The app is on a .app TLD, and that's ran by google. So theoretically google just pull the domain registration. I wouldn't put it past them. Hooray for vanity domains!
- The creator received a letter from YouTube's legal team regarding the GRJ app, which they claim violates YouTube's terms of service.
- The creator, representing Futo, responded by stating that the GRJ app does not use the YouTube API services and is therefore not subject to those terms of service.
- The creator expresses frustration with how YouTube and other platforms often arbitrarily delete creator accounts and content, threatening people's livelihoods.
- The creator sees the GRJ app as a solution to help creators connect with their audience even if their accounts are deleted from platforms.
- The creator is critical of how the more users are willing to pay for content and software, the worse the experience and more abuse they face.
- The creator shares a personal example of being unable to play downloaded YouTube content offline, despite paying for YouTube Premium.
- The creator is done accepting the concept that the more one gives, the worse the treatment they receive in return.
- The creator states they have the resources and intention to legally fight YouTube over the GRJ app, unlike "four kids in a college dorm room."
- The creator emphasizes that Futo is a serious company, not just a hobby project, and is willing to spend significant money on legal representation.
- The creator is committed to continuing to offer the GRJ app to serve their customers, despite YouTube's demands to cease and desist.
(IANAL) Seems like the right response would be something like:
> We have no record of ever entering into any agreement or business relationship with Google. If our records are mistaken, please send us a copy of the contract you believe we signed.
Google are not the police and they shouldn't be able to enforce their arbitrary terms on other companies just because they exist on the same internet.
> YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he [Louis] explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms.
The point (of the person you replied to, too, presumably) is not that they don't have an agreement with Google, but that they're not violating these specific terms (as claimed by Google) because that's not what they signed up for. They run a channel, not an API client. (My understanding of their words, not saying I can judge the legal merit of this.)
Not that it seems like a (at least short term) beneficial move to get this type of cross with the platform that can probably terminate your account at their sole discretion, but I'm happy he's trying to get Youtube content more liberated. For instance, you can mark your videos as having a creative commons license, but that means nothing because it's not like it spawns a download button for the users to exercise their granted license. Anyone besides the uploader still has to violate YT's ToS (which I'm sure forbids these third-party video downloaders) in order to get at that creative commons video data
Companies are separate legal entities from the people who work there.
YT can't make demands of a company just because one of the company's employees happens to have a YT channel. It's true if some random gaming youtuber has a job at IBM, and it's also true if you're a public figure like Louis Rossman.
IBM can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if one of IBM's employees runs a youtube channel. And Grayjay can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if Louis Rossman has a channel.
This is in addition to lucb1e's comment about the API terms specifically. Even if YT's lawyers are confusing the individual Louis Rossman with the company he's associated with, they still seem confused about which set of terms he agreed to.
IANAL, but disagree. In the context of business relationships, tortious interference is "intentionally acting to prevent someone from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships with others".
GRJ is not preventing anyone from maintaining a business relationship with Google.
That Google might -choose- to end a business relationship is on them, but they weren't prevented from having a relationship with their YouTube 'customer', or vice versa.
There is an agreement in the "Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots" sense. I.e., by connecting to YouTube Google's lawyers feel you implicitly agreed to do so under Google's terms only... and Google can hire better lawyers than you can.
That would be a uniquely stupid interpretation of the law to try to set as a precedent but a company that blindly connects to everything on the Internet constantly. If making an http connection to a server and receiving content constituted acceptance of a license, Google would be the biggest and dumbest ATM ever
It is too often that I get linked a 30 minute video that reading an abstract like this for most of them would really help me prioritise whether to watch it or not.
Now I guess I just need it in an extension to appear below the video automatically or something :)
TL;DR: Rossmann's team is developing Grayjay, a 3rd party YouTube (and other sites) client. Like Vanced. This makes YouTube unhappy, because they don't want 3rd party players which often do things like disable ads and telemetry.
The name of the organization is FUTO. It's not just Rossman, it's also the rich guy that came up with the concept and hired Rossman and other people who are building multiple FUTOish software programs.
Oh, cool. I didn't know Rossmann was related to Futo. I know Futo from [1]: 'The Voice Input app for Android that respects your privacy.' and I did not know Futo was more than 'Voice Input'.
As for Grayjay. Yeah, this is exactly what we need: an application which allows us to watch video (offline) without being tied to a platform.
