• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s looking worse is the actual joke of a response from one of the developers.

    “Lawyers hate this one weird trick.”

    In my experience, thinking you’ve found a loophole legally because it is using boilerplate language usually ends really badly. If you’re not a lawyer, don’t assume you’re as smart as a lawyer when it comes to law, and definitely don’t think your flowery prose means fuck all in court. Just because it wasn’t addressed directly to this guy doesn’t make this magically go away.

    Relavent related links:

    https://invidious.io/team/

    https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty

    • Synthclair@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Indeed, if I were the developers I would be threading much more carefully. While it may be true that the letter is not precise enough, access to YouTube implies a relative acceptance of the terms of service of providing the service, and it is not so clear cut as Invidious claims.

    • Fauxreigner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This just makes me think of Kleiman v. Wright, where Craig Wright (among many, many other shenanigans) claimed that a printout of an email wasn’t an email, it was a piece of paper. That didn’t end up going the way he wanted.