
The story of my startup (and the Google/YouTube API trap) - TotlolRon
http://www.totlol.com/t/story
======
rayval
I went to the TotLol web site and it looks great.

Very clean elegant design. A high quality user experience.

Unfortunately, I agree with a previous comment, that creating a filtered
replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of YouTube's ads is not
something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to continue to do over the
long-term, regardless of what they might have said or not said at a point in
time.

To build a business plan solely around scraps of bandwidth and server
resources from a third-party site makes no sense. No need to bring up evil
traps and conspiracy. It's just plain common sense on the part of Google to
protect their business interest.

I am sympathetic to the entrepreneur's plight, but I think this problem
represents a big gaping hole in business planning. I suggest seeking seasoned
advisors who understand that only the paranoid survive.

~~~
iamelgringo
_...creating a filtered replica of YouTube content, and delivered free of
YouTube's ads is not something anyone can reasonably expect YouTube to
continue to do over the long-term, regardless of what they might have said or
not said at a point in time._

Google makes billions monetizing other people's content. They scrape zillions
of web pages, index them, and then monetize the whole thing by running ads
next their service. How is that different than one person developing a niche
audience based off of Google's content and trying to monetize that?

Sure it makes sense for Google to limit access to protect their business plan.
But, it is hypocritical and kind of a dick move on their part to try to
legally prevent other people from doing what they've done from the beginning.

I have a hunch that moves like this will lead to a lot more anti-trust law
suits against Google.

~~~
houseabsolute
This is stupid. Filtering the content and hot linking to it while stripping
the ads is very different from what google does in its profitable search
businesses.

~~~
alain94040
I didn't check out the site in question, but don't they arguably offer some
kind of better filterting or navigation than youtube? In which case your
argument loses its value.

I'd be surprised if the site was a replica of youtube minus the ads. They must
provide some value for users to like it like they seem to.

~~~
houseabsolute
The value it provides to users is immaterial. It uses Google's finite,
expensive bandwidth resources without providing any form of compensation. This
is very different from what Google does, which is to rehost snippets and
direct traffic to content providers. They do not use the content providers'
finite resources, and they do compensate providers by sending traffic.

There's nothing wrong with what Toltol is doing as long as Google allows it.
But the TOS is very much like a robots.txt file. To complain about a website
roboting you out when your usage is detrimental (or at any other time, for
that matter) is just silly. Using a site does not create an obligation where
that site's maintainers must continue to provide you service. They are more
than justified to cut you off for any reason or no reason at all.

------
vaksel
i think you are going about this all wrong.

You should just ignore Google's TOS...hell everyone else does, it's much
easier to beg forgiveness than it is to follow the rules. + do you really
think they'd ever cut your access?

Think about the shitstorm that'll happen..."GOOGLE is raping our children by
shutting down their favorite site!"

The chance of them pulling the plug is insignificant, and you destroying your
site over some fine print is crazy. Read the fine print of any website, any
service, all of them have the "by using this site you grant us the rights to
your children"

I'm not saying you should be complacent, you should still create a backup
version of the site, so that if google ever shuts you down, you can instantly
switch to a ~1000 video backup from places like vimeo. Why? So that you have
something to offer to your users, while they rebuild your database with vimeo
links.

Throwing in the towel over something that might happen in the future(contrary
to common sense) is simply irresponsible.

~~~
wheels
Notable point: YouTube got where it is by ignoring the TOS of a huge
percentage of the content it serves.

~~~
chronomex
I haven't heard this and it sounds interesting. Can you provide a link?

~~~
nsoonhui
Most of the youtube videos are pirated, unauthorized uploads. And people
flocked to youtube to see a free version of latest * MTVs, without having to
pay a single dime for it.

~~~
ghshephard
Content doesn't have a TOS. It has a copyright. In the United States, at
least, the DMCA allows content owners to file a take down request. If youtube
has been ignoring DMCA takedown requests, that's news to me.

~~~
kk3
Unless you're less than three years old you should know that google hasn't
always owned youtube. Before the google acquisition youtube was breaking all
kinds of copyright laws. And they grew in popularity because of it.

~~~
ghshephard
I upvoted you because you appear to be bringing new information to the table
that I'm actually interested in, as it would shed light on how a scrappy new
company succeeded despite violating "rules of the game" - not TOS, admittedly,
but in this case copyright laws.

