc).
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    But the government likes this, as it lets them push censorship under the guise of eliminating "hate speech", "misinformation", "fake news". They've also tricked people into thinking they need it to filter out the former things. They don't, and are actively harmed by the censorship.

miduil 2y ago

[flagged]

jdhendrickson 2y ago
He's been frustrated with dating and women for a long time and there have been hints of that bullshit for a while. It's why I find it difficult to watch him anymore.
- WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
  He's got over 2 mill followers. And can't get a date? Interesting, he should just switch his subject a bit towards things that women like. He'll have women breaking down his door just to talk to him.
  - azemetre 2y ago
    I don’t have experience with this but I would assume that dating fans is not emotionally healthy for either party.
    - WheelsAtLarge 2y ago
      Good point, they would get together for some superficial reasons. It's not the makings of a good relationship.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    > He'll have women breaking down his door just to talk to him. Perhaps. Or maybe not. Though I'd agree that appearing romantically frustrated or thirsty will certainly turn most away; no matter how they come to meet you.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    Your theories about relating to women are very odd.
knodi123 2y ago

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

pennybanks 2y ago

guy is a fear monger for his followers. but im sure hes popular here

1oooqooq 2y ago
wake us up when you're doing a better job with less fear mongering. meanwhile he will do

Exuma 2y ago

I love black cats

aio2 2y ago
I love them too
yazzku 2y ago
He applied at the Google legal team but then turned down the offer.

donatj 2y ago

Can someone give me the TL;DW? I don't have time to watch this right now

idl8t3 2y ago
- The creator received a letter from YouTube's legal team regarding the GRJ app, which they claim violates YouTube's terms of service. - The creator, representing Futo, responded by stating that the GRJ app does not use the YouTube API services and is therefore not subject to those terms of service. - The creator expresses frustration with how YouTube and other platforms often arbitrarily delete creator accounts and content, threatening people's livelihoods. - The creator sees the GRJ app as a solution to help creators connect with their audience even if their accounts are deleted from platforms. - The creator is critical of how the more users are willing to pay for content and software, the worse the experience and more abuse they face. - The creator shares a personal example of being unable to play downloaded YouTube content offline, despite paying for YouTube Premium. - The creator is done accepting the concept that the more one gives, the worse the treatment they receive in return. - The creator states they have the resources and intention to legally fight YouTube over the GRJ app, unlike "four kids in a college dorm room." - The creator emphasizes that Futo is a serious company, not just a hobby project, and is willing to spend significant money on legal representation. - The creator is committed to continuing to offer the GRJ app to serve their customers, despite YouTube's demands to cease and desist.
- rerdavies 2y ago
  Presumably, this app, by Futo: https://grayjay.app/#sources https://grayjay.app/#sources
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    they incorrectly (malicious?) claim "available on fdroid" and point to a way to add their custom repository. that's not cool. i would much prefer, since they are not two kids in a college dorm, they worked with fdroid to get properly vetted and included.

Something1234 2y ago

Here's the funniest part!!!! The app is on a .app TLD, and that's ran by google. So theoretically google just pull the domain registration. I wouldn't put it past them. Hooray for vanity domains! https://get.app/ https://get.app/ He needs to get better about posting the link to whatever he's talking about so I can read ahead and be more informed.