Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Not Invidious

blog.thefrenchghosty.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#41

Post by moffkalast »

pjerem wrote: post #35
jeroenhd wrote: post #14

IANAL 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 bl…

DMCA requests are also as valid as some words written with crayon on toilet paper in the EU, unless they're explicitly sent as an ECD request.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#42

Post by matheusmoreira »

jeroenhd wrote: post #14

IANAL 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…

Imagine being extradited because you wrote a free software replacement for YouTube's shitty frontend. Surely the justice system cannot be this out of touch.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#43

Post by matheusmoreira »

lrvick wrote: post #37
jeroenhd wrote: post #14

IANAL 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.

If you're american they can bankrupt you by forcing you to pay a lawyer to defend you in court. Not sure if France is in that category but there are countries out there where corporations can't abuse the legal process to bully people into submission. Where I live they can't get away with that since citizens have a right to legal representation, there's no "speedy trials" to minimize their own costs and they could be ordered to pay for all costs if they lose.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#44

Post by nicbou »

the_gipsy wrote: post #25

"To whom it may concern" - well I am not concerned. Haha, gotcha, lawyers!

I chuckled at this one. I get a lot of those emails that are specifically addressed to me by a human contacting me through my website, but start with "Dear sir or madam".

My name is right above my email address on the only page where you can find it. Please use it, and please spell it right.

I sympathise with the author. However I'm not a lawyer though.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#45

Post by thumbuddy »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #43
lrvick wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you're american they can bankrupt you by forcing you to pay a lawyer to defend you in court. Not sure if France is in that category but there are countries out there where corporations can't abuse the legal process to bully people into submission. Where I live they can't get away with that since citizens have a right to legal representation, there's no "speedy trials" to minimize their own costs and they could be…

Happens all the time.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#46

Post by rosmax_1337 »

jeroenhd wrote: post #14

IANAL 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…

Why do you use the abbreviation IANAL to open your post? I know what it means, I'm curious as to why you use it.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#47

Post by circuit10 »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #29
jcrawfordor wrote: post #23

There are a lot of problems with this response, but it makes one argument in particular that seems very foolish and I have not seen otherwise mentioned: that Invidious is somehow not subject to YouTube terms because it doesn't use the public API. But it does load the videos from YouTube's media CDN - so if the author is making the claim that Invidious is not using YouTube "the service" when it still relies on YouTube…

So Google scrapes the entire internet, and even caches thumbnails of images. If I have a website where I host some of my own images, and I outline a terms of use regarding use and/or caching of those images, is Google obligated to follow those terms of use? Also, I don't think Invidious (the software repository) loads anything from Youtube's CDN, any more than curl does, though it seems like the default configuration…

I’m the other hand you could claim a DDoS is just visiting the site a lot of times but that’s illegal, I think this is somewhere in between so it’s not that clear

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#48

Post by photonerd »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #4

While I'm sympathetic to people running alternative frontends and I use another such project (nitter) myself, nitpicking on the language is unlikely to help the author of this blog post, and I think they'd be better off consulting a lawyer on this one. On Github[1] and invidious.io[2] they say they're the project manager and manage finances, which puts them in a leadership role, and therefore capable of directing the…

Yeah, the whole post has a very “I am 14 & very smart” feel to it.

Their only really good point is that they don’t use the API so aren’t bound by its terns. That’s a good, solid, point.

The rest is… not.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#49

Post by photonerd »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #23

There are a lot of problems with this response, but it makes one argument in particular that seems very foolish and I have not seen otherwise mentioned: that Invidious is somehow not subject to YouTube terms because it doesn't use the public API. But it does load the videos from YouTube's media CDN - so if the author is making the claim that Invidious is not using YouTube "the service" when it still relies on YouTube…

Google is unlikely to make that argument given that their entire search monopoly rests on abusing exactly that.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#50

Post by web3-is-a-scam »

devsda wrote: post #7

> Invidious isn’t my project, I don’t own the “Invidious” trademark, I’m not Invidious, I don’t represent Invidious. I’m just… me. > Invidious is . The post comes off as a little idealistic and dismissive. I hope they have given enough thought and have sufficient countermeasures in place for the project if the law disagree with their view.

This is silly. IANAL but if there’s no legally registered entity that owns the copyright and trademarks to the project, with code signed over with CLA then as far as I know the copyright belongs to all of the authors of the code by default. So to “whom it may concern” applies to everyone who has ever worked on the project.

He might not soely be invidious, but from a legal perspective I’d wager all of the contributors are, and a “nuh huh” is not gonna fly in court.

Post reply on HN