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.
Thread beginning with comment 561709
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Petty?
by Shannara on Wed 15th May 2013 23:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Petty?"
Shannara
Member since:
2005-07-06

Good thing they are only binding when both parties agree to the contract. There is no I Agree on the website anywhere for anyone just browsing or streaming.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 00:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

By visiting their site you agree to their terms or conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Petty?
by Shannara on Thu 16th May 2013 00:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Lol, not unless that notice goes up before you can get to any page.

That's like you reading this post, then I say, "You owe me $1,000".

It doesn't work that way.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Petty?
by malxau on Thu 16th May 2013 02:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Petty?"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

By visiting their site you agree to their terms or conditions:

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms


I tend to agree with Shannara on this. It'd be interesting to see the point argued in court, because Google would be in one of those "be careful what you wish for" situations.

If anyone can publish a website, throw a link to some terms on it, and have those terms be legally enforceable, then surely I could throw up a website, put up some terms saying "thou shalt not index or cache", wait for Google to violate my terms, and sue. Google rely on automated fetching of unknown content all the time, and couldn't possibly have lawyers reviewing T&C of each website they send requests to.

But if it's allowed to just send a GET request to any server for any purpose at any time, then advertising as a funding source loses its legal footing. In fact, since Google already index pages and display images etc from a Google-hosted copy, it'd be hard to find the distinction between a non-Google-hosted copy of Youtube content either.

Either outcome seems bad for Google - lose the legal basis for what they're indexing, or lose the legal framework to monetize it.

Trying to draw a line between the two extremes seems very difficult. I'm struggling to imagine a ruling that says T&C are sometimes enforceable and sometimes not, depending on whether the parties knew about them, or the intention of the resulting requests, etc. That may be where this would go in court, but it'd make for an interesting precedent either way.

Reply Parent Score: 4