4 ms·

Yeah, well, I never confirmed the terms. "By using it, you agree …" is not a binding contract in Germany.

by allendoerfer 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
raldi 12y ago
Nobody claimed it was a contract violation, or even illegal, just that it was not authorized by YouTube's TOS.
- allendoerfer 12y ago
  The first comment actually just said, that it was "unauthorized". By creating a website and making it available on the WWW, you implicitly authorize the user to use a browser to access the website. Which form of browser the user chooses is none of your business. All browsers are therefor always authorized, if you do not restrict the access yourself. Of course some basic laws have been added since the birth of the web. You are not allowed to flood a site with requests and so on. But the principle that browsers and websites are separate entities still applies. If you want full control over your users clients, create your own protocol and your own client. As long as you use open protocols on the web, you implicitly agree to the contracts of the www and have to live with the fact, that the user chooses his client.
  - raldi 12y ago
    > By creating a website and making it available on the WWW, you implicitly authorize the user to use a browser to access the website. By default, yes, but if you then explicitly override that with robots.txt or a TOS, those take precedent. (Again, I'm not talking legally here, just what's been the cultural custom for the past 20 years or so. In other words, if you ignore either and then get banned, I don't think many netizens would shed a tear for you.)
    - allendoerfer 12y ago
      YouTube could do so, but I would argue, that not the user but YouTube behaves as a bad net-citizen then.
  - belorn 12y ago
    In Sweden, there was a famous case in which this premise was tested. A cable channel gave out a public accessible web link to customers after payment, which then got naturally shared. The cable channel sued the person who shared the link, arguing that it was copyright infringement since it allowed unauthorized users to access the site (case called Canal Plus-fallet). The defense argued that since there was no restriction added to the site, that that meant it was public. The court went with the side of the cable company, even if many commentates disagree. What effect a Swedish case can have on German law depend, but using European court case as guides is quite common in Swedish courts if there is no other prior cases. Same might apply for German courts.
    - allendoerfer 12y ago
      That is unfortunate. I think from a technical point of view, my interpretation of the "laws of the web" are true. What courts decide is an other story. It is part of the bigger problem, that courts do not understand every aspect of our complex society and have to listen to experts, which just defers to problem to the election of these experts. You do not want to give them the power either, because they are easier to lobby than justices. I just hope, that a generation of justices and politician arises, that understands basic principles the web is built on. Like links, that give the web its name, and how they work, who can control them and so on.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      The US Supreme Court has also cited EU court cases.

Yeah, well, I never confirmed the terms. "By using it, you agree …" is not a binding contract in Germany.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

raldi 12y ago

Nobody claimed it was a contract violation, or even illegal, just that it was not authorized by YouTube's TOS.

allendoerfer 12y ago
The first comment actually just said, that it was "unauthorized". By creating a website and making it available on the WWW, you implicitly authorize the user to use a browser to access the website. Which form of browser the user chooses is none of your business. All browsers are therefor always authorized, if you do not restrict the access yourself. Of course some basic laws have been added since the birth of the web. You are not allowed to flood a site with requests and so on. But the principle that browsers and websites are separate entities still applies. If you want full control over your users clients, create your own protocol and your own client. As long as you use open protocols on the web, you implicitly agree to the contracts of the www and have to live with the fact, that the user chooses his client.
- raldi 12y ago
  > By creating a website and making it available on the WWW, you implicitly authorize the user to use a browser to access the website. By default, yes, but if you then explicitly override that with robots.txt or a TOS, those take precedent. (Again, I'm not talking legally here, just what's been the cultural custom for the past 20 years or so. In other words, if you ignore either and then get banned, I don't think many netizens would shed a tear for you.)
  - allendoerfer 12y ago
    YouTube could do so, but I would argue, that not the user but YouTube behaves as a bad net-citizen then.
- belorn 12y ago
  In Sweden, there was a famous case in which this premise was tested. A cable channel gave out a public accessible web link to customers after payment, which then got naturally shared. The cable channel sued the person who shared the link, arguing that it was copyright infringement since it allowed unauthorized users to access the site (case called Canal Plus-fallet). The defense argued that since there was no restriction added to the site, that that meant it was public. The court went with the side of the cable company, even if many commentates disagree. What effect a Swedish case can have on German law depend, but using European court case as guides is quite common in Swedish courts if there is no other prior cases. Same might apply for German courts.
  - allendoerfer 12y ago
    That is unfortunate. I think from a technical point of view, my interpretation of the "laws of the web" are true. What courts decide is an other story. It is part of the bigger problem, that courts do not understand every aspect of our complex society and have to listen to experts, which just defers to problem to the election of these experts. You do not want to give them the power either, because they are easier to lobby than justices. I just hope, that a generation of justices and politician arises, that understands basic principles the web is built on. Like links, that give the web its name, and how they work, who can control them and so on.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    The US Supreme Court has also cited EU court cases.