
The End of ProTube 2 - cdransf
http://jonasgessner.com/protube2-statement.html
======
Veratyr
> They basically wanted me to remove every feature that made ProTube what it
> is – that includes the player itself that allows you to play 60fps videos,
> background playback, audio only mode and more.

> background playback, audio only mode

[https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-
polici...](https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies)

> You and your API Clients must not, and must not encourage, enable, or
> require others to:

> separate, isolate, or modify the audio or video components of any YouTube
> audiovisual content made available as part of, or in connection with,
> YouTube API Services.

> promote separately the audio or video components of any YouTube audiovisual
> content made available as part of, or in connection with, the YouTube API
> Services;

> create, include, or promote features that play content, including audio or
> video components, from a background player, meaning a player that is not
> displayed in the page, tab, or screen that the user is viewing;

The author blatantly violated YouTube's developer policies then complained
that YouTube was upset? Why the victim complex? What did he expect? He's lucky
they didn't choose to go down the lawsuit route instead.

This doesn't seem like an arbitrary policy either. If he's playing the video
where the user can't see it, the user can't see ads. If the user can't see
ads, the video creator doesn't get paid.

~~~
Spivak
> The author blatantly violated YouTube's developer policies

Well duh, but those policies only exist because YT is trying to sell those
features.

> He's lucky they didn't choose to go down the lawsuit route instead.

Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable.
Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access.

I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be
allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter,
modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it.

This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock
should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software
must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads.

~~~
Veratyr
> Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable.
> Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access.

He consented to a contract, violated it and caused actual damages (loss of ad
revenue, profiting from copyright infringement). Given that he displayed
content in violation of the license he was given and made money from it, it
could even be a criminal copyright infringement case.

> This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that
> uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser
> software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads.

The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything.

> I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be
> allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can
> alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it.

A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream.
Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? With DRM the
way it is today, I'm not sure that's a battle we can win. Head down this path
and we'll have DRM and eye tracking to make _really_ sure we're watching ads
before we play a video.

~~~
Spivak
I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the
copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS
violation which is pretty toothless.

> The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything.

So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-
dl exists.

> A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream.
> Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube?

Right, but in your alternate universe you are legally bound to view the ads
and still have all the restrictions of DRM. It's really no different but
without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes.

~~~
Veratyr
> I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the
> copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS
> violation which is pretty toothless.

The developer is displaying copyrighted content. YouTube doesn't own the
copyright but it does hold a sublicensable license, which is how the developer
could legitimately develop a YouTube app. By violating the developer agreement
from YouTube, the developer is breaching any copyright license he may have
had. By selling the app commercially, he's also potentially doing so
criminally. There's also the CFAA which I forgot at the time.

> So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since
> youtube-dl exists.

If the app was free and didn't utilize the API, then yes, it'd be in the same
space as youtube-dl.

> It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it.
> Nothing really changes.

What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into
our lives in order to consume content.

~~~
Spivak
> Sublicenses

I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to
the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content
video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Especially since it
would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their
policies. And especially since YT themselves can ignore these rules.

Also, we all know that the CFAA is both bullshit and makes basically
everything illegal. It has no place in any discussion like this.

> What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies
> into our lives in order to consume content.

Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal
requirements. But your world is basically the case right now and we have DRM
and plenty of ad blocking circumvention measures so I'm not convinced it would
help.

~~~
Veratyr
> I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to
> the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content
> video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground.

The license a creator gives to YouTube might not require that YouTube delivers
audio and video together (it clearly doesn't for YouTube Red) but the license
YouTube gives developers definitely does, as pointed out above. Plus, if the
video isn't played in the foreground, people don't see ads and creators don't
get paid. If there isn't an explicit agreement preventing it, it'd certainly
cause conflict if YouTube were found to be allowing it.

> Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every
> time they change their policies.

They've done it in the past, when they introduced YouTube Red for example:
[https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-
removing...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-removing-
artist-refuses-license-subscription-service/)

> Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal
> requirements.

Legal requirements are soft and barely enforceable on end users. I'll take
those over technological solutions.

------
ucaetano
The author expects Google to pay for the storage and bandwidth cost, while the
author monetizes that with no revenue sharing?

Not only that, the author also refused to release the app for free on Cydia:

> Some people might suggest that I re-release ProTube 2 on Cydia. Few people
> even have jailbroken devices anymore and only a fraction of my user base
> would be able to access Cydia. Purchases from the App Store also can't be
> carried over to Cydia so people would have to purchase the app again. And
> YouTube might still come after me.

If the author refuses to give it the app for free, why does he/she expects
Google to do the same?