Do you have any articles or citations that show where youtube, prior to the
google acquisition, ignored a DMCA takedown request? It's important to note
that (in the United States at least, I can't speak for other countries),
hosting copyrighted information posted by others is not a violation of
copyright law, but, once you've been notified that such content exists with
the appropriate DMCA request, you are required to take it down (or have the
content poster respond to the DMCA request). This is known as Safe Harbor ,
and was, to my knowledge, the reason why google felt comfortable acquiring
YouTube.

------
city41
I'm very apprehensive about doing anything that relies so strongly on a third
party service, and this is unfortunately a great illustration why.

I'm very conscious about always having a means to maintain control over my
product. That might mean I'm actually shooting myself in the foot in other
ways. But at least I can (hopefully) never fall victim to a situation like
this.

~~~
mtts
It probably wouldn't be so much of a problem if you could enter into some kind
of deal with Google where you would pay a monthly fee in return for access to
their API (for example) and Google would have a financial incentive to allow
you to keep using it.

In this case, however, the guy was expecting to get something for free to
build his business on and that, I think, is just plain silly.

~~~
ciupicri
Given the AdSense/AdWords scandals, I doubt that the financial incentive would
be so strong.

------
Batsu
Am I wrong in thinking Google has a simple base argument in that recreating
Youtube without Google's ads is a bad thing for the future of their site?

It's a shame that a legitimate site may have brought the issue to light, but
it's always only a matter of time before it turns into a method of generating
revenue by creating dozens of Youtube clones using Youtube's API, and
replacing all the ads with porn.

~~~
norswap
Theorically speaking, you could recreate youtube whitout the ads juste by
running a crawler that would create an html page embedding each video it
finds. Of course the API facilitate that - but if the website doesn't have
some solid added value, then it's no use at all (you're better off installing
Adblock).

Besides, "inline" video advertisement has it's purpose.

------
mattmaroon
One of the only things Dave Winer has ever said that I agree with is:

"Sometimes developers choose a niche that's either directly in the path of the
vendor, or even worse, on the roadmap of the vendor. In those cases, they
don't really deserve our sympathy."

The author built a site that really is a feature YouTube should just have, and
he even did it on the YouTube platform. One that once they know about they can
just build without much effort.

I won't say nothing good could come of that (small acquisitions happen that
way frequently) but this is why pretty much the only thing I'll ever build on
a platform is games. Facebook, YouTube, or Microsoft are never going to up and
say "hey we need to make a football game because that's really lacking here".
Any utility feature at all is going to either fail or get cloned.

The proper way to go about this (though I've no idea how) would have been to
avoid that reliance on YouTube. Perhaps syndicating content from big YouTube
competitors, licensing original, etc. I really don't know the niche well
enough to be helpful, but I certainly would advise not being just a feature on
someone else's site and going for some value add.

Granted none of that negates the fact that this looks like a dickish move on
Google's part.

~~~
lionshare
not true. Google is a platform provider and their path is to let niche and
verticals work independently. And even if in the path, Google can handle it
without pick-a-brain meetings with the micro startup in order to smush them

~~~
mattmaroon
YouTube is first and foremost a destination with an ancillary platform.
Something that lets people make and curate collections of videos on it is a
lot like what Netscape was to Windows.

------
jaddison
I have to say, it all sounds a bit thin - but even then, I would think you
deserve the effort of a reply to your situation.

If you are able to provide genuine valuable content to users through an
integrated API service (no matter who the provider of that API is), Google
should place high 'content' value on that as well. After all, Google wants the
web to be of 'value' to users, which in the grand internet cycle, brings them
money through Adwords, etc.

It _could_ be all coincidence. In order to clear it up, it makes sense that
open, honest communication between Google and you (Ron) starts again.

Best of luck - I certainly hope it can be cleared up, as I hate to think of
the potential business ideas (and revenue!) that will be discarded if
developers feel they can't trust Google and its services.

~~~
angelbob
"Not trusting Google" seems to be a theme on the internet lately.

Presumably Google, being no fools, will pick up on that and understand that
it's a problem, both for advertisers and developers.

It's just a question of how long it takes them.

It's entirely possible that many of these situations with Google looking bad
are primarily a result of them just not communicating. But presumably Google
could figure that out, too. They're the only ones with the information to do
so.

~~~
ytNumbers
It seems that several different people at Google did plenty of communicating
with Ron. What we have here is ( _NOT_ ) a failure to communicate!

