• 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).