Google Demands Shut Down of Microsoft's YouTube App

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How did Microsoft think this was a good idea? I mean, I like what Microsoft's app does, but they had to know Google would blow a blood vessel over it.

Google is seeking to block Microsoft's new YouTube app for Windows Phone 8 because it blocks ads and allows downloading of videos from YouTube's site, in violation of its terms of service.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not convinced that Microsoft's app is "blocking" ads....I think it's just not bothering to load them.

Oh the fine line they didn't cross.
 
MoFoQ said:
I'm not convinced that Microsoft's app is "blocking" ads....I think it's just not bothering to load them.

Oh the fine line they didn't cross.
Click to expand...

Except it's explicitly spelled out in the YouTube terms of service:

4. General Use of the Service—Permissions and Restrictions
YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:

  • You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).
  • You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.
  • You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.
Click to expand...

Given that it's highly unlikely the Microsoft app is authorized, they did cross a line :p
 
Dammit, that's the most useful app on the phone, that's not in beta at least.
 
Ruoh said:
Dammit, that's the most useful app on the phone, that's not in beta at least.
Click to expand...

Youtube is the most useful app on Windows Phone? Damn is the app selection really that sad?
 
DPI said:
Youtube is the most useful app on Windows Phone? Damn is the app selection really that sad?
Click to expand...

was actually thinking the same, having a windows phone, i'd say the selection is limited (even though more and more ports are coming in from the android and ios base), but not that sad. :D
 
Neb said:
Except it's explicitly spelled out in the YouTube terms of service:



Given that it's highly unlikely the Microsoft app is authorized, they did cross a line :p
Click to expand...

But the real question is does Microsoft have to abide by Google's TOS? It's the equilivant of making a lock picking set and then someone saying it's illegal to use it on their door.

It's technically up to the end user to decide if using the app breaks the TOS that they would be agreeing to.
 
bman212121 said:
But the real question is does Microsoft have to abide by Google's TOS? It's the equilivant of making a lock picking set and then someone saying it's illegal to use it on their door.

It's technically up to the end user to decide if using the app breaks the TOS that they would be agreeing to.
Click to expand...

Except it has long been established in IP media fields that modifying content that is supplied to you under license agreement...where there is expressed objection to any modification....simply doesn't fly.

Which is why Cable boxes don't allow any 3rd party gadgetry that actually removes commercials from their programming stream. DVRs and fast forwarding are put up with, as they don't actually remove anything, most of the time...they just let you fast forward.

Comparing video media to locks and locksmithing don't work, as the same laws don't really apply.
 
bman212121 said:
But the real question is does Microsoft have to abide by Google's TOS? It's the equilivant of making a lock picking set and then someone saying it's illegal to use it on their door.

It's technically up to the end user to decide if using the app breaks the TOS that they would be agreeing to.
Click to expand...

That's a bad anology, especially since terms of service agreements have been held up in court (via Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), note that the civil action portion of the act provides damages from "Lost advertising revenue from website"). Microsoft is using that service by providing an app that uses that service. The end user most likely never sees any portion of the actual TOS from Google nor Google's interface, since it's probably hidden by the app. Even if it did, I'm not sure how you could argue it's on the end user.
 
Neb said:
That's a bad anology, especially since terms of service agreements have been held up in court (via Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), note that the civil action portion of the act provides damages from "Lost advertising revenue from website"). Microsoft is using that service by providing an app that uses that service. The end user most likely never sees any portion of the actual TOS from Google nor Google's interface, since it's probably hidden by the app. Even if it did, I'm not sure how you could argue it's on the end user.
Click to expand...

Given that Google hosts adblocker and YouTube downloader plugins for their Chrome browser....Google doing this, is kind of two faced.
 
Skripka said:
Given that Google hosts adblocker and YouTube downloader plugins for their Chrome browser....Google doing this, is kind of two faced.
Click to expand...

What do optional adblocker plugins have to do with an unauthorized third party app that circumvents and violates Google's YouTube TOS by default?
 
DPI said:
What do optional adblocker plugins have to do with an unauthorized third party app that circumvents and violates Google's YouTube TOS by default?
Click to expand...

What do they have in common???? Really? This needs explained?

Well hoss, for starters they're both written by third parties, both do the exact same damn thing to the exact same data, both are posted on official corporate servers, they're both optional....

What don't they have in common? Well, Google only gets mad at Microsoft for doing it.
 
Would have been even more hilarious if Microsoft slipped in their own ad network. Lol.
 
Skripka said:
Given that Google hosts adblocker and YouTube downloader plugins for their Chrome browser....Google doing this, is kind of two faced.
Click to expand...

How so? Google didn't write those extensions, and extensions are not reviewed by Google when they are uploaded. They probably just haven't gotten caught yet. Adblocks were removed from Android's Play Store, as are YouTube downloaders. The catch is you have to be small enough to not get noticed by Google, which I guess Microsoft was hoping they were?
 
Skripka said:
What do they have in common???? Really? This needs explained?

Well hoss, for starters they're both written by third parties, both do the exact same damn thing to the exact same data, both are posted on official corporate servers, they're both optional....

What don't they have in common? Well, Google only gets mad at Microsoft for doing it.
Click to expand...

Very compelling argument. Stop wasting time here and send the resume to microsoft legal, they'll be very interested in speaking with you.
 
Google can shove their ads up their ass's, those advert sucking whores.
 
kllrnohj said:
How so? Google didn't write those extensions, and extensions are not reviewed by Google when they are uploaded. They probably just haven't gotten caught yet. Adblocks were removed from Android's Play Store, as are YouTube downloaders. The catch is you have to be small enough to not get noticed by Google, which I guess Microsoft was hoping they were?
Click to expand...

