Very clean elegant design. A high quality user experience.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
To build a business plan solely around scraps of bandwidth and server resources from a third-party site makes no sense. No need to bring up evil traps and conspiracy. It's just plain common sense on the part of Google to protect their business interest.
I am sympathetic to the entrepreneur's plight, but I think this problem represents a big gaping hole in business planning. I suggest seeking seasoned advisors who understand that only the paranoid survive.
...creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
Google makes billions monetizing other people's content. They scrape zillions of web pages, index them, and then monetize the whole thing by running ads next their service. How is that different than one person developing a niche audience based off of Google's content and trying to monetize that?
Sure it makes sense for Google to limit access to protect their business plan. But, it is hypocritical and kind of a dick move on their part to try to legally prevent other people from doing what they've done from the beginning.
I have a hunch that moves like this will lead to a lot more anti-trust law suits against Google.
This is stupid. Filtering the content and hot linking to it while stripping the ads is very different from what google does in its profitable search businesses.
I didn't check out the site in question, but don't they arguably offer some kind of better filterting or navigation than youtube? In which case your argument loses its value.
I'd be surprised if the site was a replica of youtube minus the ads. They must provide some value for users to like it like they seem to.
The value it provides to users is immaterial. It uses Google's finite, expensive bandwidth resources without providing any form of compensation. This is very different from what Google does, which is to rehost snippets and direct traffic to content providers. They do not use the content providers' finite resources, and they do compensate providers by sending traffic.
There's nothing wrong with what Toltol is doing as long as Google allows it. But the TOS is very much like a robots.txt file. To complain about a website roboting you out when your usage is detrimental (or at any other time, for that matter) is just silly. Using a site does not create an obligation where that site's maintainers must continue to provide you service. They are more than justified to cut you off for any reason or no reason at all.
I welcome the disagreement, but please don't use insults like "This is stupid". This is Hacker News, and we prefer thoughtful dialogue. May I suggest: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
YouTube has supported and continues to support the embedding of videos into other sites. It's not as if TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme. That's why YouTube are now showing banner ads within videos and I expect they might try interstitials too someday.
But TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme -- they're using their own flash player instead of embedding youtube's, which means they never show Google's lower-third banners or intersitial videos.
That's an overkill solution. But I remember having to remove youtube videos from one site when Legal got wary about the new notes feature. at the time there were no documented way to disable those by default when embedding.
that feature would enable the submitter to, after our content editors approved the video, to insert messages that would not get approved. So i can see a fair use case for the proprietary totlol flash player there.
at the beginning, the author states publishers would upload the videos directly to the website with one direct button; however existing content publishers wanted the YouTube audience, hence the move to YouTube API.
Comments
I went to the TotLol web site and it looks great.
Very clean elegant design. A high quality user experience.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
To build a business plan solely around scraps of bandwidth and server resources from a third-party site makes no sense. No need to bring up evil traps and conspiracy. It's just plain common sense on the part of Google to protect their business interest.
I am sympathetic to the entrepreneur's plight, but I think this problem represents a big gaping hole in business planning. I suggest seeking seasoned advisors who understand that only the paranoid survive.
...creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
Google makes billions monetizing other people's content. They scrape zillions of web pages, index them, and then monetize the whole thing by running ads next their service. How is that different than one person developing a niche audience based off of Google's content and trying to monetize that?
Sure it makes sense for Google to limit access to protect their business plan. But, it is hypocritical and kind of a dick move on their part to try to legally prevent other people from doing what they've done from the beginning.
I have a hunch that moves like this will lead to a lot more anti-trust law suits against Google.
This is stupid. Filtering the content and hot linking to it while stripping the ads is very different from what google does in its profitable search businesses.
I didn't check out the site in question, but don't they arguably offer some kind of better filterting or navigation than youtube? In which case your argument loses its value.
I'd be surprised if the site was a replica of youtube minus the ads. They must provide some value for users to like it like they seem to.
The value it provides to users is immaterial. It uses Google's finite, expensive bandwidth resources without providing any form of compensation. This is very different from what Google does, which is to rehost snippets and direct traffic to content providers. They do not use the content providers' finite resources, and they do compensate providers by sending traffic.
There's nothing wrong with what Toltol is doing as long as Google allows it. But the TOS is very much like a robots.txt file. To complain about a website roboting you out when your usage is detrimental (or at any other time, for that matter) is just silly. Using a site does not create an obligation where that site's maintainers must continue to provide you service. They are more than justified to cut you off for any reason or no reason at all.
I welcome the disagreement, but please don't use insults like "This is stupid". This is Hacker News, and we prefer thoughtful dialogue. May I suggest: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've read the guidelines before. It really is too bad there's nothing about intellectual dishonesty on there.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
YouTube has supported and continues to support the embedding of videos into other sites. It's not as if TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme. That's why YouTube are now showing banner ads within videos and I expect they might try interstitials too someday.
But TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme -- they're using their own flash player instead of embedding youtube's, which means they never show Google's lower-third banners or intersitial videos.
That's an overkill solution. But I remember having to remove youtube videos from one site when Legal got wary about the new notes feature. at the time there were no documented way to disable those by default when embedding.
that feature would enable the submitter to, after our content editors approved the video, to insert messages that would not get approved. So i can see a fair use case for the proprietary totlol flash player there.
at the beginning, the author states publishers would upload the videos directly to the website with one direct button; however existing content publishers wanted the YouTube audience, hence the move to YouTube API.