• Synthclair@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Indeed, if I were the developers I would be threading much more carefully. While it may be true that the letter is not precise enough, access to YouTube implies a relative acceptance of the terms of service of providing the service, and it is not so clear cut as Invidious claims.

    • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Absolutely. I’m not saying they should just fold and give up, either. However, for someone who is listed as their Finance Manager and creator of the website, it certainly screams they could be legally culpable in some way, even if the takedown notice is wrong about how Invidious works.

      The reality is, however, they need actual legal representation to fight it, and not just fucking first-year-English-student-bullshit like “Invidious just is.” Google has a fucking team of lawyers on retainer, do people really think they somehow don’t know what they’re doing or aren’t worth the money Google pays for them? Or for that matter, that a judge even understands the technical difference between API use and scraping, and their understanding hinges on your lawyer getting them to understand the difference where Google’s lawyers entire play will be making the judge not understand the difference.