[ativzzz]

> They are "accessing ... part of the Service or Content [without being] expressly authorized."

Are they though? AFAIK, law is very pedantic, and technically speaking, a human is physically incapable of accessing Youtube; we use tools to do so. We use some kind of software to access youtube.com, in this case, we are using an app that accesses youtube.com and relays the content on that page back to us. Similar to say, using Chrome or Firefox to access youtube.com and relay the contents on the page back to us.

Note, the APP accesses youtube.com, not the user. The app is (potentially) in violation, the user using the app is not. In fact, the user may not even know that the app is actually accessing youtube. Again, IANAL and I'm sure this is argued both ways, but I'm just saying this is an interpretation of the terms.

[dingaling]

> technically speaking, a human is physically incapable of accessing Youtube; we use tools to do so

"Your Honour, technically I did not break the window. I had to use a rock as my agent, therefore the rock is guilty."

[ativzzz]

I mean hey the NRA has argued this successfully about guns (or maybe their money argued it successfully) so why not? Lets start a rock lobby to allow more rock freedom