Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th May 2013 21:46 UTC
Google "Wired has obtained a copy of a cease and desist letter sent by Google to Microsoft today, demanding Microsoft immediately remove the YouTube app from its Windows Phone Store and disable existing copies on consumers' devices by May 22. The YouTube app for Windows Phone - developed by Microsoft not Google - strips out ads and allows downloading, both violations of YouTube's terms of service." Incredibly petty. Just come up with a solution, you bunch of kids.
Permalink for comment 561723
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I mean, I've got NoScript, AdBlock Plus, DoNotTrackMe and VideoDownloadHelper installed on my primary web browser, as well as all third-party cookies disabled and the "do not track" header on just to get the point across. So really, that shows how much of a rat's ass I give about so-called "terms of service" and advertising scumbags--er, I mean, industry. And while I surely wouldn't have a problem with a program coming with my phone allowing me to bypass ads and download videos (in fact, that is just the kind of thing I would actively seek myself), at the same time that kind of thing coming from a major corporation like Microsoft doesn't exactly set a good example.

Aren't they effectively saying that things like TOS and EULAs are worthless; that they are meant to be broken? I mean, if such a massive corporation does it against their competitors using their two or three Windows Phone users to deal the fatal blow, then does that give Google or just any other company the "right" to do it back to them using their army of millions of Android users? After all, Microsoft clearly doesn't seem to care about another company's terms of service and chose not to obey them--and Microsoft itself is even cashing in on Android sales thanks to obscene patent scares.

What would they think if I started using "non-genuine" copies of Windows and explicitly tried to do everything their EULA expressly forbids? Something tells me they wouldn't be a very happy company, and there would be some serious shit going on in the U.S. courtrooms. They're not exactly setting a good example for themselves. For every attempt they make to try to do something right to win people over, they prove that in the end they are the same crooked mega corporation that was slapped with an U.S. anti-trust lawsuit in the 1990s and subsequently watched under a magnifying glass by the EU once their own country pussied out.

Edited 2013-05-15 23:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2