

Google Threatens 9to5Google.com to delete post mentioning youtube downloaded - codecrusade

Is this some kind of arm twisting?If you can watch a video, whats wrong if you download it?
Making money out of those videos is a wrong thing.<p>Google being evil here<p>See Here- http:&#x2F;&#x2F;9to5google.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;10&#x2F;22&#x2F;google-now-threatening-to-pull-adsense-accounts-of-those-who-mention-youtube-downloaders&#x2F;
======
codecrusade
Screenshot of the app posting here- [http://9to5google.com/2013/10/22/google-
now-threatening-to-p...](http://9to5google.com/2013/10/22/google-now-
threatening-to-pull-adsense-accounts-of-those-who-mention-youtube-
downloaders/apple-ipad-event-2013-2013-10-22-at-3-30-33-pm/)

This app has been pulled down by the app store too.

------
raskull
Not quite to delete the post but to at least not run adsense around it,
adsense TOS states that it won't support tools that promote violating Google
TOS which would include the download of non CC videos from youtube.

The automated system may have been a bit overzealous in this instance though.

~~~
Metatron
This is something I've never quite grasped. To stream a video is to download
it. The difference here simply being the moving of the cached video to more
permanent storage, allowing the video to be viewed offline. For a video that
is available online at any time, for free, it seems that there can be no
distinction between the download and the stream. If Google are trying to
preserve their monetisation through ads then there is a clear disconnect
between this punishment and those ads. The video content being downloaded is
not a direct revenue producer for them, the ad is. This seems to boil down to
content consumers being punished for ad evasion, which is completely
understandable and innocent practise. If Google think they are missing out on
revenue from ad evaders they really need to think about that segment's
motivations (read:they don't like ads).

To then punish a site that merely mentions the downloading, and the punishment
being an Adsense block is incredibly out of order. Youtube cannot dictate the
content of another site. So so evil, their motto is being revealed for the
smokescreen it is.

~~~
cprncus
> For a video that is available online at any time, for free, it seems that
> there can be no distinction between the download and the stream.

But of course there is a big distinction: Google _controls_ the stream; it
doesn't control the downloaded video. With control, it can choose to a) force
you to watch an ad (as you mentioned), it can b) pull a video for any reason,
including copyright infringement, content objection, failure to pay a
subscriber fee, etc., c) ask _you_ to be a subscriber, for either a cost or at
least registration, etc. None of that is possible if the video goes out into
the wild and can be, for example, freely traded among users through file
sharing or, worse, alternate video hosting and streaming by a competitor.

The videos trove is their treasure, and they guard it.