~~~
dandelany
While several e-mails were sent back and forth, I have a hard time calling the
conversation effective communication on Google's part. Saying one thing and
doing another is not communication.

~~~
lamnk
Have you read the post ? That is a lot of email back and fort. The author even
had a meeting with a Google director and spoke with a manager.

~~~
dandelany
Yes. From the end of the post:

"I contacted Hunter. I contacted Kuan. I contacted Stephanie. I even sent an
e-mail to legal@google.com

"Stephanie "can't remember exactly" what the reason for the delay was. Her
"memory is hazy". These are direct quotes in case you wondered. Kuan won't
answer a simple question regarding his own I/O presentation. I guess he
doesn't want to lie. If replying, Hunter emits random legal verbiage. The
person who actually made the decisions is courageously hiding behind them."

This is not effective communication.

------
richardw
Thank you for the writeup - definitely an eye-opener.

Options:

1) Re-enable videos to be uploaded to your own site. Put ads on those. You
have enough of a name that you should get at least a trickle of videos which
you can use for public (free) parts of the site. Maybe video contributors get
free access - X months per video.

2) Get other non-video content up there. Forums, user-submitted articles etc.
Change the balance of Youtube vs. non-Youtube content.

------
pkulak
I'd like to take this opportunity to rant against sites that have some global
forward set up to bounce a mobile user from any page on the site to the mobile
home page. I'd love to read your post, but I'm on a train right now with my
iPhone and the only page you're willing to serve me is your main app page.
Those kinds of redirects should only be set up for the home page.

~~~
johns
Or if you're going to redirect to the mobile version on pages other than the
home page, make sure you're redirecting to the same article, just formatted
differently.

------
dylanz
Excellent post Ron. I've been semi-following Totlol for a while now. I have
kids, and I think it's a fantastic product. There needs to be something like
Totlol out there. I think once you have kids, you suddenly realize this :)

Good luck on the job search. I'll cross my fingers the legal walls crumble, as
I'd love to see you working on a project you've started and are excited about.

------
shrike
IANAL. It's important to note that not everything in a contract/TOS/EULA is
binding. The terms of any contract can be subject to litigation. If I sign a
contract agreeing to sell you my kidney for $10,000 that clause of the contact
will likely be voided by the courts if either party decided to litigate. There
is also the fact the the contract cannot be negotiated, I think lawyer call it
the "war of paperwork" AFAIK a contract isn't valid unless the option to
negotiate is available. There is more info here -
<http://www.ReasonableAgreement.org>

~~~
Sukotto
Does the EFF (or someone like them) handle TOS violation litigation? If not,
how can a little one-man shop compete against an entity like Google in court?

Sure, the reasonableagreement people sound cool... but who, specifically, is
going to front him the money needed to litigate against MegaCorp?

------
trevorturk
I've been toying around with a prototype application that uses the YouTube
API, and I remember the first time I came across this passage in the TOS very
well.

Read it again, closely:

"...the sale of advertising, sponsorships, or promotions on any page of the
API Client containing YouTube audiovisual content, unless other content not
obtained from YouTube appears on the same page and is of sufficient value to
be the basis for such sales."

That's _really_ vague.

How is one to determine what "sufficient value" might mean here? It seems to
me that this passage might as well read "you're ability to place
advertisements on a web page that uses the YouTube API is subject to our
whims."

Of course, I understand that building an application that uses something like
the YouTube API is inherently risky, and I think YouTube is well within their
rights to have a clause like this in their TOS. I get it. But if you're like
this Totlol guy and you're trying to build a business that might support you
financially with revenue derived from advertising... I think you're right to
be scared off.

~~~
mtts
It's not vague at all. If you're totlol.com and _all_ your content is from
YouTube, you're in violation of the TOS. If, on the other hand, you have a
blog that occasionally posts YouTube videos but a lot of other content as
well, you should be fine.

~~~
trevorturk
But what if you're providing a service that's built on top of the YouTube API
and provides value in that it helps people find interesting videos for their
children to watch?

What might constitute "sufficient value" in that case?

~~~
mtts
In that case you're not providing "other content not obtained from YouTube" at
all, so you're violating the TOS.

