6 ms·

Is this legal? In Google's Terms and Conditions, it's says that bypassing ads violates Youtube's terms and conditions. https://support.google.com/youtube/answe

Is this legal? In Google's Terms and Conditions, it's says that bypassing ads violates Youtube's terms and conditions. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599?hl=en#:~:text=When%20you%20block%20YouTube%20ads,sign%20up%20for%20YouTube%20Premium https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599?hl=en#:~:....

RockRobotRock 3y ago
Nope! The real question is who cares or is willing to do something about it.
EMIRELADERO 3y ago
It is legal, Invidious hasn't signed that agreement and doesn't use YouTube's API. They got a legal letter from YouTube[0] to which they responded publicly. > "They don't understand that we never agreed to any of their TOS/policies, they don't understand that we don't use their API." [0] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872
- abnry 3y ago
  Isn't using the website kind of like using an API?
  - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
    They refer to the registration-gated "Developer API"
    - rorychatt 3y ago
      I'm not sure. IANAL, but reading the developer policy, reference is made to include the Youtube Developer Site & Services, but is not exclusive of other Youtube API Services. Whether Invidious uses a Public Developer API, a Broker offering their own API, or a workaround with an internal API seems inconsequential. https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies#definition-youtube-api-services https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici... # Client: `"API Client" means a website or software application (including a mobile application) developed by you that accesses or uses the YouTube API Services.` # Service: "YouTube API Services" means (i) the YouTube API services (e.g., YouTube Data API service and YouTube Reporting API service) made available by YouTube including those YouTube API services made available on the YouTube Developer Site (as defined below), (ii) documentation, information, materials, sample code and software (including any human-readable programming instructions) relating to YouTube API services that are made available on https://developers.google.com/youtube or by YouTube, (iii) data, content (including audiovisual content) and information provided to API Clients (as defined above) through the YouTube API services (the "API Data"), and (iv) the credentials assigned to you and your API Client(s) by YouTube or Google." I'm not sure how I feel about software that sits on this grey line of legality sitting on the front page of HN.
      - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
        There's still the fact that a contract requires affirmative acceptance. The Invidious devs, as we have seen, have not accepted it.
  - geraldhh 3y ago
    no. the user-agent might, but there is no transient agreement
- bagels 3y ago
  End users can be sued or blocked.
effie 3y ago
Just because something is written in terms and conditions, does not mean it is the word of God (or courts). More generally, do you have to legally agree to Terms and Conditions to communicate with service provider's servers over HTTPS? Do you legally agree to them after you communicate one packet in such a way? I don't think when Google crawls various websites, that Google has to agree to various licenses those website owners may have, or that its crawling of them implies such agreement. It's ridiculous to believe that a magazine publisher, or a TV provider can require users to watch or hear the ads. Real life shows many people intentionally don't, using various methods, and I see no reason why Youtube provider should be different in this.
- rorychatt 3y ago
  > More generally, do you have to legally agree to Terms and Conditions to communicate with service provider's servers over HTTPS? Do you legally agree to them after you communicate one packet in such a way? Browsewrap agreements (agreeing by using the site) are pretty much unenforceable to your point. I'm not sure this is the same thing however. Youtube don't offer a customer facing consumable service for offering an ad free experience outside of Premium or their Developer API. The app is deliberately bypassing the provided services. Bypassing those published mechanisms is hacking, and depending on where you are, may not be legal. I suspect for most consumers of HN, this would be the case. Browser crawlers fall under fair use. I'm not sure this does. I get it. I don't like ads either.
  - mcfedr 3y ago
    Just call this a specialised browser
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > Youtube don't offer a customer facing consumable service for offering an ad free experience outside of Premium or their Developer API. The app is deliberately bypassing the provided services. Bypassing those published mechanisms is hacking, and depending on where you are, may not be legal. I suspect for most consumers of HN, this would be the case. IANAL, but it seems like if it worked like that then adblockers in general would be legal, so I'm going to assume that it doesn't work like that.

RockRobotRock 3y ago

Nope! The real question is who cares or is willing to do something about it.

EMIRELADERO 3y ago

It is legal, Invidious hasn't signed that agreement and doesn't use YouTube's API. They got a legal letter from YouTube[0] to which they responded publicly. > "They don't understand that we never agreed to any of their TOS/policies, they don't understand that we don't use their API." [0] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872 https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872

abnry 3y ago
Isn't using the website kind of like using an API?
- EMIRELADERO 3y ago
  They refer to the registration-gated "Developer API"
  - rorychatt 3y ago
    I'm not sure. IANAL, but reading the developer policy, reference is made to include the Youtube Developer Site & Services, but is not exclusive of other Youtube API Services. Whether Invidious uses a Public Developer API, a Broker offering their own API, or a workaround with an internal API seems inconsequential. https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies#definition-youtube-api-services https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-polici... # Client: `"API Client" means a website or software application (including a mobile application) developed by you that accesses or uses the YouTube API Services.` # Service: "YouTube API Services" means (i) the YouTube API services (e.g., YouTube Data API service and YouTube Reporting API service) made available by YouTube including those YouTube API services made available on the YouTube Developer Site (as defined below), (ii) documentation, information, materials, sample code and software (including any human-readable programming instructions) relating to YouTube API services that are made available on https://developers.google.com/youtube or by YouTube, (iii) data, content (including audiovisual content) and information provided to API Clients (as defined above) through the YouTube API services (the "API Data"), and (iv) the credentials assigned to you and your API Client(s) by YouTube or Google." I'm not sure how I feel about software that sits on this grey line of legality sitting on the front page of HN.
    - EMIRELADERO 3y ago
      There's still the fact that a contract requires affirmative acceptance. The Invidious devs, as we have seen, have not accepted it.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  no. the user-agent might, but there is no transient agreement
bagels 3y ago
End users can be sued or blocked.

effie 3y ago

Just because something is written in terms and conditions, does not mean it is the word of God (or courts). More generally, do you have to legally agree to Terms and Conditions to communicate with service provider's servers over HTTPS? Do you legally agree to them after you communicate one packet in such a way? I don't think when Google crawls various websites, that Google has to agree to various licenses those website owners may have, or that its crawling of them implies such agreement. It's ridiculous to believe that a magazine publisher, or a TV provider can require users to watch or hear the ads. Real life shows many people intentionally don't, using various methods, and I see no reason why Youtube provider should be different in this.

rorychatt 3y ago
> More generally, do you have to legally agree to Terms and Conditions to communicate with service provider's servers over HTTPS? Do you legally agree to them after you communicate one packet in such a way? Browsewrap agreements (agreeing by using the site) are pretty much unenforceable to your point. I'm not sure this is the same thing however. Youtube don't offer a customer facing consumable service for offering an ad free experience outside of Premium or their Developer API. The app is deliberately bypassing the provided services. Bypassing those published mechanisms is hacking, and depending on where you are, may not be legal. I suspect for most consumers of HN, this would be the case. Browser crawlers fall under fair use. I'm not sure this does. I get it. I don't like ads either.
- mcfedr 3y ago
  Just call this a specialised browser
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > Youtube don't offer a customer facing consumable service for offering an ad free experience outside of Premium or their Developer API. The app is deliberately bypassing the provided services. Bypassing those published mechanisms is hacking, and depending on where you are, may not be legal. I suspect for most consumers of HN, this would be the case. IANAL, but it seems like if it worked like that then adblockers in general would be legal, so I'm going to assume that it doesn't work like that.