HN Explorer

Google Threatens 9to5Google.com to delete post mentioning youtube downloaded

5 points by codecrusade ↗ HN
Is this some kind of arm twisting?If you can watch a video, whats wrong if you download it? Making money out of those videos is a wrong thing.

Google being evil here

See Here- http://9to5google.com/2013/10/22/google-now-threatening-to-pull-adsense-accounts-of-those-who-mention-youtube-downloaders/

6 comments

[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 20.1 ms ] thread
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
raskull
Not quite to delete the post but to at least not run adsense around it, adsense TOS states that it won't support tools that promote violating Google TOS which would include the download of non CC videos from youtube.

The automated system may have been a bit overzealous in this instance though.

Metatron
This is something I've never quite grasped. To stream a video is to download it. The difference here simply being the moving of the cached video to more permanent storage, allowing the video to be viewed offline. For a video that is available online at any time, for free, it seems that there can be no distinction between the download and the stream. If Google are trying to preserve their monetisation through ads then there is a clear disconnect between this punishment and those ads. The video content being downloaded is not a direct revenue producer for them, the ad is. This seems to boil down to content consumers being punished for ad evasion, which is completely understandable and innocent practise. If Google think they are missing out on revenue from ad evaders they really need to think about that segment's motivations (read:they don't like ads).

To then punish a site that merely mentions the downloading, and the punishment being an Adsense block is incredibly out of order. Youtube cannot dictate the content of another site. So so evil, their motto is being revealed for the smokescreen it is.

raskull
Sadly those in the content business have made a clear distinction between "streaming" and "downloading", in legal and licensing terms. And so such tools would facilitate the download of music videos, for example, which youtube is only allowed to stream, and there lies the crux of the matter.

As for the adsense TOS it does consist of other similar clause prohibiting it being run on "piracy" or counterfeit website to appease certain industries, so it's not limited to protecting Google's stuff. One would suggest (as you did) that this keeps Google from maximising profits but these are concessions they are forced to make.

cprncus
> For a video that is available online at any time, for free, it seems that there can be no distinction between the download and the stream.

But of course there is a big distinction: Google controls the stream; it doesn't control the downloaded video. With control, it can choose to a) force you to watch an ad (as you mentioned), it can b) pull a video for any reason, including copyright infringement, content objection, failure to pay a subscriber fee, etc., c) ask you to be a subscriber, for either a cost or at least registration, etc. None of that is possible if the video goes out into the wild and can be, for example, freely traded among users through file sharing or, worse, alternate video hosting and streaming by a competitor.

The videos trove is their treasure, and they guard it.