~~~
blahedo
Is the curation provided by the totlol users not itself content? I'd argue
that it is. That is, placement into category, tagging, rating, and even the
boolean fact of its presence on totlol are each nontrivial pieces of
information---i.e. content---provided on the page. Which isn't to say,
necessarily, that they _balance_ the contribution of the YouTube content, but
here we are again: what does "sufficient" mean?

------
sharms
After reading the entire article, this definitely impacts any interest I had
to integrate with google maps, youtube or google app engine.

I wonder what the chances are they will change gmail terms the way they did to
author (ie deceptively) and if I should look into other providers.

~~~
johns
You should be leery of building a business that piggybacks on any service,
Google-owned or otherwise. The first question you should ask yourself if you
build something on XYZ is, "What will we do if XYZ is no longer an option?" If
you don't have an answer, find a new idea.

~~~
sgoraya
Playing devil's advocate, I would counter that many companies have
successfully built themselves around 3rd party API's from Facebook, Twitter,
Google etc...

One option would be to _pay_ for better ToS (ex: an 'enterprise' version of
the API - though Youtube does not seem to have such option).

~~~
lincolnq
None of those companies are mature, by definition (since none of those
platforms have been around for long). Some of them have significant revenue,
but would I buy stock in one (e.g., Zynga)? I don't think so. I consider the
Facebook Platform a toy.

------
martian
While I understand that the YouTube integration is really nice, rolling your
own encoding and video-serving is not out of the question. There are a number
of libraries for some popular languages that will help automate the process
(with ffmpeg) and cover up the messy details if you need. The cheap FLVplayer
is easily skinned to match your site, etc. And Amazon's S3 storage is almost
free.

~~~
PanMan
While S3 storage is fairly cheap, bandwidth still isn't. I did some math for a
video clip I'm working on. And 1.000.000 views (a lot, but not unfeasible for
a popular music vid. Some rank 5+ million) still costs a few thousand $...
Hard to make that back on ads.

------
diggboard
I think the moral of this story is "don't build a business that relies on a
single other players API." Talk about a single point of failure.

~~~
lunchbox
Every business takes risks.

If you build a business that relies on a single other player's API, you risk
having them encroach on you when you become successful.

If you insist on never putting yourself at anyone's mercy (either by writing
your tools from scratch or waiting until you have a cross-platform solution),
you risk being trounced by someone else who does, or spreading yourself too
thin and delivering a mediocre product.

The former concerns me; the latter terrifies me.

Countless people have become rich by building products that depend on one
company's platform (think iPhone, Windows, Office, .NET, Facebook, etc). This
post is just a reminder that it's not a panacea.

~~~
lionshare
Google is NOT other player. They are the Internet

------
idlewords
Anyone else feel uncomfortable about parking toddlers in front of a computer
screen?

~~~
access_denied
Yes, me too. Reading tip:
[http://www.violentacres.com/archives/345/adventures-in-
volun...](http://www.violentacres.com/archives/345/adventures-in-volunteering-
part-2/)

~~~
GoboGobo
What does a stupid parent trying to adopt a puppy have to do with parking kids
in front of a computer screen?

Like the story you linked to said, leaving a dog alone with a three year old
is dangerous. There is no real danger in looking at videos with your kid (or
letting them watch it themseles).

~~~
tptacek
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread and, if it isn't
flatly inappropriate for HN, creeps right up to the border.

~~~
access_denied
Depends on how you define thread.

------
oxtopus
YouTube has a big problem of third-party sites that blindly index their
content for the sole purpose of selling ads on traffic derived from organic
search results. From personal experience in working with google legal, I can
tell you that the timing is likely coincidental. Regardless, they include such
verbage for leverage in protecting brand identity and trademark. I suggest two
things before jumping to conclusions: 1. Consult a lawyer, and 2. Work with
your contacts at YouTube to get the right person to review your situation.

Good luck, and as a father-to-be I hope everything works out.

------
Sujan
Google should offer you a job. Or buy the site. Or do both. I think it would
greatly benefit both parties.

------
alexro
Not to miss part of the story is where GOOG declines giving Totlol special
privileges for the API, despite all they say about how great Totlol is.

------
mtts
I'm sure totlol.com is a nice site and all but ...

The guy's making money showing clips that are hosted somewhere else without
reimbursing the people that actually pay for the streaming bandwidth.

The people that do pay for the bandwidth, ie YouTube/Google, notice what he's
doing and change their terms and conditions to reflect what has been their
intent all along, namely that ordinary consumers can use their API and what
have you to build mini sites on which they can show a selection of clips to a
small group of friends, but that rules out the egregious freeloading this guy
was planning to do.

So the story here isn't that this guy was cheated, it's that Google/YouTube
were naive enough to think that if they provided all their bandwidth for free
no one would take advantage of that and that now, possibly thanks to
totlol.com, they've learned.

~~~
jmonegro
Not really, if Google/YouTube wanted to, they would put ads on embedded
videos, just as they do on YouTube (I don't think I've seen ads on embedded
videos).

------
quellhorst
This guy didn't get banned by Google, but he couldn't make enough money with
his startup so he had to get a real job. To save his ego, he blames Google and
their TOS.

~~~
operon
Comments like this deserves a downvote

------
stephen
I like your idea. But why not go after real content? Talk to Time
Warner/Disney/somebody like that.

Personally, I'd pay to let my kids watch a few minutes of on-demand cartoons
every day in a walled garden. Can't believe Disney/etc. hasn't done this yet.
Their existing iphone apps/web sites for kids are a joke.

(They have a few "watch a cartoon now" type things, but its like a bad TV
station instead of a youtube-like experience.)

------
mey
Like building a business model on top of Twitter or Facebook, you are at the
whim of another entity, for your financial security, and not for something
easily replaceable, but you actual audience and/or content. Your options are
either to diversify or develop actual contractual agreements with the company
in question so you can't be just tossed out with a change of the terms of
service.

------
teye
I'm sure totlol.com is a great site and all, but I seriously doubt you're
single-handedly responsible for a change to the YouTube TOS.

------
marcofloriano
Man dont give attention to the bad comments and even for Google. That´s all
about YOU and YOUR GUTS. You did an amazing job, just keep it up, keep on
going, keep working and dont stop no matter what ! There´s tons of job to do
and only you can get it done. Go rock the world !

------
sireat
I am surprised another similar site hasn't been mentioned so far: kideos.com
(our kids love it), similar concept.

Tthe difference is, it doesn't have as much user participation(screening is
done mostly/fully by site owners). I do wonder how they are faring under this
threat/opportunity.

------
chaostheory
I understand the need for Google to eek out a profit out of Youtube. What
really bothers me (if the post is accurate) is that Google wasn't as
transparent as they should have been.

------
elblanco
Some follow-up <http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/29/totlol-youtube/>

------
ethikal
This really stinks of something. The author is a bit sensationalist. We are
also clearly missing Google's part of the story.

~~~
GoboGobo
The author thought to replicate Youtube for a specific audience. First with
his own content, that didn't work too well. Luckily enough, Youtube created an
API to get specific content.

So now the author had the same business model as Youtube, except aimed at a
specific part of their audience, and he was using their content, not paying
them a dime, and wants to make money off it.

The story makes perfect sense. For Google.

------
tybris
At least with Seattle IT you know when you're going to get screwed. With San
Francisco IT it always comes unexpected.

------
timinman
This is the first time I've seen your site - it seems pretty great, but I'd
love to be able to browse video without having to authenticate.

~~~
pohl
I believe Act Five "Not to Die" explains this:

 _For the first time in my life I built something according to lawyers'
guidelines not users' wishes. This is how the current set-up of Totlol came to
be. This is why users are nagged._

------
kprobst
Live by the cloud, die by the cloud.

~~~
neurotech1
YouTube isn't a cloud service, its a video hosting service.

Hint: Try and backup your "cloud" content - If possible.

------
robjamaz
your dedication and honesty is commendable...Don't give up!

------
TotlolRon
"A spokesperson for YouTube said he could not comment on the complaint,
primarily because the relevant YouTube employees and lawyers are off for the
holidays."

([http://newteevee.com/2009/12/29/totlol-creator-learns-the-
ha...](http://newteevee.com/2009/12/29/totlol-creator-learns-the-hard-way-he-
cant-build-a-business-on-youtube/))

------
nice1
Regardless of everything else, the timeline Ron describes makes pretty sad
reading. What amazes me always is that sleazy people seem to think the truth
will never come out.

------
tphyahoo
good job communicating your story, and good luck finding a day job.

and don't give up on a plan b for your site. think.......

