[recoiledsnake]

>You realize that if ads are required by the TOS, but you don't have the ability to include ads, that it doesn't mean it's just okay to ignore the TOS and distribute the app anyway?

Microsoft developers didn't have to read and accept the TOS to access Youtube videos. Perhaps they're trying the legal precedent of the equivalent of 'clean room reverse engineering".

Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a program that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?

Would Mozilla be forced to remove it from https://addons.mozilla.org if Google sends a C&D to them?

>It sounds like it's just not even technically legal for MS to distribute their YouTube app in its current state.

So what? Google can sue them for billions and win and stop all Windows Phone users from easy access to YouTube videos despite their stated mission of "Organize the world's information and make it accessible to everyone".

Not sure why you're so worried about Microsoft's finances, they have 75 billion in the bank and some pretty good lawyers. No wonder they snuck in a "download video" button too. The WP Youtube app is the best Youtube app on mobile platforms because of that.

[ok_craig]

Nothing you said is actually a justification for MS's actions.

> Is it legal for Mozilla to distribute Adblock on their site which is a program that disables Youtube and Google ads and hurts content creators?

Yes. This is because AdBlock is a service that modifies the way your own browser - your property - works. It is not in itself a service that pulls YouTube content from YouTube.

For this same reason, it is available even in the Chrome Web Store itself.

I don't understand how you can say "so what" to pointing out that one of these companies is acting illegally, and expect to be taken seriously.

Also I think you meant to say "Google" in your last sentence instead of "Microsoft"? I can't tell and it doesn't seem to make sense otherwise.