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 561754
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Petty?
by malxau on Thu 16th May 2013 02:27 UTC 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

RE[6]: Petty?
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th May 2013 02:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Petty?"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yeah, but I least I do hope you understand the difference between the reality of things, and one's personal opinion of what they wish things were like. Which the previous poster seemed to have a fantastically hard time accepting.

I'm not arguing in pro or con against their policies. But just because a website provides something free of charge, it does not mean they are doing so without specific terms and conditions. You are free to go and challenge google's EULA in court, if you feel they are in the wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 2