I'm Not Invidious • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#61

Post by BlackLotus89 » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

photonerd wrote: post #59

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They offer the documentation to install the software. The software itself is hosted on github (at least I didn't find a download link). I mean I get what you want to say and of course he sounds smug, but imo he is right at least with invidious.io not offering the client or service

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#62

Post by johnboyega » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 8:24 PM UTC

google has made the lives of people easier by providing free services like youtube, maps, email and a few others. They have the right to put ads on their stuff and make revenue out of that. what this guy is actually bad for people. imagine if people all of a sudden start using invidious and stop using youtube then there will not be youtube in this future. A lot of people feel the same.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#63

Post by jcrawfordor » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

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…

Sure, but Google's crawler (mostly) obeys robots.txt and other directives. It seems to be one of the most responsible crawlers this way. Here, Invidious is explicitly being told to stop and refusing to do so.

In a lot of these situations there's not much wrong with doing it until you're told to stop. Invidious has just been told to stop.

Google used to have services that felt a lot more like this, like Google Images before it got aggressive about using cached versions and old, old Google Videos. But they got rid of all of those, I suspect because of thinking along these lines. It was very much an open legal issue around newspaper publishers, for example, and while Google is far from innocent they did make changes to mitigate their legal risk. Google seems to be pretty consistent in the idea that serving up content from someone else's service, in their products, is not acceptable. All of AMP kind of got built around that issue. And I don't think Google wanted it that way, but the legal landscape is the legal landscape. If Google is bound by these rules others have to be as well.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#64

Post by pcthrowaway » Sat, Jun 10, 2023, 10:36 PM UTC

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.

Not that I think Invidious is necessarily doing anything wrong here, but I think in this case, who owns the copyright to Invidious is besides the point.

The person who authored this blog post hosts the docs which explain how to configure invidious to serve content from Youtube, and owns the domain. So they might be liable (if there is infringement) in ways the other authors are not.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#65

Post by NoZebra120vClip » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 11:24 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #53

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose it matters whether YouTube content is hosted in these USA or outside of it, for purposes of international copyright.

I'm not really sure how it all works internationally, but I know that on a site such as Wikimedia Commons, which is 100% hosted in these USA, they are still mindful that every work they host is 100% free in all involved countries. So if a more generous Italian copyright, say, or an Australian FOP law, gets in the way of hosting an image, they will always respect that, rather than relying on the technicality that the image is only hosted in these USA and they don't strictly need to observe other nations' laws in that regard.

YouTube may have distributed content hosting in other nations, and so I don't know how they get along with international copyright, where as you say, fair use is less fair than in USA. Perhaps they do rely on hosting location as a definitive test for which laws they're going to obey.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#66

Post by User23 » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 8:17 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #30

User23 wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

If you want to consider non-extradition as measure of real sovereignty, then you’ll note from your parents article that a lot of European countries are on that list. In Germany, extradition of German nationals is barred on constitutional grounds (1) with the notable exceptions of extradition to other European states on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant and to the International Court. Similar exceptions apply i…

In Germany German nationals can be “voluntarily” extradited (the Bundesregierung does the volunteering) and guess what, when the USA wants the person they get him or her.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#67

Post by photonerd » Sun, Jun 11, 2023, 8:59 PM UTC

BlackLotus89 wrote: post #61

photonerd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They offer the documentation to install the software. The software itself is hosted on github (at least I didn't find a download link). I mean I get what you want to say and of course he sounds smug, but imo he is right at least with invidious.io not offering the client or service

Almost every website is hosted on someone else’s server. If that argument held true no company would be offering anything. It’s nonsense.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#68

Post by bombcar » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 5:09 AM UTC

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #65

bombcar wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose it matters whether YouTube content is hosted in these USA or outside of it, for purposes of international copyright. I'm not really sure how it all works internationally, but I know that on a site such as Wikimedia Commons, which is 100% hosted in these USA, they are still mindful that every work they host is 100% free in all involved countries. So if a more generous Italian copyright, say, or an Australian…

YouTube has blocks that appear if you try to access certain content from countries that they don't have a license for, or it's copyright, etc.

You see similar things with Gutenberg e-texts; they'll be marked as "not available in Australia" or whatever, and the mirrors there won't have it.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#69

Post by dspillett » Mon, Jun 12, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

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…

> 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?

It isn't quite the same as the hypothetical case you lay out, but a number if news organisations have argued that Google should follow some rules about how they used the scraped information. Any ruling against Google here may be relevant against Invidious and similar products.

Re: I'm Not Invidious

#70

Post by yrro » Tue, Jun 13, 2023, 12:08 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

In the UK, accessing a computer without permission is a criminal offence. To do so with the intent to commit further offences (e.g., copyright infringement) is an aggravated offence, punishable by unlimited fine and five years imprisonment.

It's a really bad idea to access an API without permission.