4 ms·

(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

(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
  - cyber24 2y ago
    Just to clarify: This letter was about GrayJay, a 3rd party YouTube front-end that -as I understand it- gets its YT content by parsing the YouTube website. This way they can access YouTube content without using their official (or any, really) API. Parsing the site is more complicated and a lot of work to maintain but good for privacy and no restrictions from API terms of use. Google pretends not to know or understand this by asking the GrayJay devs to honor the terms of an API they actively avoid using. GrayJay is being developed by a team at FUTO (dot org) that Louis Rossmann is affiliated with. His personal 'Louis Rossmann' YouTube channel is seperate from FUTO and GrayJay, and isn't part of this issue, nor is his personal channel mentioned in the letter. I hope I remember correctly, I listened to his video while falling asleep ^^
    - wmf 2y ago
      His personal 'Louis Rossmann' YouTube channel isn't part of this issue I'm sure he'd like to believe that but YouTube seems pretty happy to ban accounts for spurious reasons.
      - zarzavat 2y ago
        YouTube, a company trying to compete with Twitch, once banned people’s entire Google accounts for spamming emotes in chat. https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtube-emote-spam-markiplier/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtub...
      - Zooti 2y ago
        Even if so, isn't that the entire point of this server he is protecting?
    - AlienRobot 2y ago
      I'm on Youtube's side here. Any UI is an API with extra steps.
      - f33d5173 2y ago
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  Companies are separate legal entities from the people who work there. YT can't make demands of a company just because one of the company's employees happens to have a YT channel. It's true if some random gaming youtuber has a job at IBM, and it's also true if you're a public figure like Louis Rossman. IBM can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if one of IBM's employees runs a youtube channel. And Grayjay can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if Louis Rossman has a channel. This is in addition to lucb1e's comment about the API terms specifically. Even if YT's lawyers are confusing the individual Louis Rossman with the company he's associated with, they still seem confused about which set of terms he agreed to.
  - csande17 2y ago
    FUTO itself also has a YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@FUTOTECH https://youtube.com/@FUTOTECH
grobbyy 2y ago
I agree. However, YouTube's legal argument would be tortious interference. As much as that's a stupid concept, it might be enforced. That might be a good reason not to have a legal entity in the US but a jurisdiction with more sensible laws.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  IANAL, but disagree. In the context of business relationships, tortious interference is "intentionally acting to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others". GRJ is not preventing anyone from maintaining a business relationship with Google. That Google might -choose- to end a business relationship is on them, but they weren't prevented from having a relationship with their YouTube 'customer', or vice versa.
  - grobbyy 2y ago
    It's more complex. If my app causes someone else to violate ToS, it's very much on realm of the types of things which lead to expensive litigations as I've seen in related domains. It's dumb, but that's the legal system.
bitwize 2y ago
There is an agreement in the "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" sense. I.e., by connecting to YouTube Google's lawyers feel you implicitly agreed to do so under Google's terms only... and Google can hire better lawyers than you can.
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  > Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" That's not actually the contract though. You're not breaking contract if you get up to use the bathroom during an ad break, with TV or YouTube.
  - bitwize 2y ago
    The originator of the quote, Warner exec Jamie Kellner, said that there was some allowance for going to the bathroom... but that routinely skipping ads, as the brand-new TiVo DVR could do, constituted theft of programming. Honestly, he wasn't wrong: if content is provided on an ad-supported basis, there's a give and take. The content was provided with the understanding that the advertisers who paid the network in lieu of the viewer would have the viewer's attention during ad breaks. If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. This is morally equivalent to stealing. Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds, who for literally half a century have been creatively interpreting IP law and its philosophical underpinning in their favor. I expect some browser fingerprinting and remote attestation tech to be deployed by Google in order to catch content thieves, and some scathing DMCA lawsuits to result in the wake of the inevitable attempts to circumvent said tech.
    - lambdaxyzw 2y ago
      If it's not possible to ethically deliver content on an ad-supported basis, then maybe we shouldn't allow it to exist, instead of excusing immoral thinks because "that's the only way to do it". >If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. I find this idea disgusting. There are many kinds of contracts we don't allow - for example you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you want to. Similarly I think that the "contract" you describe should not be allowed to exist, even assuming it's legally binding right now (and I doubt it). >Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds In my experience it's the other way around - everybody disagrees, except a tiny minority of people who benefit from the ad-supported monopoles.

