I have to say, it all sounds a bit thin - but even then, I would think you deserve the effort of a reply to your situation.
If you are able to provide genuine valuable content to users through an integrated API service (no matter who the provider of that API is), Google should place high 'content' value on that as well. After all, Google wants the web to be of 'value' to users, which in the grand internet cycle, brings them money through Adwords, etc.
It could be all coincidence. In order to clear it up, it makes sense that open, honest communication between Google and you (Ron) starts again.
Best of luck - I certainly hope it can be cleared up, as I hate to think of the potential business ideas (and revenue!) that will be discarded if developers feel they can't trust Google and its services.
"Not trusting Google" seems to be a theme on the internet lately.
Presumably Google, being no fools, will pick up on that and understand that it's a problem, both for advertisers and developers.
It's just a question of how long it takes them.
It's entirely possible that many of these situations with Google looking bad are primarily a result of them just not communicating. But presumably Google could figure that out, too. They're the only ones with the information to do so.
While several e-mails were sent back and forth, I have a hard time calling the conversation effective communication on Google's part. Saying one thing and doing another is not communication.
"I contacted Hunter. I contacted Kuan. I contacted Stephanie. I even sent an e-mail to legal@google.com
"Stephanie "can't remember exactly" what the reason for the delay was. Her "memory is hazy". These are direct quotes in case you wondered. Kuan won't answer a simple question regarding his own I/O presentation. I guess he doesn't want to lie. If replying, Hunter emits random legal verbiage. The person who actually made the decisions is courageously hiding behind them."
They did change the TOS without notice and without announcing it. The fact that the story hit TechCrunch last June and Google hasn't cleared up the situation doesn't put Google's actions in a good light. My guess is there was a change in business strategy at some point and Totlol is a casualty of this.
Excellent post Ron. I've been semi-following Totlol for a while now. I have kids, and I think it's a fantastic product. There needs to be something like Totlol out there. I think once you have kids, you suddenly realize this :)
Good luck on the job search. I'll cross my fingers the legal walls crumble, as I'd love to see you working on a project you've started and are excited about.
You should be leery of building a business that piggybacks on any service, Google-owned or otherwise. The first question you should ask yourself if you build something on XYZ is, "What will we do if XYZ is no longer an option?" If you don't have an answer, find a new idea.
Playing devil's advocate, I would counter that many companies have successfully built themselves around 3rd party API's from Facebook, Twitter, Google etc...
One option would be to pay for better ToS (ex: an 'enterprise' version of the API - though Youtube does not seem to have such option).
None of those companies are mature, by definition (since none of those platforms have been around for long). Some of them have significant revenue, but would I buy stock in one (e.g., Zynga)? I don't think so. I consider the Facebook Platform a toy.
Sure, everyone should think about that, but there is a traditional way to mitigate some of the risks. It's called a contract. Very few services of any kind would exist if everyone just walked away.
My conclusion from all of this is that the web is not as different from earlier "platforms" as some make it appear. If I want to build on someone's service, I make a contract that sets out the rights and obligations of either side.
I'm not a lawyer so I wonder how ToS are related to contracts. Does google have the right to change the ToS unilaterally without notification or agreement?
If you're going to depend on one of these services for something serious, you should always have a plan B. Architect things so you actually can use your B plan, at least in theory, which means avoiding integrating to specific features.
YouTube - can you swap to Vimeo or a white label provider? Revver?
GMail - have your real email (on your own domain) redirect there.
App Engine - outlook not so good!
I don't see any deception here. There was no contract, nor promise made. Google had a free service. They didn't like how it was being used (probably by other sites) and changed the terms to something they liked better. It's their service; they aren't honor-bound to preserve other people's business models.
Would you say the same thing if Google thought it was so great that they started a competing product?
The part that bothers me is where he says they asked him a lot of detailed questions about his model in such a way that they planned on using the details for their own service. I don't see that as being a good thing in the least.
The lesson here is to never answer such questions. It's akin to having your company acquired by another, being asked to teach everything to the other company's guys, and then being fired.
They didn't like how it was being used (probably by other sites) and changed the terms to something they liked better.
And that's fine. The deception was in not telling him about it and inducing him to continue down a path with no upside. It's similar to the GIF patent fiasco where Unisys deliberately avoided publicizing their patent until the format was entrenched. It may be legal, but it's scummy.
I'm not finding that in the article. They didn't change the TOS to trap Totlol, I'm all but certain. They changed it because of what they felt was best for the product (probably because of all the crappy link farms backed by youtube content).
And totlol just didn't notice. Again, it's a free service. It's not like totlol had a contract that was violated. They bet their for-profit company on Google's good will, and as it turned out Google didn't care so much about totlol's profits.
It might not have been a deliberate "trap", but the timing is very suspicious. Even if Totlol wasn't the primary reason they changed the terms, they should have notified him of the change since they were actively communicating with him at the time. No, they weren't legally obligated to, but not doing so is getting rather close to the evil line.
Isn't the simpler explanation just that the people communicating with totlol weren't the same ones responsible for the TOS change and that no one thought to connect the dots? It's not like google is a hive mind.
Why invoke conspiracy when mere inaction is a better explanation?
I'd like to take this opportunity to rant against sites that have some global forward set up to bounce a mobile user from any page on the site to the mobile home page. I'd love to read your post, but I'm on a train right now with my iPhone and the only page you're willing to serve me is your main app page. Those kinds of redirects should only be set up for the home page.
Or if you're going to redirect to the mobile version on pages other than the home page, make sure you're redirecting to the same article, just formatted differently.
For the first time in my life I built something according to lawyers' guidelines not users' wishes. This is how the current set-up of Totlol came to be. This is why users are nagged.
I'm very apprehensive about doing anything that relies so strongly on a third party service, and this is unfortunately a great illustration why.
I'm very conscious about always having a means to maintain control over my product. That might mean I'm actually shooting myself in the foot in other ways. But at least I can (hopefully) never fall victim to a situation like this.
It probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if you could enter into some kind of deal with Google where you would pay a monthly fee in return for access to their API (for example) and Google would have a financial incentive to allow you to keep using it.
In this case, however, the guy was expecting to get something for free to build his business on and that, I think, is just plain silly.
You should just ignore Google's TOS...hell everyone else does, it's much easier to beg forgiveness than it is to follow the rules. + do you really think they'd ever cut your access?
Think about the shitstorm that'll happen..."GOOGLE is raping our children by shutting down their favorite site!"
The chance of them pulling the plug is insignificant, and you destroying your site over some fine print is crazy. Read the fine print of any website, any service, all of them have the "by using this site you grant us the rights to your children"
I'm not saying you should be complacent, you should still create a backup version of the site, so that if google ever shuts you down, you can instantly switch to a ~1000 video backup from places like vimeo. Why? So that you have something to offer to your users, while they rebuild your database with vimeo links.
Throwing in the towel over something that might happen in the future(contrary to common sense) is simply irresponsible.
I completely agree. Youtube serves so much video, they wouldn't even notice the hosting overhead from a small site like totlol. Plus there are a number of ways to circumvent the TOS.
I can think of other big problems with the totlol idea, but none of them are related to the TOS..
I surely wouldn't be willing to take that kind of chance if it were my start-up. Moreover, Google is aware of the startup existence, and probably wouldn't hesitate to sue it would it violate the TOS. And if they did, they'd probably get away just fine.
you don't get sued for ToS violations, you just get your service shut off.
The action that he is afraid of, is the equivalent of Google suddenly deciding that they'll no longer offer gmail for free. The odds of that happening are more or less insignificant.
Receiving a Cease and Desist letter is another likely outcome that effectively cuts off access. And while your analogy of Google deciding they won't offer free gmail is ridiculous, it's also worth pointing out that they have shutdown gmail accounts for violating the gmail TOS.
Most of the youtube videos are pirated, unauthorized uploads. And people flocked to youtube to see a free version of latest * MTVs, without having to pay a single dime for it.
Content doesn't have a TOS. It has a copyright. In the United States, at least, the DMCA allows content owners to file a take down request. If youtube has been ignoring DMCA takedown requests, that's news to me.
Unless you're less than three years old you should know that google hasn't always owned youtube. Before the google acquisition youtube was breaking all kinds of copyright laws. And they grew in popularity because of it.
I upvoted you because you appear to be bringing new information to the table that I'm actually interested in, as it would shed light on how a scrappy new company succeeded despite violating "rules of the game" - not TOS, admittedly, but in this case copyright laws.
Do you have any articles or citations that show where youtube, prior to the google acquisition, ignored a DMCA takedown request? It's important to note that (in the United States at least, I can't speak for other countries), hosting copyrighted information posted by others is not a violation of copyright law, but, once you've been notified that such content exists with the appropriate DMCA request, you are required to take it down (or have the content poster respond to the DMCA request). This is known as Safe Harbor , and was, to my knowledge, the reason why google felt comfortable acquiring YouTube.
yeah what exactly did they do? Change a few lines in their terms of service agreement that nobody reads? The HORROR!
Seriously dude they didn't shut you down overnight like craigslist constantly does, they didn't suddenly start charging you for the API...all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.
These things are always in the terms, they are just put there by lawyers, so that they have some options 20 years from now when they might need it against a real culprit.
And as far as your API provider/user relationship based on respect, that's a load of bull. As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right. You on the other hand are guilty of attacking them over something that they haven't even done yet. Smearing them with what ifs about events that didn't even happen yet.
If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan. But until they do, what exactly are you complaining about? Hell it's already been 6 months since they changed the ToS, if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.
I disagree. The author picked exactly the right time to draw attention to this dickish move by Google. Investing time and money into building a startup based on another company's API is risky, but building said startup in direct violation of their ToS is downright irresponsible.
> If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan.
No. If he continues and Google shuts him down, he can no longer bitch and moan, because he will have knowingly broken the API agreement.
> if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.
Doubtful. A ban would probably only be enforced if he actually started gaining business, users & notoriety.
all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.
Those few clauses gave Google a kill switch to his site. If it stayed small Google wouldn't have done anything, if it succeeded they'd come after him for violating the terms, and probably end up acquiring it for little or nothing.
As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right.
It is their right. It's also a change that nullified his business model, so letting him know about it would have been the non-evil thing to do, and that would have taken no additional effort since they were already communicating with him. It's possible that their failure to do so was incompetence rather than malice, but the result is the same.
and that's when you switch to your backup with 1,000 videos, while all those users, you woudln't have had otherwise, go and restore the site's content using something like Vimeo.
Yeah, that could be the case. In mine it was based on their open social stuff for orkut. If you loose that data source, then your users do no care much.
IANAL. It's important to note that not everything in a contract/TOS/EULA is binding. The terms of any contract can be subject to litigation. If I sign a contract agreeing to sell you my kidney for $10,000 that clause of the contact will likely be voided by the courts if either party decided to litigate. There is also the fact the the contract cannot be negotiated, I think lawyer call it the "war of paperwork" AFAIK a contract isn't valid unless the option to negotiate is available. There is more info here - http://www.ReasonableAgreement.org
Does the EFF (or someone like them) handle TOS violation litigation? If not, how can a little one-man shop compete against an entity like Google in court?
Sure, the reasonableagreement people sound cool... but who, specifically, is going to front him the money needed to litigate against MegaCorp?
Am I wrong in thinking Google has a simple base argument in that recreating Youtube without Google's ads is a bad thing for the future of their site?
It's a shame that a legitimate site may have brought the issue to light, but it's always only a matter of time before it turns into a method of generating revenue by creating dozens of Youtube clones using Youtube's API, and replacing all the ads with porn.
Theorically speaking, you could recreate youtube whitout the ads juste by running a crawler that would create an html page embedding each video it finds. Of course the API facilitate that - but if the website doesn't have some solid added value, then it's no use at all (you're better off installing Adblock).
Besides, "inline" video advertisement has it's purpose.
Very clean elegant design. A high quality user experience.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
To build a business plan solely around scraps of bandwidth and server resources from a third-party site makes no sense. No need to bring up evil traps and conspiracy. It's just plain common sense on the part of Google to protect their business interest.
I am sympathetic to the entrepreneur's plight, but I think this problem represents a big gaping hole in business planning. I suggest seeking seasoned advisors who understand that only the paranoid survive.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
YouTube has supported and continues to support the embedding of videos into other sites. It's not as if TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme. That's why YouTube are now showing banner ads within videos and I expect they might try interstitials too someday.
But TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme -- they're using their own flash player instead of embedding youtube's, which means they never show Google's lower-third banners or intersitial videos.
That's an overkill solution. But I remember having to remove youtube videos from one site when Legal got wary about the new notes feature. at the time there were no documented way to disable those by default when embedding.
that feature would enable the submitter to, after our content editors approved the video, to insert messages that would not get approved. So i can see a fair use case for the proprietary totlol flash player there.
...creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
Google makes billions monetizing other people's content. They scrape zillions of web pages, index them, and then monetize the whole thing by running ads next their service. How is that different than one person developing a niche audience based off of Google's content and trying to monetize that?
Sure it makes sense for Google to limit access to protect their business plan. But, it is hypocritical and kind of a dick move on their part to try to legally prevent other people from doing what they've done from the beginning.
I have a hunch that moves like this will lead to a lot more anti-trust law suits against Google.
This is stupid. Filtering the content and hot linking to it while stripping the ads is very different from what google does in its profitable search businesses.
I didn't check out the site in question, but don't they arguably offer some kind of better filterting or navigation than youtube? In which case your argument loses its value.
I'd be surprised if the site was a replica of youtube minus the ads. They must provide some value for users to like it like they seem to.
The value it provides to users is immaterial. It uses Google's finite, expensive bandwidth resources without providing any form of compensation. This is very different from what Google does, which is to rehost snippets and direct traffic to content providers. They do not use the content providers' finite resources, and they do compensate providers by sending traffic.
There's nothing wrong with what Toltol is doing as long as Google allows it. But the TOS is very much like a robots.txt file. To complain about a website roboting you out when your usage is detrimental (or at any other time, for that matter) is just silly. Using a site does not create an obligation where that site's maintainers must continue to provide you service. They are more than justified to cut you off for any reason or no reason at all.
I welcome the disagreement, but please don't use insults like "This is stupid". This is Hacker News, and we prefer thoughtful dialogue. May I suggest: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
at the beginning, the author states publishers would upload the videos directly to the website with one direct button; however existing content publishers wanted the YouTube audience, hence the move to YouTube API.
The author thought to replicate Youtube for a specific audience. First with his own content, that didn't work too well. Luckily enough, Youtube created an API to get specific content.
So now the author had the same business model as Youtube, except aimed at a specific part of their audience, and he was using their content, not paying them a dime, and wants to make money off it.
I understand the need for Google to eek out a profit out of Youtube. What really bothers me (if the post is accurate) is that Google wasn't as transparent as they should have been.
Man dont give attention to the bad comments and even for Google. That´s all about YOU and YOUR GUTS. You did an amazing job, just keep it up, keep on going, keep working and dont stop no matter what ! There´s tons of job to do and only you can get it done. Go rock the world !
I'm sure totlol.com is a nice site and all but ...
The guy's making money showing clips that are hosted somewhere else without reimbursing the people that actually pay for the streaming bandwidth.
The people that do pay for the bandwidth, ie YouTube/Google, notice what he's doing and change their terms and conditions to reflect what has been their intent all along, namely that ordinary consumers can use their API and what have you to build mini sites on which they can show a selection of clips to a small group of friends, but that rules out the egregious freeloading this guy was planning to do.
So the story here isn't that this guy was cheated, it's that Google/YouTube were naive enough to think that if they provided all their bandwidth for free no one would take advantage of that and that now, possibly thanks to totlol.com, they've learned.
Not really, if Google/YouTube wanted to, they would put ads on embedded videos, just as they do on YouTube (I don't think I've seen ads on embedded videos).
One of the only things Dave Winer has ever said that I agree with is:
"Sometimes developers choose a niche that's either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don't really deserve our sympathy."
The author built a site that really is a feature YouTube should just have, and he even did it on the YouTube platform. One that once they know about they can just build without much effort.
I won't say nothing good could come of that (small acquisitions happen that way frequently) but this is why pretty much the only thing I'll ever build on a platform is games. Facebook, YouTube, or Microsoft are never going to up and say "hey we need to make a football game because that's really lacking here". Any utility feature at all is going to either fail or get cloned.
The proper way to go about this (though I've no idea how) would have been to avoid that reliance on YouTube. Perhaps syndicating content from big YouTube competitors, licensing original, etc. I really don't know the niche well enough to be helpful, but I certainly would advise not being just a feature on someone else's site and going for some value add.
Granted none of that negates the fact that this looks like a dickish move on Google's part.
not true. Google is a platform provider and their path is to let niche and verticals work independently. And even if in the path, Google can handle it without pick-a-brain meetings with the micro startup in order to smush them
YouTube is first and foremost a destination with an ancillary platform. Something that lets people make and curate collections of videos on it is a lot like what Netscape was to Windows.
I've been toying around with a prototype application that uses the YouTube API, and I remember the first time I came across this passage in the TOS very well.
Read it again, closely:
"...the sale of advertising, sponsorships, or promotions on any page of the API Client containing YouTube audiovisual content, unless other content not obtained from YouTube appears on the same page and is of sufficient value to be the basis for such sales."
That's _really_ vague.
How is one to determine what "sufficient value" might mean here? It seems to me that this passage might as well read "you're ability to place advertisements on a web page that uses the YouTube API is subject to our whims."
Of course, I understand that building an application that uses something like the YouTube API is inherently risky, and I think YouTube is well within their rights to have a clause like this in their TOS. I get it. But if you're like this Totlol guy and you're trying to build a business that might support you financially with revenue derived from advertising... I think you're right to be scared off.
It's not vague at all. If you're totlol.com and all your content is from YouTube, you're in violation of the TOS. If, on the other hand, you have a blog that occasionally posts YouTube videos but a lot of other content as well, you should be fine.
But what if you're providing a service that's built on top of the YouTube API and provides value in that it helps people find interesting videos for their children to watch?
What might constitute "sufficient value" in that case?
Is the curation provided by the totlol users not itself content? I'd argue that it is. That is, placement into category, tagging, rating, and even the boolean fact of its presence on totlol are each nontrivial pieces of information---i.e. content---provided on the page. Which isn't to say, necessarily, that they balance the contribution of the YouTube content, but here we are again: what does "sufficient" mean?
If you build a business that relies on a single other player's API, you risk having them encroach on you when you become successful.
If you insist on never putting yourself at anyone's mercy (either by writing your tools from scratch or waiting until you have a cross-platform solution), you risk being trounced by someone else who does, or spreading yourself too thin and delivering a mediocre product.
The former concerns me; the latter terrifies me.
Countless people have become rich by building products that depend on one company's platform (think iPhone, Windows, Office, .NET, Facebook, etc). This post is just a reminder that it's not a panacea.
What does a stupid parent trying to adopt a puppy have to do with parking kids in front of a computer screen?
Like the story you linked to said, leaving a dog alone with a three year old is dangerous. There is no real danger in looking at videos with your kid (or letting them watch it themseles).
Oh my, haven't we been debating this endlessly wrt TV? I don't know that anything substantial has come out of it other than that parents who want to "park" their toddlers will find a way to do so.
Other parents will use YouTube or TV or anything else as a source of inspiration, engagement and communication in addition to many other things they do with their kids.
And where parents are not interested in their kids and just park them in front of a screen, I'm comforted by the fact that computer screens, as opposed to the TV screens, provide access to a lot more than passive entertainment.
YouTube has a big problem of third-party sites that blindly index their content for the sole purpose of selling ads on traffic derived from organic search results. From personal experience in working with google legal, I can tell you that the timing is likely coincidental. Regardless, they include such verbage for leverage in protecting brand identity and trademark. I suggest two things before jumping to conclusions: 1. Consult a lawyer, and 2. Work with your contacts at YouTube to get the right person to review your situation.
Good luck, and as a father-to-be I hope everything works out.
123 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadIf you are able to provide genuine valuable content to users through an integrated API service (no matter who the provider of that API is), Google should place high 'content' value on that as well. After all, Google wants the web to be of 'value' to users, which in the grand internet cycle, brings them money through Adwords, etc.
It could be all coincidence. In order to clear it up, it makes sense that open, honest communication between Google and you (Ron) starts again.
Best of luck - I certainly hope it can be cleared up, as I hate to think of the potential business ideas (and revenue!) that will be discarded if developers feel they can't trust Google and its services.
Presumably Google, being no fools, will pick up on that and understand that it's a problem, both for advertisers and developers.
It's just a question of how long it takes them.
It's entirely possible that many of these situations with Google looking bad are primarily a result of them just not communicating. But presumably Google could figure that out, too. They're the only ones with the information to do so.
"I contacted Hunter. I contacted Kuan. I contacted Stephanie. I even sent an e-mail to legal@google.com
"Stephanie "can't remember exactly" what the reason for the delay was. Her "memory is hazy". These are direct quotes in case you wondered. Kuan won't answer a simple question regarding his own I/O presentation. I guess he doesn't want to lie. If replying, Hunter emits random legal verbiage. The person who actually made the decisions is courageously hiding behind them."
This is not effective communication.
They did change the TOS without notice and without announcing it. The fact that the story hit TechCrunch last June and Google hasn't cleared up the situation doesn't put Google's actions in a good light. My guess is there was a change in business strategy at some point and Totlol is a casualty of this.
Hint: Try and backup your "cloud" content - If possible.
Good luck on the job search. I'll cross my fingers the legal walls crumble, as I'd love to see you working on a project you've started and are excited about.
I wonder what the chances are they will change gmail terms the way they did to author (ie deceptively) and if I should look into other providers.
One option would be to pay for better ToS (ex: an 'enterprise' version of the API - though Youtube does not seem to have such option).
My conclusion from all of this is that the web is not as different from earlier "platforms" as some make it appear. If I want to build on someone's service, I make a contract that sets out the rights and obligations of either side.
I'm not a lawyer so I wonder how ToS are related to contracts. Does google have the right to change the ToS unilaterally without notification or agreement?
YouTube - can you swap to Vimeo or a white label provider? Revver? GMail - have your real email (on your own domain) redirect there. App Engine - outlook not so good!
Would you say the same thing if Google thought it was so great that they started a competing product?
And that's fine. The deception was in not telling him about it and inducing him to continue down a path with no upside. It's similar to the GIF patent fiasco where Unisys deliberately avoided publicizing their patent until the format was entrenched. It may be legal, but it's scummy.
And totlol just didn't notice. Again, it's a free service. It's not like totlol had a contract that was violated. They bet their for-profit company on Google's good will, and as it turned out Google didn't care so much about totlol's profits.
Why invoke conspiracy when mere inaction is a better explanation?
For the first time in my life I built something according to lawyers' guidelines not users' wishes. This is how the current set-up of Totlol came to be. This is why users are nagged.
I'm very conscious about always having a means to maintain control over my product. That might mean I'm actually shooting myself in the foot in other ways. But at least I can (hopefully) never fall victim to a situation like this.
In this case, however, the guy was expecting to get something for free to build his business on and that, I think, is just plain silly.
You should just ignore Google's TOS...hell everyone else does, it's much easier to beg forgiveness than it is to follow the rules. + do you really think they'd ever cut your access?
Think about the shitstorm that'll happen..."GOOGLE is raping our children by shutting down their favorite site!"
The chance of them pulling the plug is insignificant, and you destroying your site over some fine print is crazy. Read the fine print of any website, any service, all of them have the "by using this site you grant us the rights to your children"
I'm not saying you should be complacent, you should still create a backup version of the site, so that if google ever shuts you down, you can instantly switch to a ~1000 video backup from places like vimeo. Why? So that you have something to offer to your users, while they rebuild your database with vimeo links.
Throwing in the towel over something that might happen in the future(contrary to common sense) is simply irresponsible.
I can think of other big problems with the totlol idea, but none of them are related to the TOS..
The action that he is afraid of, is the equivalent of Google suddenly deciding that they'll no longer offer gmail for free. The odds of that happening are more or less insignificant.
Do you have any articles or citations that show where youtube, prior to the google acquisition, ignored a DMCA takedown request? It's important to note that (in the United States at least, I can't speak for other countries), hosting copyrighted information posted by others is not a violation of copyright law, but, once you've been notified that such content exists with the appropriate DMCA request, you are required to take it down (or have the content poster respond to the DMCA request). This is known as Safe Harbor , and was, to my knowledge, the reason why google felt comfortable acquiring YouTube.
Seriously dude they didn't shut you down overnight like craigslist constantly does, they didn't suddenly start charging you for the API...all they did was write in a few extra clauses into their ToS. Nothing actually changed for you.
These things are always in the terms, they are just put there by lawyers, so that they have some options 20 years from now when they might need it against a real culprit.
And as far as your API provider/user relationship based on respect, that's a load of bull. As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right. You on the other hand are guilty of attacking them over something that they haven't even done yet. Smearing them with what ifs about events that didn't even happen yet.
If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan. But until they do, what exactly are you complaining about? Hell it's already been 6 months since they changed the ToS, if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.
> If Google shuts you down, then you can bitch and moan.
No. If he continues and Google shuts him down, he can no longer bitch and moan, because he will have knowingly broken the API agreement.
> if the ToS specifically targeted you(like you imply), you'd have been banned already.
Doubtful. A ban would probably only be enforced if he actually started gaining business, users & notoriety.
Those few clauses gave Google a kill switch to his site. If it stayed small Google wouldn't have done anything, if it succeeded they'd come after him for violating the terms, and probably end up acquiring it for little or nothing.
As far as I can see the only thing Google is "guilty" of is changing a few lines in their ToS, which is entirely in their right.
It is their right. It's also a change that nullified his business model, so letting him know about it would have been the non-evil thing to do, and that would have taken no additional effort since they were already communicating with him. It's possible that their failure to do so was incompetence rather than malice, but the result is the same.
by someone who had access cut from other google apis.
I think I'm in the minority on this since as I write this, your comment is +41 and I see similar ones lower with a lot of agreement.
So, downmod me if you want... I still say shame on you.
"Just do it... "everyone else is doing it"... what a load of bs
Sure, the reasonableagreement people sound cool... but who, specifically, is going to front him the money needed to litigate against MegaCorp?
It's a shame that a legitimate site may have brought the issue to light, but it's always only a matter of time before it turns into a method of generating revenue by creating dozens of Youtube clones using Youtube's API, and replacing all the ads with porn.
Besides, "inline" video advertisement has it's purpose.
Very clean elegant design. A high quality user experience.
Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in time.
To build a business plan solely around scraps of bandwidth and server resources from a third-party site makes no sense. No need to bring up evil traps and conspiracy. It's just plain common sense on the part of Google to protect their business interest.
I am sympathetic to the entrepreneur's plight, but I think this problem represents a big gaping hole in business planning. I suggest seeking seasoned advisors who understand that only the paranoid survive.
YouTube has supported and continues to support the embedding of videos into other sites. It's not as if TotLol is circumventing the usual scheme. That's why YouTube are now showing banner ads within videos and I expect they might try interstitials too someday.
that feature would enable the submitter to, after our content editors approved the video, to insert messages that would not get approved. So i can see a fair use case for the proprietary totlol flash player there.
Google makes billions monetizing other people's content. They scrape zillions of web pages, index them, and then monetize the whole thing by running ads next their service. How is that different than one person developing a niche audience based off of Google's content and trying to monetize that?
Sure it makes sense for Google to limit access to protect their business plan. But, it is hypocritical and kind of a dick move on their part to try to legally prevent other people from doing what they've done from the beginning.
