4 ms·
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 leg
by 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 agoThe 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 agoIANAL just because they say it does not mean they can enforce it
- trothamel 2y agoThis bans the use of alternative youtube clients, but not the creation of such clients.
- gpm 2y agoIt's not functionally possible to develop software without using it.
- TheCleric 2y agoI don’t know. I’ve used plenty of software where I’ve asked myself “Did the people who wrote this ever try to actually use it?”
- elevatedastalt 2y agoYou can get upvotes here but this smartassery will get you a spanking in court.
- wmf 2y agoWhich is in some way worse. Not only would the TOS allow YouTube to ban Rossman, it would allow them to ban every person who uses GrayJay. Obviously they're not going to do that because of the collateral damage.
- greycol 2y ago[dead]
- ThunderSizzle 2y agoDo you need to agree to youtube's TOS to use it? I can open youtube in an incognito window or on a machine I never used without a TOS consent required. Also, youtube itself is just a website. Websites can be accessed through multiple venues, aka browsers. Browsers don't always guarantee the way it will render or present html will be as the author would expect.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoWhat about embedded YouTube videos on other sites?
- theknocker 2y ago[dead]
- hitpointdrew 2y agoNo, his response was far from childish. Now, how I would have responded, THAT would have been childish. “Dear Sir or Madam, Your company policy’s aren’t law, kindly go fuck yourselves.”
- Paul-Craft 2y agoArkell v. Pressdram: How to respond to a frivolous legal threat https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/arkell-v-pressdram
- Terr_ 2y agoThat reminds me of Groucho Marx's stunt of "responding" to a never-actually-made legal threat from Warner Brothers (publisher of Casablanca) over his movie A Night in Casablanca. As a pre-emptive media strike, it seemed to work. > You claim you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without their permission. What about Warner Brothers — do you own that, too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you were. When Vitaphone was still a gleam in the inventor’s eye, we were touring the sticks as the Marx Brothers and even before us, there had been other brothers — the Smith Brothers; the Brothers Karamazoff; Dan Brouthers, an outfielder with Detroit; and “Brother, can you spare a dime?” This was originally “Brothers, can you spare a dime” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin so they threw out one brother, gave all the money to the other brother and whittled it down to “Brother, can you spare a dime?” https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/21/i-had-no-idea-that-the-city-of-casablanca-belonged-exclusively-to-warner-bros/ https://lettersofnote.com/2011/02/21/i-had-no-idea-that-the-...
- em-bee 2y agoreferring to arkell vs pressdram is not unlike germans referring to götz von berlichingen without actually quoting him.
- dns_snek 2y agoI'm not sure what type of response you're expecting because in their previous response they directly addressed Google's claims and clarified that their app is not using the Youtube API and therefore isn't bound by its terms of service. Google apparently sent their response to /dev/null and just reiterated their previous claims yet again, indicating that they're not engaging in good faith.
- philipwhiuk 2y agoThe website itself is a form of API. You send a web request, you get a response, designed for a piece of software to read. It's an API. The fact that it's not optimised for what they are using it for is not relevant.
- nitwit005 2y agoYou're making an entirely different argument than what Google made in their emails to him.
- hughesjj 2y agoThe TOS doesn't apply to the web API though. I don't think Google wants to make scraping websites illegal, but that would be hilarious if they tried.
- nick7376182 2y agoHow about, by scraping my website they have agreed to my TOS which unilaterally supersedes any other agreements that may be in place. Any disputes between parties must be resolved by binding public votes on Twitter.
- ixwt 2y agoDo you also have to agree to the Google TOS if a non-Google website you visit uses a Google Font?
- pennybanks 2y agochildish is a good way to describe how he and many people think when it comes to companies. the smartest people will just refuse to use any logical thinking and display extreme bias.