Who paid for invidious.io?
And who is the admin of the GitHub repo? Programmer thinks they've found clever legal workaround, episode 392659.
I'm Not Invidious
31–40 of 70 posts
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#32IANAL but as far as I know, if you think you've found some kind of technicality or gotcha in a legal letter or email that means you can ignore it, you're probably wrong. Ignoring the legal process can result in seized domains and servers, services being taken down, lawyers obtaining all kinds of personal information through the courts, and other stuff that gets very expensive very quickly. I doubt that this person wi…
(IANAL) You are likely right, however this is not some minor technicality, but the basis of their cease and desist.
1. Not using their API therefore not bound by their TOS
2. Wrong recipient
3. invidious.io isn't offering the service
It's possible that ignoring this is the best answer, but in any case consulting a lawyer is recommended.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#33What a stupid request. An alternate front-end is essentially a custom browser.
This. It's either a custom browser/user-agent, and/or also a proxy. The idea that services can mandate what software/hardware you use to access them is IMHO a horrible overreach that came along with the "API" concept (see the ongoing Reddit API debacle for another example of this.)
Hmmm, interesting point. Hypothetically speaking, should someone successfully create a full-fledged browser using Javascript that can operate both independently and within web pages, 'custom browsers' could be displayed anywhere.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#34I'm Sebastian Bach!
No, I am Sebastian Bach!
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#35IANAL but as far as I know, if you think you've found some kind of technicality or gotcha in a legal letter or email that means you can ignore it, you're probably wrong. Ignoring the legal process can result in seized domains and servers, services being taken down, lawyers obtaining all kinds of personal information through the courts, and other stuff that gets very expensive very quickly. I doubt that this person wi…
Well, to be honest, for now, he would be in a better position by having just ignored the mail.
In France, an e-mail have no legal value. You can just argue that you never received it. That’s why any legal document must be send via tracked physical mail.
However, it starts to have a value if you somehow admit to have received it. Most of the times it’s by answering, and here it’s because the receiver wrote a public blog post about it.
Also, France doesn’t extradite its citizens. It doesn’t mean that no action is possible but Google will have to sue him in a French court for violating the French laws.
Idk if he can be sued for violating the French law but I myself would totally ignore that e-mail. Maybe you can talk about it to your lawyer I you feel that can escalate but nothing else.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. It's either a custom browser/user-agent, and/or also a proxy. The idea that services can mandate what software/hardware you use to access them is IMHO a horrible overreach that came along with the "API" concept (see the ongoing Reddit API debacle for another example of this.)
Hmmm, interesting point. Hypothetically speaking, should someone successfully create a full-fledged browser using Javascript that can operate both independently and within web pages, 'custom browsers' could be displayed anywhere.
full-fledged browser using Javascript
Someone actually did that almost a decade ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7071132
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#37IANAL but as far as I know, if you think you've found some kind of technicality or gotcha in a legal letter or email that means you can ignore it, you're probably wrong. Ignoring the legal process can result in seized domains and servers, services being taken down, lawyers obtaining all kinds of personal information through the courts, and other stuff that gets very expensive very quickly. I doubt that this person wi…
I have ignored plenty of CADs and threats from lawyers over decades. Sometimes I work on open source stuff that pisses people off. Lawyers know all they can do is bark in cases like these.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#38"Freeman on the land" vibes here, "copyright lawyers hate this one simple trick"... That ain't gonna work, son.
Yeah this sounds a lot like those sovereign citizens arguing that they can't be stopped in their car because they are travelling, not driving.
No, saying "to whom it may concern" doesn't apply because they don't feel responsible is not a big 4D chess move.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah the French are the only western Europeans who exercise any real sovereignty, except for maybe the Swiss, sort of. I reckon they have Charles de Gaulle to thank for that. They’re certainly in a privileged spot when it comes to NATO.
Isn't this a civil case? Would extradition even apply?
My original comment was a bit of a joke related to how far the long arm of US copyright law will try to reach.
They charged the megaupload folks with racketeering and money laundering before swatting them in a different country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case
The notion of it seems a bit ludicrous to me.
Re: I'm Not Invidious
#40The content of the email was posted to the Github issues[1] for those wondering. Edit: I'll add that it centers on Youtube's API usage, which Invidious doesn't use so there's some ambiguity in how it relates to the project. [1] https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/issues/3872
Related hacker news post