• eddythompson@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That explanation is the most amount of nonsense I’ve read in a long time. The amount of mental gymnastics you need to non-ironically believe that is just unbelievable

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.org
      shield
      M
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      i’d appreciate it if, for outsiders, you could explain why it’s “the most amount of nonsense” and “mental gymnastics” in actual detail instead of just saying that. as is, this is a very unproductive comment.

      • eddythompson@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because of course Invidious calls YouTube APIs. They call the internal APIs the same way YouTube official client calls the API. They even have the API Key of one of YouTube client’s in their repo. The guy’s argument is that since they reverse engineered the calls, which is fine, they don’t have to agree to YouTube’s TOS to call it, which means YouTube’s cease and desist invalid. I host my own private instance of Invidious to stream youtube audio to my phone. Of course reverse engineering is fine, scarping is fine, even the code is fine, and I’d agree that YouTube going after repos on github is wrong. But of course hosting Invidious is a violation of YouTube’s TOS.

        • AbelianGrape@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll admit I hadn’t seen that, and that I was just echoing what TheFrenchGhosty said. That sure does look like official API access. They also seem to make calls through that wrapper to access comments and plenty of other things, so it’s not just sitting there unused.

          Thankfully, TheFrenchGhosty is on the Fediverse, so let’s ask them: @TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.org @TheFrenchGhosty@libretooth.gr (not sure which one of these to use) How is this not using an official YouTube API?

          The README and the refute of YouTube’s C&D letter both claim that Invidious doesn’t use YouTube’s APIs at all - not merely that the response creation/interpretation was reverse-engineered. Obviously, the TOS applies to the fact that you interact with the API, not whether you access it manually or with the help of some code pre-prepared by Google. Yet it seems that other people have vetted you and not raised this issue. So I’m assuming we’re simply misunderstanding here, and hoping you can clear it up.

          • TheFrenchGhosty@lemmy.pussthecat.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Hello,

            The thing is that the agreement they linked apply to the official YouTube API (the one that you have to register for).

            Invidious uses the InnerTube (a completely different “API” used by all official YouTube clients). Invidious basically acts like a web browser that access the YouTube website. It is therefore not required to agree to any TOS/policies.

            All those findings where done via clean room reverse engineering (which is legal in the EU).