We have a name for that: it is called a web browser. In a web browser, we use standards such as HTML and CSS. The user decides how a website looks, not the website (those are merely suggestions, the user is the one who in the end decides if they want to follow these).
Something like Grayjay is following the spirit of the WWW.
Readit News
The app is on a .app TLD, and that's ran by google. So theoretically google just pull the domain registration. I wouldn't put it past them. Hooray for vanity domains!
https://get.app/
He needs to get better about posting the link to whatever he's talking about so I can read ahead and be more informed.
- The creator, representing Futo, responded by stating that the GRJ app does not use the YouTube API services and is therefore not subject to those terms of service.
- The creator expresses frustration with how YouTube and other platforms often arbitrarily delete creator accounts and content, threatening people's livelihoods.
- The creator sees the GRJ app as a solution to help creators connect with their audience even if their accounts are deleted from platforms.
- The creator is critical of how the more users are willing to pay for content and software, the worse the experience and more abuse they face.
- The creator shares a personal example of being unable to play downloaded YouTube content offline, despite paying for YouTube Premium.
- The creator is done accepting the concept that the more one gives, the worse the treatment they receive in return.
- The creator states they have the resources and intention to legally fight YouTube over the GRJ app, unlike "four kids in a college dorm room."
- The creator emphasizes that Futo is a serious company, not just a hobby project, and is willing to spend significant money on legal representation.
- The creator is committed to continuing to offer the GRJ app to serve their customers, despite YouTube's demands to cease and desist.
> We have no record of ever entering into any agreement or business relationship with Google. If our records are mistaken, please send us a copy of the contract you believe we signed.
Google are not the police and they shouldn't be able to enforce their arbitrary terms on other companies just because they exist on the same internet.
> YouTube claims he violated their API terms of service and he [Louis] explains that GrayJay doesn't use the API so they never agreed or accepted those terms.
The point (of the person you replied to, too, presumably) is not that they don't have an agreement with Google, but that they're not violating these specific terms (as claimed by Google) because that's not what they signed up for. They run a channel, not an API client. (My understanding of their words, not saying I can judge the legal merit of this.)
Not that it seems like a (at least short term) beneficial move to get this type of cross with the platform that can probably terminate your account at their sole discretion, but I'm happy he's trying to get Youtube content more liberated. For instance, you can mark your videos as having a creative commons license, but that means nothing because it's not like it spawns a download button for the users to exercise their granted license. Anyone besides the uploader still has to violate YT's ToS (which I'm sure forbids these third-party video downloaders) in order to get at that creative commons video data
YT can't make demands of a company just because one of the company's employees happens to have a YT channel. It's true if some random gaming youtuber has a job at IBM, and it's also true if you're a public figure like Louis Rossman.
IBM can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if one of IBM's employees runs a youtube channel. And Grayjay can say they have no business relationship with YT, even if Louis Rossman has a channel.
This is in addition to lucb1e's comment about the API terms specifically. Even if YT's lawyers are confusing the individual Louis Rossman with the company he's associated with, they still seem confused about which set of terms he agreed to.
That might be a good reason not to have a legal entity in the US but a jurisdiction with more sensible laws.
GRJ is not preventing anyone from maintaining a business relationship with Google.
That Google might -choose- to end a business relationship is on them, but they weren't prevented from having a relationship with their YouTube 'customer', or vice versa.
That's not actually the contract though. You're not breaking contract if you get up to use the bathroom during an ad break, with TV or YouTube.
Deleted Comment
Not my app, here's a summary: https://www.summarize.tech/youtu.be/dqTYg6vnQvw?si=PLdzW5-ew...
It is too often that I get linked a 30 minute video that reading an abstract like this for most of them would really help me prioritise whether to watch it or not.
Now I guess I just need it in an extension to appear below the video automatically or something :)
Deleted Comment
The name of the organization is FUTO. It's not just Rossman, it's also the rich guy that came up with the concept and hired Rossman and other people who are building multiple FUTOish software programs.
https://futo.org/
As for Grayjay. Yeah, this is exactly what we need: an application which allows us to watch video (offline) without being tied to a platform.
We have a name for that: it is called a web browser. In a web browser, we use standards such as HTML and CSS. The user decides how a website looks, not the website (those are merely suggestions, the user is the one who in the end decides if they want to follow these).
Something like Grayjay is following the spirit of the WWW.
[1] https://voiceinput.futo.org/
Vanced is a hacked original YouTube app and made to be more user friendly.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment