• CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I question whether lawyers are smart enough to understand what API means sometimes… They clearly aren’t using YouTube’s API so the whole letter is just false accusation. Maybe read the code first before making stupid allegations? No? This is a shitty for profit company? Makes sense in the current landscape I guess, all the shitty for profit services want to drive themselves into the ground for no reason now.

    • neosheo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ll be honest i haven’t read their code. So invidious is just scraping youtube to pull all the data?

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 years ago

        Just scraping, so they’re not bound by the API TOS. Like YouTube-DL, YT-DLP, NewPipe, etc.

      • The Doctor@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes. And the big G doesn’t care. If they have to lie and say it’s abusive and a violation of the ToS, they’ll say it is. They’re a megacorp, while Invidious is a small open source project.

      • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 years ago

        According to the GitHub thread, yes. I think that’s how all of the open source apps work - youtube-dl, NewPipe, Invidious at least. Using the API would open them up to legal trouble because you have to agree to the terms to use the API. You don’t agree to the terms when scraping.