Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

kvirkvelia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#101

Post by Hasz »

deeviant wrote: post #88
Hasz wrote: post #82

Ha, caveat emptor. Oh, wait, OP isn’t even a buyer and paid nothing for the code and blindly built it into the app. No reading, no understanding, just copying. OG plug-in author has a problem with people abusing license key system, builds in code to detect it. Disclaims it vaguely, OP gets bitten and has the gall to call it stealing. Author offers to help OP out, OP puts him on blast. Zero sympathy, even at 30%.

There is a huge divide between "oh hey you didn't read the license and missed the fact that this OS addon takes 2%" and "the license said 2%, but it's actually 30%, oops my friend!"

I see zero difference. There is an explicit mention that bad things will happen if you subvert the license system. A license is $20, OP is just too lazy to read the terms of code he blindly incorporates.

Op called 2% stealing, 30% is for basically triggering the anti cheat. OP should have paid paid the license and read the rules.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#102

Post by rat9988 »

yesimahuman wrote: post #76
Beltalowda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the line of thinking behind the 30% seems to be something along the lines of "they're fiddling their numbers to reduce our 2% cut, so let's just take a bigger cut". I don't think this is entirely kosher for a bunch of reasons, but I'm willing to believe that it was a naïve person doing something naïve after being burned by someone cheating him out of his cut, or something along those lines. At any rate, sin…

(Ionic CEO here) I think regardless, it's something developers don't expect so we're removing it from our site right now to avoid confusion and surprises (we’re going to be changing the whole design of this list soon anyways so it’s moot). The plugin description came from another project we support and trust plugin authors to write their own descriptions but we're realizing we need to scrutinize those more closely. I…

You shouldn't overreact this way. Really it doesn't speak well of your platform.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#103

Post by fuzzy2 »

simlevesque wrote: post #91
Kvirkvelia wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your comment! I don't think taking 2% is theft. Maybe it's a dark pattern, but it's definitely not theft. In the article, I say that I calmed down after explaining with 2%, which means my agreement with the situation. The way the increase to 30% is made and the number of users with such a percentage says that the author deliberately increases the percentage without warning the user, which is theft

You using the software without a paid license was theft.

What do you mean, without a paid license? The wording seems pretty clear to me: You can get a paid license OR you can share 2% of your ad revenue.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#104

Post by abofh »

yesimahuman wrote: post #76
Beltalowda wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the line of thinking behind the 30% seems to be something along the lines of "they're fiddling their numbers to reduce our 2% cut, so let's just take a bigger cut". I don't think this is entirely kosher for a bunch of reasons, but I'm willing to believe that it was a naïve person doing something naïve after being burned by someone cheating him out of his cut, or something along those lines. At any rate, sin…

(Ionic CEO here) I think regardless, it's something developers don't expect so we're removing it from our site right now to avoid confusion and surprises (we’re going to be changing the whole design of this list soon anyways so it’s moot). The plugin description came from another project we support and trust plugin authors to write their own descriptions but we're realizing we need to scrutinize those more closely. I…

And ionic is now on the list of "companies that operate at the whim of one person and should not be relied on for revenue"

Harder to fit in your business card, I'm sure, but hey, you've earned it!

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#105

Post by frankfrankfrank »

I feel there is a bigger issue here that I don't see anyone having brought up.

Blogging dev was too cheap to just pay $20 for a license for code that would generate him money. THAT is really the bigger issue here, regardless of everything else, including the fact that he was in violation of the agreement, i.e., >$1,000 MRR.

Here's a little pro tip for everyone, don't cheap out on paying someone $20 for the work they do, when it will be generating you significantly more income.

Frankly, regardless of whether or not the plugin dev is sketchy or not, the blogger dev violated the terms of the agreement and seems rather ungrateful that he was given back what he should not have even gotten back.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#106

Post by arthur6667 »

Based on the comments I should make a left-pad and put in a random file 'if you use this, you need to give me you house and first born child'. Because appearantly whatever you put down is legal and enforceable.. shm..

Taking reveneu without a contract smells like fraud to me.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#107

Post by abofh »

kevingadd wrote: post #94
simlevesque wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You using the software without a paid license was theft.

Someone committing a license violation does not magically grant you the ability to steal 30% of their revenue. If you want to punish the license violation, take them to court. Also note that the software is MIT licensed. Tucking some random additional clauses on your website or somewhere else doesn't magically change the licensing, if you don't want to use MIT (and make them free to use it) then don't use MIT.

You buying software with a revshare agreement 100% does..

You operate in the us? You pay the irs. You operate in Brazil, you pay them.

The price was disclosed, optional and entered into freely. Dude is buying his lawyer a boat if he wants to fight it.

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#108

Post by yesimahuman »

abofh wrote: post #104
yesimahuman wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Ionic CEO here) I think regardless, it's something developers don't expect so we're removing it from our site right now to avoid confusion and surprises (we’re going to be changing the whole design of this list soon anyways so it’s moot). The plugin description came from another project we support and trust plugin authors to write their own descriptions but we're realizing we need to scrutinize those more closely. I…

And ionic is now on the list of "companies that operate at the whim of one person and should not be relied on for revenue" Harder to fit in your business card, I'm sure, but hey, you've earned it!

Huh? See my comment below, this whole thing will be a non-issue in weeks anyways as we’re changing this list. People think these plugins are “official” and this is one symptom of that, so this is just a temporary measure to reduce confusion

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#109

Post by drran »

madarco wrote: post #39

How to get rich: 1) Create a nice plugin to serve ads 2) Bury a complex revenue sharing logic in the terms of use that nobody read anyway 3) Profit

If you are not obeying license, then you are a pirate.

  |  ____  |
  | |o  o| |
  |   ""   |
  | O   O  |
  |  \ /   |
  |   X    |
  |  / \   |
  | O   O  |

Re: An ad plugin was stealing revenue for a year and I didn't even notice

#110

Post by munk-a »

nerdawson wrote: post #92
liveoneggs wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT license does not disallow monetization or rev share. It does allow you to fork this plugin and remove the code responsible for rev share, etc. This is all above board.

From their license agreement: > If you have used this plugin for FREE but monetized more than $1000, you are also required to get a license, or share us some Ad traffic as stated in win-win partnership model below. https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/wiki/Lic... The project however includes the following the license: https://github.com/floatinghotpot/cordova-admob-pro/blob/mas... Surely releasing code…

It depends on the details of the license. If it was a bog standard MIT license (which in this case it is) then you could surely fork the repo remove that logic and carry on with your day (though you'd probably still need to credit the original author with the attribution clause) - MIT like licenses can dictate some terms around uses while allowing most modifications though.

That said - you do need to actually modify the code yourself, if you instead decided to use some man-in-the-middle attack to modify the packets in flow you may still be misuing the software. There are ways you could approach a solution that would in fact violate the license, as trivial as it is to circumvent.

Post reply on HN