...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
Comments
...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.