There's tons of apps for Windows Phone and even Windows 8 Metro that do the same thing. iOS still has them, I guess Google removed them from their store. But if you're going to come after Microsoft on this for their apps, and by the letter of the law I think Google is in the right here, then you'd need to go after Apple, Microsoft and the other Android stores as well and have them remove their no ad and downloader apps. I'm wondering if that wasn't maybe in Microsoft's mind when they put this app. Even though Google is legally correct, forcing ads and removing downloading in apps isn't going to sit well with end users even if Google has the legal right to do so.
 
Neb said:
Except it's explicitly spelled out in the YouTube terms of service:



Given that it's highly unlikely the Microsoft app is authorized, they did cross a line :p
Click to expand...


Is that for Youtube's site or the API?

remember, Microsoft did make these concerns with the EU that they couldn't access Youtube videos.
 
MoFoQ said:
Is that for Youtube's site or the API?

remember, Microsoft did make these concerns with the EU that they couldn't access Youtube videos.
Click to expand...

You're right, that was for the website. The API TOS is even more restrictive:

Your API Client will not, and You will not encourage or create functionality for Your users or other third parties to:

  • collect or modify any YouTube user account information;
  • interfere or attempt to interfere in any manner with the proper workings of the YouTube API, or create or distribute any API Client that adversely affects the functionality or performance of YouTube or services provided by YouTube;
  • circumvent or render ineffective any geographical restrictions, including IP address-based restrictions;
  • sell, lease, lend, convey, redistribute, or sublicense to any third party all or any portion of the YouTube API or API Data (except that You may distribute and display the YouTube audiovisual content and accompanying metadata to Your users through Your API Client in a manner that complies with this Agreement);
  • modify or replace the text, images, or other content of the YouTube search results, including (i) changing the order in which search results are presented as YouTube search results, or (ii) intermixing sources other than YouTube when search results are presented as YouTube search results;
  • modify, replace or otherwise disable the functioning of links to YouTube or third-party websites provided in the YouTube search results or otherwise provided through the YouTube API or YouTube player;
  • modify, replace, interfere with or block advertisements placed by YouTube in the YouTube Data, YouTube audiovisual content, or the YouTube player;
  • separate, isolate, or modify the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available through the YouTube API;
  • promote separately the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual content made available through the YouTube API;
  • access any portion of any YouTube audiovisual content by any means other than use of a YouTube player or other video player expressly authorized by YouTube;
  • store copies of YouTube audiovisual content;
  • use the YouTube API intentionally to encourage or promote copyright infringement or the exploitation of copyright-infringing materials;
  • misrepresent your identity when registering for use of the YouTube API, use the developer credentials licensed to a different individual or entity, or mask Your usage of the YouTube API; or
  • use a video player smaller than the minimum video player size set forth in the YouTube API documentation and specifications.
Click to expand...
 
There are plenty of apps and programs out there that download YouTube videos. They haven't gone after them.
 
Geez...Didn't even know about it. I only use the desktop youtube site, I could have been using the app to download vids this whole time.
 
Neb said:
You're right, that was for the website. The API TOS is even more restrictive:
Click to expand...

Even more interesting is if Microsoft isn't using the (official) API, but reverse-engineered it (which isn't that hard; shoot...you just need firefox with adblock and live http headers to see all the objects on a page then inspect their interactions and eventually get the youtube servers to "give" them the URI to the video file, etc. with crafted HTTP requests)
 
YouTube gets shittier and shittier everyday. Just about as many ads as primetime now... evil to the core.
 
Oh and about the YouTube API... catch 22 and all that yeah but do you really think Google wants to hand over that kind of data to Microsoft's, arguably its biggest rival in ads?

Evil x666
 
Ummm there are ads on youtube? ... I didn't know ... oh wait ... I block all ads from youtube a long time ago already.
 
Eisenblut said:
There are plenty of apps and programs out there that download YouTube videos. They haven't gone after them.
Click to expand...

Theres a difference between a YouToobClone123 app written by some 12 year old in India thats had a few dozen downloads, and Microsoft's official YouTube app that also happens to use YouTube's logo and everything like its public domain. In other words a player as big as MS can't just use a copyrighted brand logo without at least filing a special request.

Not really sure what generosity MS expects from Google given all the anti-Google smear campaigns they've run (Scroogled, Gmail Man, "Share your Android malware horror story" twitter campaign (that backfired), TV commercials, etc.
 
And FWIW...

The Verge has learned that Microsoft created the app without Google’s consent with features that specifically prevent ads from playing.
Click to expand...

Now how do you suppose Microsoft would feel if lets say Chrome defaulted to ignoring or circumventing ads in Outlook.com or Bing.com? And they'd have every right to be upset.
 
Microsoft's official response to Google:
We'd be more than happy to include advertising but need Google to provide us access to the necessary APIs. In light of Larry Page's comments today calling for more interoperability and less negativity, we look forward to solving this matter together for our mutual customers.
Click to expand...
via ArsTechnica
 
I think Microsoft is doing it on purpose to bring to light the tactics Google uses to in order to make Android more popular. They use Maps and YouTube as leverage. Something Microsoft did with operating systems and office suites, which they got into a little bit of trouble for. It's the only reason I can come up with as to why MS is poking the bear.
 
I do wonder about Microsoft's claim that Google is actively blocking access to the proper API, I've looked but can't find an instance where Google has addressed that claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top