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
- cyber24 2y ago
  Just to clarify: This letter was about GrayJay, a 3rd party YouTube front-end that -as I understand it- gets its YT content by parsing the YouTube website. This way they can access YouTube content without using their official (or any, really) API. Parsing the site is more complicated and a lot of work to maintain but good for privacy and no restrictions from API terms of use. Google pretends not to know or understand this by asking the GrayJay devs to honor the terms of an API they actively avoid using. GrayJay is being developed by a team at FUTO (dot org) that Louis Rossmann is affiliated with. His personal 'Louis Rossmann' YouTube channel is seperate from FUTO and GrayJay, and isn't part of this issue, nor is his personal channel mentioned in the letter. I hope I remember correctly, I listened to his video while falling asleep ^^
  - wmf 2y ago
    His personal 'Louis Rossmann' YouTube channel isn't part of this issue I'm sure he'd like to believe that but YouTube seems pretty happy to ban accounts for spurious reasons.
    - zarzavat 2y ago
      YouTube, a company trying to compete with Twitch, once banned people’s entire Google accounts for spamming emotes in chat. https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtube-emote-spam-markiplier/ https://9to5google.com/2019/11/09/google-account-bans-youtub...
    - Zooti 2y ago
      Even if so, isn't that the entire point of this server he is protecting?
  - AlienRobot 2y ago
    I'm on Youtube's side here. Any UI is an API with extra steps.
    - f33d5173 2y ago
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
Companies are separate legal entities from the people who work there. YT can't make demands of a company just because one of the company's employees happens to have a YT channel. It's true if some random gaming youtuber has a job at IBM, and it's also true if you're a public figure like Louis Rossman. IBM can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if one of IBM's employees runs a youtube channel. And Grayjay can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if Louis Rossman has a channel. This is in addition to lucb1e's comment about the API terms specifically. Even if YT's lawyers are confusing the individual Louis Rossman with the company he's associated with, they still seem confused about which set of terms he agreed to.
- csande17 2y ago
  FUTO itself also has a YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/@FUTOTECH https://youtube.com/@FUTOTECH

grobbyy 2y ago

I agree. However, YouTube's legal argument would be tortious interference. As much as that's a stupid concept, it might be enforced. That might be a good reason not to have a legal entity in the US but a jurisdiction with more sensible laws.

FireBeyond 2y ago
IANAL, but disagree. In the context of business relationships, tortious interference is "intentionally acting to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others". GRJ is not preventing anyone from maintaining a business relationship with Google. That Google might -choose- to end a business relationship is on them, but they weren't prevented from having a relationship with their YouTube 'customer', or vice versa.
- grobbyy 2y ago
  It's more complex. If my app causes someone else to violate ToS, it's very much on realm of the types of things which lead to expensive litigations as I've seen in related domains. It's dumb, but that's the legal system.

bitwize 2y ago

There is an agreement in the "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" sense. I.e., by connecting to YouTube Google's lawyers feel you implicitly agreed to do so under Google's terms only... and Google can hire better lawyers than you can.

idle_zealot 2y ago
> Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" That's not actually the contract though. You're not breaking contract if you get up to use the bathroom during an ad break, with TV or YouTube.
- bitwize 2y ago
  The originator of the quote, Warner exec Jamie Kellner, said that there was some allowance for going to the bathroom... but that routinely skipping ads, as the brand-new TiVo DVR could do, constituted theft of programming. Honestly, he wasn't wrong: if content is provided on an ad-supported basis, there's a give and take. The content was provided with the understanding that the advertisers who paid the network in lieu of the viewer would have the viewer's attention during ad breaks. If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. This is morally equivalent to stealing. Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds, who for literally half a century have been creatively interpreting IP law and its philosophical underpinning in their favor. I expect some browser fingerprinting and remote attestation tech to be deployed by Google in order to catch content thieves, and some scathing DMCA lawsuits to result in the wake of the inevitable attempts to circumvent said tech.
  - lambdaxyzw 2y ago
    If it's not possible to ethically deliver content on an ad-supported basis, then maybe we shouldn't allow it to exist, instead of excusing immoral thinks because "that's the only way to do it". >If the viewer should screen out the advertisements, they are getting the benefits of programming while depriving the network of the benefits it hoped to realize by providing the content. I find this idea disgusting. There are many kinds of contracts we don't allow - for example you can't sell yourself into slavery, even if you want to. Similarly I think that the "contract" you describe should not be allowed to exist, even assuming it's legally binding right now (and I doubt it). >Everybody seems to understand this except for tech nerds In my experience it's the other way around - everybody disagrees, except a tiny minority of people who benefit from the ad-supported monopoles.