And it goes beyond that: none of the money the author makes by stealing
traffic from YT goes to the creators. Zero. The author is defunding both the
creators and YT while making money for him/herself.

If ProTube was free/oss, I could see some valid points behind it, but the
creator is actually making money on that copyrighted content.

Seriously, why would anyone have any reasonable expectations of a different
outcome?

~~~
comstock
Maybe Google/creators need a new business model that doesn't depend on
adverts?

Your argument is essentially the same one against Adblockers in general.

~~~
lobster_johnson
Isn't that what they're doing with the YouTube Red thing?

~~~
comstock
If you can obtain YouTube Red functionality by using an Adblocker, it may not
work as a business model...

~~~
kyrra
Youtube Red features: 1) offline viewing. 2) no ads. 3) original programming.
4) background audio-only playing. 5) Google Play Music subscription.

~~~
vetinari
6) Works with Chromecast Audio. Yes, the "normal" Youtube doesn't.

------
yladiz
As much as it sucks for the author, if you're providing a service or app on
top of another service (like providing a better way to browse a website's
content or API) you're really at the mercy of that service provider,
especially if you've registered to use their API. If they want to squash your
service/app, they can either just revoke your API access, or just find some
violation of their TOS, or just create one with a TOS update. Then they can
report you to the respective app store (App Store, Google Play Store) and most
likely get it removed. Without looking at the Youtube TOS, I wouldn't be
surprised if there was a section that explicitly disallows paid apps besides
Youtube's, probably to prevent competitors for their Youtube Red app.

Although I wouldn't have bought it since the plain Youtube app is fine for me,
it looks like he put a lot of work and soul into the app, and I feel for him.
I also appreciate the level headedness of the statement, explaining the
situation without much vitriol, although I'm surprised he doesn't mention
anything about one of the issues Google likely had, which was ad-blocking (see
edit below). Good luck to him on his next project.

Edit: It looks like the author of the app likely got in a lot of trouble with
Google for not having ads when playing videos, on top of the other issues, a
commenter below points out. I think it's a little disingenuous of the author
to not put this in his statement as I'm sure Google wasn't happy about it (and
probably said so in the emails) and it's likely another violation of the TOS
(and I'm surprised they haven't pulled/didn't pull API access). What I said
still stands, but he should be more direct about the issues that Google had.

~~~
lbenes
You're missing the main issue here, that service he provides is an an
adblocker along with other Red features. Google ProTube and every review
spells it out. "ProTube as an ad blocker for YouTube"..."It's an alternative
to paying for YouTube Red"..."ProTube also supports audio playback while you
work in another app, which the YouTube app doesn't do without a YouTube Red
subscription"[1]

Seems clear to me, this is a way of cheating Google out of their Red
subscription fee or their standard ad revenue.

I'm really don't get the outpouring of sympathy here. He's essentially
pirating their Red service and charging a fee for it.

[1] [https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-
review/](https://www.macstories.net/reviews/protube-review/)

~~~
comstock
It's not cheating, you should have the right to render content as you see fit.
That includes using Adblockers on the web and elsewhere.

I don't think they really need to use the developer API to implement any of
the functionality used. And I don't understand why it's Apples job to police
their ecosystem in Googles favor. Seems like an anti-user move on Apples part.

~~~
yladiz
It's because if an author makes an app that goes against Youtube's TOS, if
Apple doesn't take action, then Apple is liable for it. Apple isn't actively
policing it, as well, it's more that Google requested it be taken down.

------
userbinator
If you use closed platforms tightly controlled by large companies, it's not
surprising that things like this will happen.

Meanwhile, on my desktop I use a downloader script that continues to work
flawlessly for some of those usecases described in the article; it doesn't use
the "official API", but mimics what a browser would do, so YouTube would have
to stop working in the browser to stop that from working.

~~~
ioquatix
Can you put it on GitHub? :)

~~~
pkrefta
You should try also Youtube-dl - amazing piece of kit :)

~~~
feelin_googley
As I do not include Python in my system images I wrote a very reliable youtube
download script that uses only sh, sed and an http client, where http client
is fetch, ftp, curl, wget, or some similar program. Currently it is at 1205
characters, or 1205 bytes. No "developer API" needed.

------
naner
Wow, if this was any other company this guy would have just been sued. I don't
really have a problem with the guy scraping and using other techniques to get
around playing ads and other restrictions. But then he turns around and sells
it, and then acts like Google is behaving unfairly by shutting him down...
what a class act. I find it hard to have any sympathy for this guy.

