Arrington explains on his site:
The offense we committed was creating a small tool that lets people download YouTube videos to their hard drives. We referenced the tool in a recent post that walked people through the process of moving YouTube Videos to their iPod.
Has one of the best blogs about new technology really committed an offence worthy of such a letter? I don’t think so. But why would YouTube do this?
Some bright spark may argue that they are just following the law but don’t they realise that many of their users (who probably use extensions to download YouTube videos) will be alienated by this kind of legal posturing? If letters like this were sent out to all sites guilty of doing what TechCrunch did, then YouTube’s lawyers are going to be very busy indeed.
> Original post at TechCrunch
> Techdirt on the “trigger happy lawyers” at YouTube
> Red Herring think YouTube have “got nasty”
> Russell Shaw at ZDNet thinks YouTube’s lawyers should stop picking on TechCrunch