No, they would not.

YouTube Downloader iPhone: 10 Best YouTube Downloader App for iPhone and iOS

Literally any rival tube site could milk the heck out of that to start pulling people away from YouTube. I'd put money on seeing people vlogging on an adult tube site before we see eyeball tracking on YouTube. Besides all that you could just unplug your webcam.. Nexxxeh on Sept 4, Oh, you say that now Eye tracking hardware and HDCP 4.

Android is Chrome with GoggleEye. Or the official iOS, Android or Win 10 apps. Coming Trips up at the first hurdle - p unless you meet the hardware and software requirements That's a sinking ship. That's the sort of thing that allows Facebook into the world despite MySpace already existing. The sort of thing that allows Google to elbow its way into the 1 spot past the Altavistas, Hotbots and the Jeeves.

A new site would come out of nowhere that doesn't have that restriction. There is a big difference between restricting to standard definition and high definition though. Many people now have devices that will show the difference between low and high definition, not as many have 4K capabilities.

• ProTube Extension 2.0 Jailbreak Tweak Updated For YouTube App!
• download data pack pes 2020 terbaru android?
• is there a contacts app for iphone 5!

In the future these values will go up of course, but the difference between restricting HD users to SD and 4K users to HD is quite different. Nexxxeh on Sept 6, I wasn't being entirely serious, and apologies if I didn't make that clear. Still using YouTube. The cost of starting and acquiring users for and running a viable YouTube alternative is just too damn high. Unless Amazon do it, it's not happening. Vimeo is an also-ran despite.

Regardless of your position on whether the law is right or wrong, this is not true as a matter of law. Depending on the pertinent applicable law, your ability to transform these bits may be restricted based on IP law or contract law. Maybe, but we'll never find out if Apple just removes the software and it never goes to litigation NTripleOne on Sept 4, See, I could get behind this argument if I could actually buy those features - but because I'm not in the US, I can't.

YouTube Red has looked like the same speck on the horizon as it has for the past 3 years in the UK now, and as far as I know, absolutely nothing has been said about when it'll arrive here. I would like nothing more than to pay for this functionality, after being given a trial of YouTube Music Key back before it was called Red well over 3 years ago at this point, I want reasonably priced access to Red original content, I want background and audio-only play on my phone.

Hell, I might even use the download video feature, who knows? Well it's sure as hell not me, because I don't even have access to it. If you sign a NDA with Coca-Cola, and they share their recipe with you via email, you're allowed to do "anything you choose" with it?

Opener ‒ open links in apps

If you sign a partnership contract with Google, and they share their algorithms with you, you're allowed to do "anything you choose" with it? Where's the line exactly of how far you can violate a contract simply because the property - intellectual and otherwise, can be represented as bits? Retra on Sept 4, Obviously, when you're selling proprietary information. A service should have no right to enforce reinterpretation of the bits received any more than you have a right to enforce how people are to interpret the semantic content of your posts.

And in fact, I could easily go around selling my reinterpretation, and that only becomes a problem once you're arguing damages. Yes, financial damages is what happens when you "reinterpret" bits against contractual agreements. That's totally within their rights as a business, is it not?

And this should be policed by Apple on Googles behalf, rather than potentially litigated in court? That's the main question in my mind. The functionality could all be implemented without access to the developer API. I think users have a legal right to use Ad blockers, but in this case it can't even be tested, because Apple decided to police their AppStore, against users interests. I'm by no means anti-Apple.

I prefer their ecosystem to Android, and feel it is less driven by advertising. But this feels like an anti-user move. It's a paid app facilitating breach of contract at the least and possibly facilitating copyright infringement and a breach of the CFAA.

1. descargar dayhand input para nokia 5800.
2. YouTube Downloader iPhone: 10 Best YouTube Downloader App for iPhone and iOS!
3. ProTube Extension 2.0 Update Makes it a Killer Tweak For YouTube App?