~~~
comstock
It would have been better if they were sued. Why should we have Apple policing
their ecosystem on Googles behalf?

~~~
ballenf
Because Apple wants to send a message to app creators of original content that
Apple has their back. In this case it was Goliath vs. David, but is probably
just as often the reverse in terms of parties' sizes.

------
bitmapbrother
I like how this person brags about how successful his app was and how it hit
#1 in 10 countries, but neglects to mention how he was continually violating
YouTube's terms of service all the while.

Here's my favorite part:

 _YouTube wants to sell its $10 /month subscription service which offers many
features that ProTube also offered for a lower one time price, so they started
hunting down 3rd party YouTube apps on the App Store._

It's their service so they can charge whatever they want for it because they
actually pay the bills to keep the service up and running. What's not okay is
for you to sell an app to customers that, you clearly knew, violated YouTube's
TOS and was subject to takedown at anytime.

------
vortico
Yes, he's at the mercy of YouTube since he's building on the platform in
violation of its ToS.

But as a consumer, you can use the youtube-dl script
([https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/](https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/)) along
with mpv ([https://mpv.io/](https://mpv.io/)) to play YouTube videos as you
wish. Example:

    
    
        mpv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
    
        mpv --no-video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
    
        mpv <pretty much any video / streaming site in existence>
    

Both packages are available in your nearest package manager, i.e. brew for
MacOS, MSYS2 for Windows, etc.

------
GSimon
I never knew about ProTube, but since YouTube disabled playing videos in
background even on Safari/Chrome it's been very annoying. I used to love
listening to long format shows/audio in the background. It's still possible,
albeit likely not as good as the ProTube app seemed to be, you just have to
load up Youtube and request for the desktop site. The site switches from
mobile to desktop and becomes a real pain to use but hey I can play videos in
the background again.

It's pretty lame of YouTube to do, especially since I can't even buy the paid
service if I wanted to (I live in Canada).

~~~
ucaetano
> It's pretty lame of YouTube to do, especially since I can't even buy the
> paid service if I wanted to (I live in Canada).

They don't have the license to do so. Streaming audio requires a different
license than streaming video.

~~~
roywiggins
YouTube can't stop me minimizing my browser window on the desktop and nobody
is accusing them of violating any licenses for failing to prevent me from
doing that, so why is mobile different? Just because they have the technical
ability to tell the difference?

~~~
ucaetano
That's not how licensing rights work. Just because you think it is the same,
doesn't mean that lawyers will think that.

------
Abishek_Muthian
When depending upon a 3rd party content in violation of their TOS, it's bound
to happen & especially when it's monetised.

It's the users who are really getting screwed, probably many of them still
don't know the difference between official app and an 3rd party app. The users
are of grave risk under such conditions, where if a 3rd party app developer of
a famous service decides to sell the app to someone; they could easily pish
the unsuspecting user's login credentials.

In this case, the developer took the right call to bring down the app. I hope
his future endeavours are just as successful without using 3rd party content.

------
CryoLogic
Censorship, monetization algo changes, dark ux patterns, buying whitelist
space on adblockers, political bias coded directly into search algo...

I do hope the future holds something better for the consumer than YouTube

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Unfortunately, most industries on the internet are winner-take-all due to the
network effect. Without significant government intervention, which comes with
its own problems if done poorly, monopolies on the internet are nearly
inevitable.

~~~
badestrand
I would love a regulation for companies that they must make all user
contributed data freely available for everyone. This way YouTube (and Facebook
and Twitter and...) would not be a data silo but just one of many access
portals to that data.

I know this is a question of values, of what is considered "just". But for me
it would feel fair if all the 20k reviews of the nearby mall on Google maps
would not be Google's property but belong to everyone, since many many people
contributed to it out of goodwill.

------
covercash
ProTube actually got me using YouTube on a regular basis and became part of my
nightly routine - I subscribed to channels, occasionally commented, made
playlists... I even started using the (terrible) YouTube app on the Apple TV
from time to time. Boy is it bad!

Before ProTube, I only watched YouTube content when it was embedded in sites I
was browsing. Hopefully the current version works long enough for me to figure
out a replacement (either for the app or for YouTube itself.)

~~~
yladiz
It looks like, as long as the app can use the API, it'll stay updated for iOS
11 (the author states he updated it as soon as he could), and so it'll likely
function for a while.

~~~
covercash
Yeah, I'm using it on iOS 11 and it works great (although I don't love the new
native video UI Apple is going with) - my concern is that YT will be dicks and
kill access through the API. I sure hope not.

~~~
on_and_off
> YT will be dicks and kill access through the API

how is that dickish ? They seem pretty gracious right now to have let the API
key work for so long while it breaks half their TOS.

------
SeanAnderson
Same thing happened with my app, Streamus, a few years ago.