I have a hunch that moves like this will lead to a lot more anti-trust law suits against Google.
I'd be surprised if the site was a replica of youtube minus the ads. They must provide some value for users to like it like they seem to.
There's nothing wrong with what Toltol is doing as long as Google allows it. But the TOS is very much like a robots.txt file. To complain about a website roboting you out when your usage is detrimental (or at any other time, for that matter) is just silly. Using a site does not create an obligation where that site's maintainers must continue to provide you service. They are more than justified to cut you off for any reason or no reason at all.
So now the author had the same business model as Youtube, except aimed at a specific part of their audience, and he was using their content, not paying them a dime, and wants to make money off it.
The story makes perfect sense. For Google.
The guy's making money showing clips that are hosted somewhere else without reimbursing the people that actually pay for the streaming bandwidth.
The people that do pay for the bandwidth, ie YouTube/Google, notice what he's doing and change their terms and conditions to reflect what has been their intent all along, namely that ordinary consumers can use their API and what have you to build mini sites on which they can show a selection of clips to a small group of friends, but that rules out the egregious freeloading this guy was planning to do.
So the story here isn't that this guy was cheated, it's that Google/YouTube were naive enough to think that if they provided all their bandwidth for free no one would take advantage of that and that now, possibly thanks to totlol.com, they've learned.
"Sometimes developers choose a niche that's either directly in the path of the vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they don't really deserve our sympathy."
The author built a site that really is a feature YouTube should just have, and he even did it on the YouTube platform. One that once they know about they can just build without much effort.
I won't say nothing good could come of that (small acquisitions happen that way frequently) but this is why pretty much the only thing I'll ever build on a platform is games. Facebook, YouTube, or Microsoft are never going to up and say "hey we need to make a football game because that's really lacking here". Any utility feature at all is going to either fail or get cloned.
The proper way to go about this (though I've no idea how) would have been to avoid that reliance on YouTube. Perhaps syndicating content from big YouTube competitors, licensing original, etc. I really don't know the niche well enough to be helpful, but I certainly would advise not being just a feature on someone else's site and going for some value add.
Granted none of that negates the fact that this looks like a dickish move on Google's part.
Read it again, closely:
"...the sale of advertising, sponsorships, or promotions on any page of the API Client containing YouTube audiovisual content, unless other content not obtained from YouTube appears on the same page and is of sufficient value to be the basis for such sales."
That's _really_ vague.
How is one to determine what "sufficient value" might mean here? It seems to me that this passage might as well read "you're ability to place advertisements on a web page that uses the YouTube API is subject to our whims."
Of course, I understand that building an application that uses something like the YouTube API is inherently risky, and I think YouTube is well within their rights to have a clause like this in their TOS. I get it. But if you're like this Totlol guy and you're trying to build a business that might support you financially with revenue derived from advertising... I think you're right to be scared off.
What might constitute "sufficient value" in that case?
If you build a business that relies on a single other player's API, you risk having them encroach on you when you become successful.
If you insist on never putting yourself at anyone's mercy (either by writing your tools from scratch or waiting until you have a cross-platform solution), you risk being trounced by someone else who does, or spreading yourself too thin and delivering a mediocre product.
The former concerns me; the latter terrifies me.
Countless people have become rich by building products that depend on one company's platform (think iPhone, Windows, Office, .NET, Facebook, etc). This post is just a reminder that it's not a panacea.
BTW, Panic's Audion vs iTunes story seems similar from a tangent. http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/
Like the story you linked to said, leaving a dog alone with a three year old is dangerous. There is no real danger in looking at videos with your kid (or letting them watch it themseles).
Other parents will use YouTube or TV or anything else as a source of inspiration, engagement and communication in addition to many other things they do with their kids.
And where parents are not interested in their kids and just park them in front of a screen, I'm comforted by the fact that computer screens, as opposed to the TV screens, provide access to a lot more than passive entertainment.
Good luck, and as a father-to-be I hope everything works out.
and don't give up on a plan b for your site. think.......