And Apple takes a cut and therefore has legal liability for distributing it. Could you clarify? If I'm using YouTube without signing in, which contract is being breached? The existence of YouTube facilitates breach of copyright doesn't it? I don't understand which copyright is being infringed by rendering without Ads. I guess the "Apple takes a cut" bit is where their liability comes from. I'm not really clear that any law is being broken here I'm not sure how this is a breach of the CFAA, in particular given that scraping content in light of recent LinkedIn case seems to be fine.

And there doesn't seem to be much of a case against adblockers in general. He is breaching those terms. You're not breaching any terms. This isn't equivalent because the developer is using the API, which has terms he agreed to.



• RIP Protube and Protube Extension for Youtube? : jailbreak;
• ibm websphere application server v7.0 download!
• ProTube Extension for YouTube Released on Cydia - iClarified.
• facebook chat app free download for blackberry.

The only license the developer has to display the copyrighted material uploaded to YouTube is the license YouTube grants him, which, per the API terms, requires him to show audio and video together. By violating the terms of his license, he's infringing on the content owners' copyrights.

Posts navigation

Ok, this is reasonable. However, it doesn't seem to be the central issue to me. The app could be rewritten to use the public possibly undocumented interface, that we all use on the web. But it seems like issues would still exist then? Seems like Apple would still remove the app. Or is that not the case? Wonder how MyTube is able to tackle this. The author expects Google to pay for the storage and bandwidth cost, while the author monetizes that with no revenue sharing?

Few people even have jailbroken devices anymore and only a fraction of my user base would be able to access Cydia. Purchases from the App Store also can't be carried over to Cydia so people would have to purchase the app again. And YouTube might still come after me. And it goes beyond that: none of the money the author makes by stealing traffic from YT goes to the creators.

Seriously, why would anyone have any reasonable expectations of a different outcome? Enough said.

ProTube Extension For YouTube iOS 7

Would this app be open-source and google would've shut it down - completely different story. But in this case it's just business, nothing personal. I don't get why OP is so angry. Your argument is essentially the same one against Adblockers in general. Isn't that what they're doing with the YouTube Red thing?

Which does not exist for most users. Unless you live in a handful of countries it does not exist. If you can obtain YouTube Red functionality by using an Adblocker, it may not work as a business model Youtube Red features: 1 offline viewing. Yes, the "normal" Youtube doesn't. As much as it sucks for the author, if you're providing a service or app on top of another service like providing a better way to browse a website's content or API you're really at the mercy of that service provider, especially if you've registered to use their API.

Then they can report you to the respective app store App Store, Google Play Store and most likely get it removed. Without looking at the Youtube TOS, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a section that explicitly disallows paid apps besides Youtube's, probably to prevent competitors for their Youtube Red app. Although I wouldn't have bought it since the plain Youtube app is fine for me, it looks like he put a lot of work and soul into the app, and I feel for him.

I also appreciate the level headedness of the statement, explaining the situation without much vitriol, although I'm surprised he doesn't mention anything about one of the issues Google likely had, which was ad-blocking see edit below. Good luck to him on his next project. Edit: It looks like the author of the app likely got in a lot of trouble with Google for not having ads when playing videos, on top of the other issues, a commenter below points out.

What I said still stands, but he should be more direct about the issues that Google had.

ProTube Extension 2.0 Jailbreak Tweak Updated For YouTube App

You're missing the main issue here, that service he provides is an an adblocker along with other Red features. Google ProTube and every review spells it out. I'm really don't get the outpouring of sympathy here. He's essentially pirating their Red service and charging a fee for it. So he couldn't pay YouTube even if he wanted to. You're right, and I updated by comment.

ProTube Extension Update Makes it a Killer Tweak For YouTube App

It's not cheating, you should have the right to render content as you see fit. That includes using Adblockers on the web and elsewhere. I don't think they really need to use the developer API to implement any of the functionality used. And I don't understand why it's Apples job to police their ecosystem in Googles favor.

Seems like an anti-user move on Apples part. It's because if an author makes an app that goes against Youtube's TOS, if Apple doesn't take action, then Apple is liable for it. Apple isn't actively policing it, as well, it's more that Google requested it be taken down.