by worldofmatthew on 6/9/23, 7:18 PM with 66 comments
by jeroenhd on 6/10/23, 5:42 AM
Ignoring the legal process can result in seized domains and servers, services being taken down, lawyers obtaining all kinds of personal information through the courts, and other stuff that gets very expensive very quickly. I doubt that this person will be extradited for making a Youtube frontend, but fighting Google can be certified Not Fun.
If you're going to ignore a cease and desist, consider getting legal advice from an expert with relevant knowledge first. They will tell you what can and cannot happen if you ignore letters like these. Perhaps they can word your protest in a more legalese form that Google will need to respond to if it wants to actually pursue the matter; it's certainly possible that getting actual lawyers involved to overthrow a realistic defence will be too much for Google to actually care. Youtubers certainly seem to get the velvet glove treatment after their message exchange with Youtube representatives mention lawyers.
There are probably ways in which the project can be defended (for example, if it really doesn't use the API in any way I don't believe it can be subject to their terms and conditions) but "you used the wrong opening for your email" and "Invidious *is*." isn't it.
by supriyo-biswas on 6/10/23, 4:31 AM
On Github[1] and invidious.io[2] they say they're the project manager and manage finances, which puts them in a leadership role, and therefore capable of directing the project, including cessation of its operation. Imagine if a CEO started nitpicking about how it's "not their product or service" and it was the company maintaining it, and how they weren't a low level employee and thus not responsible for the activities of the company.
And even if we are to assume that "project manager" is simply an honorary position, there is a level of implied responsibility even in these positions. As an example, CEO positions often inch closer to being honorary, as demonstrated by some CEOs being on the boards of multiple companies.
It is a different question as to whether the cessation of its operation is an effective measure or not, or whether running alternative frontends should be a violation of a law. Imagine a situation where Alice and their friends bully Bob. Bob gets a restraining order against Alice, and Alice argues that their friends like to bully Bob as well, so a restraining order against Alice won't help. "Other people can also do it" isn't a valid legal defense, even when it is true.
It's also interesting that they didn't release the full letter sent by Google. I wonder if it's actually a C&D but the author simply hopes that they can avoid complying with it only because it uses "To Whom It May Concern", which is standard legal verbiage.
by jcrawfordor on 6/10/23, 6:27 AM
But it does load the videos from YouTube's media CDN - so if the author is making the claim that Invidious is not using YouTube "the service" when it still relies on YouTube infrastructure for the heavy lifting this seems... Actually worse? It takes a contract issue over the terms and makes it into something more like a CFAA issue, since Invidious is consuming YouTube resources without, the author claims, using anything intended as a public service.
Obviously this analogy is inexact but it feels like telling the electrical utility that they can't sue you because you aren't using their electrical service, you're tapping the wires before the meter. You kind of want to be governed by the terms of a service because that tends to mean that whatever you're doing is something you're allowed to do, and not outright abuse.
by naet on 6/10/23, 6:05 AM
Some of the quotes are laugh out loud funny to me:
"Invidious received an e-mail from Google/YouTube to ask the project to be stopped.
...
I’m not stopping my work on Invidious, so here’s the explanation:
The e-mail is addressed “To Whom It May Concern”, the reality is that it doesn’t “concern” me.
...
If Google/YouTube want me to stop, they just have to ask me to stop"
Google clearly asked you to stop and you didn't. Continue at your own legal peril.
by pcthrowaway on 6/10/23, 4:32 AM
That aside, I imagine invidious (app) servers which allow users to watch content from Google's servers may be candidates for shutdown.
For example, here's a random video from the front page of an invidous server about the reddit blackout (I haven't watched it): https://yewtu.be/watch?v=fBruoybHryU
But the video itself is coming from https://rr1---sn-ux3n588t-t8ge.googlevideo.com/
I assume this would be nominally legal under the same reasoning that hotlinking images is legal. If hotlinking images is found to be illegal though (which I think Google is powerful enough to force), then I think Google is going to have to do some reorganizing of their index (see case where someone sued Google, and lost, because Google was prominently displaying a website that hotlinked their image: https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/16/google_search_image_r...)
So it's an interesting one to watch for precedent, but I don't think Google is going to want to force courts to agree that hotlinking another website is infringement, because they'd potentially have to deindex 90% of the internet.
On the other hand, their search result quality has reduced so drastically of late, maybe they don't care about this.
by toyg on 6/10/23, 5:34 AM
That ain't gonna work, son.
by devsda on 6/10/23, 5:00 AM
The post comes off as a little idealistic and dismissive. I hope they have given enough thought and have sufficient countermeasures in place for the project if the law disagree with their view.
by 2h on 6/10/23, 2:43 PM
yeah, they DEFINITELY DO:
https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/blob/e7bed765/src/invidi...
not sure what backwards logic they are using to come to this conclusion, but its objectively wrong, and wont hold up in court. Granted, I am also guilty of this in my own project, but I dont pretend that I am not using the API, I just dont care because my project is tiny. They no longer have that luxury.
by the_gipsy on 6/10/23, 6:32 AM
by Springtime on 6/10/23, 5:51 AM
Edit: I'll add that it centers on Youtube's API usage, which Invidious doesn't use so there's some ambiguity in how it relates to the project.
by its-summertime on 6/10/23, 6:57 AM
The letter does state that its referring to API clients, while invidious works via scraping instead, to not need to deal with the API terms. This is considered different legally. Dunno how this'll play out though.
by klysm on 6/10/23, 4:15 AM
by anothernewdude on 6/10/23, 5:16 AM
by johnboyega on 6/10/23, 8:24 PM
by ngneer on 6/10/23, 5:34 AM
by deafpolygon on 6/10/23, 7:49 AM
No, I am Sebastian Bach!
by oh_sigh on 6/10/23, 6:28 AM