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

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#51

Post by BlackLotus89 »

photonerd wrote: post #48
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.

Why is the fact that they don't offer any invidious instance not a good point?

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#52

Post by bombcar »

alpaca128 wrote: post #38
toyg wrote: post #12

"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.

And it may work for awhile because nobody bothers to cut through the bullshit.

But if someone decides to go nuclear you’re gonna have a bad time.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#53

Post by bombcar »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #22
ngneer wrote: post #13

This feels potentially a bit duplicitous. YouTube is filled with copyright infringing material, which Google capitalizes on to bring in viewers to ads. Granted, they have hosting costs. I wonder what the legal situation is for such instances.

Very, very little of YouTube infringes copyright. The content that you think is infringing copyright has in fact been licensed and monetized by the copyright holders. YouTube will often permit uploaders to keep their copyrighted content; the automated fingerprinting systems recognize it and notify the copyright holders, and ask, "what do you wanna do?" and often, the answer is to keep it, and give us the proceeds. Li…

Very little of YouTube infringes copyright in the United States - other countries don’t have the same transformative free use privileges that the US has.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#55

Post by jfengel »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #42
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.

The "justice" system is indeed that out of touch. Every lawyer everywhere will concur that the only "justice" they can deal with is implementing the law. Actual justice plays zero part in it.

Lawyers want to be programmers. They are as bad at it is programmers are at the law.

The best you can hope for is that your own lawyer can make the law work for you. That is manifestly unjust but all of the other options are even worse. Start by putting any notion of fairness, compassion, or awareness on their part out of your mind, just as you would when debugging a program.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#56

Post by pcthrowaway »

circuit10 wrote: post #47
pcthrowaway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

DDoS is illegal because of the intent. No one gets in trouble when a site gets hugged to death

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#57

Post by 2h »

> They don't understand that we never agreed to any of their TOS/policies, they don't understand that we don't use their API.

yeah, they DEFINITELY DO:

https://github.com/iv-org/invidious/blob/e7bed765/src/invidi...

not sure what backwards logic they are using to come to this conclusion, but its objectively wrong, and wont hold up in court. Granted, I am also guilty of this in my own project, but I dont pretend that I am not using the API, I just dont care because my project is tiny. They no longer have that luxury.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#58

Post by circuit10 »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #56
circuit10 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

DDoS is illegal because of the intent. No one gets in trouble when a site gets hugged to death

And that’s the thing here as well: linking to a website has a different intent to embedding an internal resource from it that isn’t meant to be accessed through anything other than the main site in a way that takes away revenue from the site

To be clear I’d like projects like this to exist but I’m not convinced that it’s legal under current laws

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#59

Post by photonerd »

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #51
photonerd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is the fact that they don't offer any invidious instance not a good point?

They offer the software. If the software itself was in breach of the terms then instances wouldn’t really matter.

But it’s not, so that’s moot.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#60

Post by bbor »

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #51
photonerd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is the fact that they don't offer any invidious instance not a good point?

They refer to “product OR service”. Sooo pretty sure this comes under “product”
Post reply on HN