this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2023
83 points (100.0% liked)

Open Source

31341 readers
216 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CaptainAlchemy@lemmy.one 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

HELLO?? Am I in some kind of weird fever dream? Can the people running the matrix simulation tap the breaks so I can actually assess one platform burning at a time please?

[–] mrmanager@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

I like it myself, so much excitement all of a sudden :)

[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I question whether lawyers are smart enough to understand what API means sometimes... They clearly aren't using YouTube's API so the whole letter is just false accusation. Maybe read the code first before making stupid allegations? No? This is a shitty for profit company? Makes sense in the current landscape I guess, all the shitty for profit services want to drive themselves into the ground for no reason now.

[–] neosheo@beehaw.org 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'll be honest i haven't read their code. So invidious is just scraping youtube to pull all the data?

[–] mp3@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

Just scraping, so they're not bound by the API TOS. Like YouTube-DL, YT-DLP, NewPipe, etc.

[–] drwho@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

Yes. And the big G doesn't care. If they have to lie and say it's abusive and a violation of the ToS, they'll say it is. They're a megacorp, while Invidious is a small open source project.

[–] CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

According to the GitHub thread, yes. I think that's how all of the open source apps work - youtube-dl, NewPipe, Invidious at least. Using the API would open them up to legal trouble because you have to agree to the terms to use the API. You don't agree to the terms when scraping.

[–] neosheo@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

good, i use them a lot!

[–] tmpod 3 points 1 year ago

Happy cake day!

[–] drwho@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] rk96@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

This c&d wont do much since invidious didnt agree to any terms of service nor do they use youtube's API, that is atleast what the developers of invidious said on github

[–] nodiet@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

It seems to me that this article just describes the same situation as the github issue. I think they just used the term cease and desist. So no further escalation from what I can tell.

[–] mranderson17@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago

So.... Maybe I'm wrong about this, but doesn't Invidious basically do the same thing that Google AMP claims to do. Cache scraped web data and return it to users in a ~~faster~~private, and more direct way? Maybe Google should be agreeing to more TOSs =]

[–] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, I just learned about Invidious from this post. So that is nice.

[–] tmpod 1 points 1 year ago

It's pretty neat! There's also Piped