[https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/how-youtube-
killed...](https://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/21/how-youtube-killed-an-
extension-with-300000-users/)

It's not a surprising outcome, but still unfortunate for both YouTube and
consumers.

------
Sujan
"Interesting" faked whois data on the domain:

> Registrant Name: Jonas Gessner

> Registrant Street: Infinite Loop 1

> Registrant City: Cupertino

> Registrant Postal Code: 95014

> Registrant Country: US

> Registrant Phone: +14.089961010

~~~
dawnerd
So not only do they break YouTube tos but they violate icann rules too? Nice.

[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-
agreement-2009-05-2...](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ra-
agreement-2009-05-21-en#3.7.7.2)

------
Wofiel
Bit of a shame, I understand the reasoning, but I also understand how poor the
existing YouTube app is to this day.

I'd be happy with ads, I'd be happy with not being able to download videos, I
just wanted to get videos from channels I'd subscribed to and multitask with
iOS' native PiP and ProTube let me do that.

------
dzhiurgis
Simple Googling revealed this:

[https://github.com/pieter/YoutubeDL-iOS](https://github.com/pieter/YoutubeDL-
iOS)

Anyone can sideload without mercy of Apple, uses infamous youtube-dl. Might
try later tonight.

Would love author to open source his code or contribute to above mentioned
project.

------
weeksie
Don't build on someone else's platform unless you have a ripcord. :/

~~~
staunch
The platform here is the internet. YouTube is trying to say you can't write
custom software that accesses their publicly accessible service.

ProTube is nothing more than an alternative user agent that users are choosing
to use to interact with the youtube.com service.

They should shut down the public youtube.com service if they don't want people
to access it in ways that are reasonably fair use.

~~~
bitmapbrother
No, ProTube used the YouTube API and repeatedly violated the terms of service,
which he legally agreed to, and then charged customers for an app that he knew
was in clear violation and subject to termination.

~~~
staunch
Why does he have to agree to the ToS to use the public API?

Would it have been okay if he didn't use the API but accessed the same
functionality just like you can with a web browser?

~~~
Operyl
He requested an API key, that's not exactly "public" like you think it it and
is subject to the TOS he agreed to.

------
HearMeRoar
So, the reason you're not putting it on Cydia is because not many people are
going to buy it? Ok.

The argument that people will have to buy it again to access it makes no
sense, it doesn't matter.

------
staunch
1\. YouTube built their business on other people's content. Just like
LinkedIn, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Craigslist, etc.

Aren't we, as the public, entitled to access the data that we, the collective
public, have contributed?

How many people that uploaded content want to prevent others from privately
enjoying it?

2\. A federal judge recently ruled that LinkedIn couldn't block a service that
was scraping their service. That scraping costs LinkedIn some measurable
amount of money, but I personally think that should be a burden they're
required to bear.

If they don't want that burden, let them shut down the service and allow a new
service or technology to replace it.

~~~
bitmapbrother
Is YouTube stopping people from scraping their site?

~~~
staunch
I guess that's my question.

------
Rjevski
Would you mind giving access to the source, so that advanced users can still
compile and install their own binary? Happy to pay for it.

------
the_mitsuhiko
What's so frustrating about this is that yourube does not even sell red here.
I cannot pay for what protube enabled.

~~~
rusinov
Unless you use VPN, but this could be a pain.

------
anon_dev_123456
Can I buy and install Protube on my iphone without using the app store?

------
jsjohnst
"Do no evil" \-- unless it affects the bottom line, of course!

------
matthew349hall
Well that sucks. I never used ProTube but it looks like it was a great app.

------
adamnemecek
This is fucked up. I really liked the app. No google, I dont want to pay you
10 usd monthly so that I can listen to music on your app when it's in the
background.

~~~
ucaetano
No _RIAA_ , I dont want to pay you 10 usd monthly so that I can listen to
music on your app when it's in the background.

There, I fixed that for you.

~~~
dannyw
Not everyone uses YouTube to listen to music in the background. I want to
listen to podcasts or just listen to videos distributed by casual content
creators in the background - they're not forcing me to get YouTube Red,
YouTube is. Which is fair, because it's their platform, but to blame it on
RIAA is wrong.

------
post_break
Welp, thanks YouTube, you're ruining everything I like about it. This is right
up there with Twitter api tokens. Next anyone uploaded content deemed not
advertiser friendly will be banned. Say goodbye to H3H3, and hello to only
Casey Neistat. Death by a thousand cuts.

Everyone saying "this is why you don't build your business on someone else's
X" yeah, we get that, but 3rd parties don't always have to do this.

