[stonemetal]

>What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it?

Say I made a show and sell DVDs of the show for $20 to cover all the costs of the show. When you buy the DVD you agree to not reproduce them so that I can continue to sell more copies to cover the cost of the show. You then start reproducing them and selling them at your cost(no profiting right?) which is about $0.05. Obviously some will get it from you instead of me because it is so much cheaper and I will make less profit, or not meet costs. If you don't see what is wrong in breaking your word (and a legally binding contract) and causing harm to someone just because you didn't profit from it, I don't know what argument would.

If they had given you access to the content under a license which allowed you to share it then yeah sure who cares repackage away. If they shared it with you with the specific previsions that you can do this but not that, then you turn around and do that. Then why would you think it is OK to do that?

[cookiecaper]

He used the YouTube APIs exactly as they are intended to be used. There is no issue with his use of the YouTube APIs to wrap a channel. The only potential issue would be the implication that the trademark holder endorsed his app by including their name in the application title, and I think that's an arguable point. I definitely believe that the trademark owners would complain, but I don't think he necessarily did anything technically illegal.

[alistairjcbrown]

Eh? Did you read the post?

"I wrote a simple YouTube client app using the latest YouTube APIs" - The content was not pirated, he created an app with one purpose; to allow you to play videos from one particular YouTube channel.

[Keyframe]

I think there would be no issue with it if he had not used trademark names and logos. API calls to youtube, pulling up a channel, playing videos... if Youtube/Google doesn't have a policy like Apple to not allow apps that duplicate their apps functionality, I don't see how it could be a problem. Most probably is that problem arose with trademark infringement. This is a serious issue since 3rd party using your trademark without authorization can tarnish your carefully crafted design/brand experience as well as confuse customers.

[stonemetal]

What is your definition of pirated? Accessing content, and helping others access content in ways that you have not been given permission to rather sounds like piracy to me. The method of access doesn't really matter weather it be boot leg DVDs or youtube.

[alistairjcbrown]

"helping others access content in ways that you have not been given permission" - That doesn't sound like what he did.

The videos were uploaded to YouTube and he used the YouTube API to display those videos as part of his app.

[Dylan16807]

Piracy is making unauthorized copies, either to or from another person.

[Dylan16807]

If you want that analogy to be right, the person would be buying copies of the DVD and then repacking them 1:1 at a cost of 5 cents. It's totally OK to do that.

Remember, their app is nothing more than a small blob of java[script] that provides a limited but improved window onto youtube.

[Anderkent]

That's completely not the scenario, though?

All the content is already available on youtube. He's just providing a different way of finding it. Nothing wrong with it.