Hacker News Reader

Notable point: YouTube got where it is by ignoring the TOS of a huge percentage of the content it serves.

I haven't heard this and it sounds interesting. Can you provide a link?

Most of the youtube videos are pirated, unauthorized uploads. And people flocked to youtube to see a free version of latest * MTVs, without having to pay a single dime for it.

Content doesn't have a TOS. It has a copyright. In the United States, at least, the DMCA allows content owners to file a take down request. If youtube has been ignoring DMCA takedown requests, that's news to me.

Unless you're less than three years old you should know that google hasn't always owned youtube. Before the google acquisition youtube was breaking all kinds of copyright laws. And they grew in popularity because of it.

I upvoted you because you appear to be bringing new information to the table that I'm actually interested in, as it would shed light on how a scrappy new company succeeded despite violating "rules of the game" - not TOS, admittedly, but in this case copyright laws.

Do you have any articles or citations that show where youtube, prior to the google acquisition, ignored a DMCA takedown request? It's important to note that (in the United States at least, I can't speak for other countries), hosting copyrighted information posted by others is not a violation of copyright law, but, once you've been notified that such content exists with the appropriate DMCA request, you are required to take it down (or have the content poster respond to the DMCA request). This is known as Safe Harbor , and was, to my knowledge, the reason why google felt comfortable acquiring YouTube.

Not as irresponsible as advising someone to deliberately violate a legal agreement.

I think I'm in the minority on this since as I write this, your comment is +41 and I see similar ones lower with a lot of agreement.

So, downmod me if you want... I still say shame on you.

"Just do it... "everyone else is doing it"... what a load of bs

I surely wouldn't be willing to take that kind of chance if it were my start-up. Moreover, Google is aware of the startup existence, and probably wouldn't hesitate to sue it would it violate the TOS. And if they did, they'd probably get away just fine.

you don't get sued for ToS violations, you just get your service shut off.

The action that he is afraid of, is the equivalent of Google suddenly deciding that they'll no longer offer gmail for free. The odds of that happening are more or less insignificant.

Receiving a Cease and Desist letter is another likely outcome that effectively cuts off access. And while your analogy of Google deciding they won't offer free gmail is ridiculous, it's also worth pointing out that they have shutdown gmail accounts for violating the gmail TOS.

I completely agree. Youtube serves so much video, they wouldn't even notice the hosting overhead from a small site like totlol. Plus there are a number of ways to circumvent the TOS.

I can think of other big problems with the totlol idea, but none of them are related to the TOS..

Not to mention what huge publicity will the shitstorm will be for your site. But still I think you should have a plan B..

exactly, just imagine a CNN story of a few kids talking through tears..."those <sniff> meanies <sniff> at gaggle <sniff> are big bad doo doo heads"

You do that, they simply cut your access from the api. The end.

by someone who had access cut from other google apis.

and that's when you switch to your backup with 1,000 videos, while all those users, you woudln't have had otherwise, go and restore the site's content using something like Vimeo.

Yeah, that could be the case. In mine it was based on their open social stuff for orkut. If you loose that data source, then your users do no care much.

Nope. An API provider and API user form a relationship that should be based on respect. I respected Google. What did they do? Read the link.

yeah what exactly did they do? Change a few lines in their terms of service agreement that nobody reads? The HORROR!

Seriously dude they didn't shut you down overnight like craigslist constantly does, they didn't suddenly start charging you for the API...all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.

These things are always in the terms, they are just put there by lawyers, so that they have some options 20 years from now when they might need it against a real culprit.

And as far as your API provider/user relationship based on respect, that's a load of bull. As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right. You on the other hand are guilty of attacking them over something that they haven't even done yet. Smearing them with what ifs about events that didn't even happen yet.

If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan. But until they do, what exactly are you complaining about? Hell it's already been 6 months since they changed the ToS, if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.

I disagree. The author picked exactly the right time to draw attention to this dickish move by Google. Investing time and money into building a startup based on another company's API is risky, but building said startup in direct violation of their ToS is downright irresponsible.

> If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan.

No. If he continues and Google shuts him down, he can no longer bitch and moan, because he will have knowingly broken the API agreement.

> if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.

Doubtful. A ban would probably only be enforced if he actually started gaining business, users & notoriety.

all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.

Those few clauses gave Google a kill switch to his site. If it stayed small Google wouldn't have done anything, if it succeeded they'd come after him for violating the terms, and probably end up acquiring it for little or nothing.

As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right.

It is their right. It's also a change that nullified his business model, so letting him know about it would have been the non-evil thing to do, and that would have taken no additional effort since they were already communicating with him. It's possible that their failure to do so was incompetence rather than malice, but the result is the same.

vaksel, great comment. You took the words out of my mouth.