5 ms·

I don't really understand what's the problem here. YouTube don't want him to do what he's doing, so they've blocked his servers from accessing their site. Isn't

by codeka 14y ago

I don't really understand what's the problem here. YouTube don't want him to do what he's doing, so they've blocked his servers from accessing their site. Isn't that pretty much end-of-story? Maybe it's true that they can't legally threaten him (I don't understand the relevant laws here), but they're certainly within their rights to IP-block him.

chrischen 14y ago
Since DoS attacks are illegal, I guess you might be able to interpret this as a form of that. It could be an unreasonable usage of YouTube resources from a single source. Maybe this can set a precedent for the PadMapper-Craigslist situation.
- JamesLeonis 14y ago
  The difference is that Padmapper used the Craigslist API, whereas this site appears to be able to skirt Youtube's API restrictions because it doesn't use the API. There also is some way it can skirt the general TOS because of a German law that says TOS can only be applied between two companies when a contract is signed, which apparently never happened. I don't quite understand it, but I'm not a German lawyer. http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf EDIT: I was misread. Padmapper didn't use a Craigslist API. Craigslist's TOS does state that scraping is forbidden and leniency is at their sole discretion. I'm not sure how that would play out in a German court, as they seem to have a different view of how TOS work between companies.
  - chrischen 14y ago
    If PadMapper used an api, then why did they receive a cease and desist?
    - grabeh 14y ago
      It appears they didn't, but in answer to your question generally, many APIs will often be subject to usage limitations. Twitter and Google Maps being two examples that immediately spring to mind.
      - chrischen 14y ago
        My point was that with an API, you don't need to send a cease and desist. You can simply cut off API access.
  - CaveTech 14y ago
    Craigslist has no API, PadMapper was doing a near identical thing.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
onli 14y ago
Don't dismiss the legal situation so easily. This could be an interesting case. First of, which law is to be applied? Philip and his site seems to be located in Germany, so german law, or american one, because of where youtube is located? Seems to be determined that german law it is. This is important, because it profoundly changes the importance of the ToS and wether they are accepted by simply using the service or not. The case itself is also interesting. Youtube is a public available resource, the videos are accessible for everyone. This means that it might be perfectly legal to use those for anything, including conversion to mp3. In Germany, that would not be the case if they were proteced with any effective means, which seems to mean with any means at all, like basic encryption (even with a known-to-be-known key). For Youtube-videos, that does not seem to be the case, there is no protection. This has to be compared to the needs of youtube (i think so at least, if the case is not clear already because of a definitve law), which most probably lose money from operating their service - for another service which earns money - without having the opportunity to earn any money with it (given their ad-based business-model). Which means that the case can be linked to the discussion of property of digital products, with drm and open access. So no, i think it's not simply blocking access, end of story.

by codeka 14y ago

chrischen 14y ago

Since DoS attacks are illegal, I guess you might be able to interpret this as a form of that. It could be an unreasonable usage of YouTube resources from a single source. Maybe this can set a precedent for the PadMapper-Craigslist situation.

JamesLeonis 14y ago
The difference is that Padmapper used the Craigslist API, whereas this site appears to be able to skirt Youtube's API restrictions because it doesn't use the API. There also is some way it can skirt the general TOS because of a German law that says TOS can only be applied between two companies when a contract is signed, which apparently never happened. I don't quite understand it, but I'm not a German lawyer. http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf http://edge.youtube-mp3.org/gcase/wbs.pdf EDIT: I was misread. Padmapper didn't use a Craigslist API. Craigslist's TOS does state that scraping is forbidden and leniency is at their sole discretion. I'm not sure how that would play out in a German court, as they seem to have a different view of how TOS work between companies.
- chrischen 14y ago
  If PadMapper used an api, then why did they receive a cease and desist?
  - grabeh 14y ago
    It appears they didn't, but in answer to your question generally, many APIs will often be subject to usage limitations. Twitter and Google Maps being two examples that immediately spring to mind.
    - chrischen 14y ago
      My point was that with an API, you don't need to send a cease and desist. You can simply cut off API access.
- CaveTech 14y ago
  Craigslist has no API, PadMapper was doing a near identical thing.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

onli 14y ago

Don't dismiss the legal situation so easily. This could be an interesting case. First of, which law is to be applied? Philip and his site seems to be located in Germany, so german law, or american one, because of where youtube is located? Seems to be determined that german law it is. This is important, because it profoundly changes the importance of the ToS and wether they are accepted by simply using the service or not. The case itself is also interesting. Youtube is a public available resource, the videos are accessible for everyone. This means that it might be perfectly legal to use those for anything, including conversion to mp3. In Germany, that would not be the case if they were proteced with any effective means, which seems to mean with any means at all, like basic encryption (even with a known-to-be-known key). For Youtube-videos, that does not seem to be the case, there is no protection. This has to be compared to the needs of youtube (i think so at least, if the case is not clear already because of a definitve law), which most probably lose money from operating their service - for another service which earns money - without having the opportunity to earn any money with it (given their ad-based business-model). Which means that the case can be linked to the discussion of property of digital products, with drm and open access. So no, i think it's not simply blocking access, end of story.