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

Banned for Life

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#121

Post by Anderkent »

Keyframe wrote: post #4
_petronius wrote: post #2

The author used other people's content, packaged them into an app, and then repeatedly submitted the same app (with one minor modification -- the use of someone else's content) to the Play store. 'Beta' apps or apps that you write for close friends/family can be distributed via other means than the main app market. This article admits that he ignored all of the warnings he was given, and now accuses Google of unfair…

Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

>I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Well, yeah, that's the point of the article. That google never made it clear what he did wrong, so that he could fix it.

Re: Banned for Life

#122

Post by sergiosgc »

kazinator wrote: post #115
sergiosgc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your position is a common response: paint the affected individual in such light that you can safely state he's different from you, and making it obvious this wouldn't possibly happen to you. The important facts, irrespective of the correctness of app suspension are: a) App suspension led to Google Wallet suspension. Google Wallet can be used as a payment processor, so this decision could have affected entirely indepe…

I can't speak for _petronius, but what makes this guy obviously different from me is: * he thinks that an icon which links to something on the web is an "app", whereas I think that an app is something which contains a significant amount of program logic. * he thinks that changing the configuration (like YT channel id) generates a whole new app. This is like claiming that, at your Unix command line, "grep foo" is a di…

> Google only holds power over those swaths of people who surrendered some aspects of their lives to Google

No. Google wallet is, as of now, an unacceptable payment processor for me. Its existence, however, precludes other competitors from entering the space. As such, even if I do not use Google services, its power still affects me.

For a reduction to the absurd, imagine Google wallet a payment processor monopolist, or a duopolist (with PayPal).

Re: Banned for Life

#123

Post by Iftheshoefits »

mimog wrote: post #35

Good. I wish all the people developing crappy and useless apps, flooding the place, would get banned. You publish 10 different apps where the only thing that changes is the youtube channel, and claim you were beta testing? I hope Apple and Microsoft ban you as well.

The most amusing thing is that the Play Store has an incredibly easy way alpha test as well as beta test versions that are distributed only to users who have signed up for testing. In fact, when you upload the apk to the store it's almost literally impossible to miss it. The one issue I have with their test mechanism is that test users have to have an account with Google(even if it's just membership to a single Google Group).

What the OP did was publish spammy garbage. Not to say Google couldn't afford to put a more human touch on their customer and developer relations, but the OP is just way out of line on this one.

Re: Banned for Life

#124

Post by Anderkent »

stonemetal wrote: post #116
Fuxy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amazing that everyone here seems to be a lawyer or extremely well versed in the rules while agreeing with them. What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? If the content owner wants it removed there should be a way to request that while not negatively affecting the developers account. Plus the whole 3 strikes rule seems a bit too strict for me especially if i…

>What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? Say I made a show and sell DVDs of the show for $20 to cover all the costs of the show. When you buy the DVD you agree to not reproduce them so that I can continue to sell more copies to cover the cost of the show. You then start reproducing them and selling them at your cost(no profiting right?) which is about $0.05. Obvious…

That's completely not the scenario, though?

All the content is already available on youtube. He's just providing a different way of finding it. Nothing wrong with it.

Re: Banned for Life

#125

Post by aceperry »

danielweber wrote: post #43
TuringTest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes? It's like learning to drive in a country where driving schools didn't exist and the full extent of traffic laws applied to you. How possibly could the author learn what he was doing wrong?

The majority of the post was "it's their fault that they didn't stop me!" When his first app was suspended, Google should have given a better response when he asked what he did wrong. But to just continue forward doing the exact same thing he was doing before was asking for trouble. If Google wouldn't give him a clear answer, he should have asked his friends or the community.

His friends consisted of "99.9% of everyone I know uses iOS", are probably contemptuous of Android. Which seems to be a common attitude amongst the apple fanbois. I don't think his friends could've helped him.

Re: Banned for Life

#126

Post by jasonlotito »

rrrx3 wrote: post #7
Keyframe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Agreed - the whole thing reads like a giant whine, to me. The author has zero concept of what he's done wrong, which is astounding to me.

If one person does it, it's a whine. When Airbnb or Uber does it, it's fighting back against the establishment.

Not suggesting he was right, but you can't be apart of this community without noticing these things.

Re: Banned for Life

#127

Post by alistairjcbrown »

stonemetal wrote: post #116
Fuxy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it amazing that everyone here seems to be a lawyer or extremely well versed in the rules while agreeing with them. What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? If the content owner wants it removed there should be a way to request that while not negatively affecting the developers account. Plus the whole 3 strikes rule seems a bit too strict for me especially if i…

>What's wrong with packaging other people's content as long as you're not profiting from it? Say I made a show and sell DVDs of the show for $20 to cover all the costs of the show. When you buy the DVD you agree to not reproduce them so that I can continue to sell more copies to cover the cost of the show. You then start reproducing them and selling them at your cost(no profiting right?) which is about $0.05. Obvious…

Eh? Did you read the post?

"I wrote a simple YouTube client app using the latest YouTube APIs" - The content was not pirated, he created an app with one purpose; to allow you to play videos from one particular YouTube channel.

Re: Banned for Life

#128

Post by pbhjpbhj »

naiv wrote: post #51
Keyframe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Copyright and trademarks don't seem to be his strength, I doubt that he licensed the pictures on http://distantfutu.re/page/team.html .. But because he grew up "in the 70s/80s", these are public domain to him.

Does he need a license to use those images in Reunion (or wherever his server is)? It looks like it could be a fair-use under USC too? Styling yourself as DeNiro in Taxi Driver might even class as parodical and so be an allowed use?

But your general point in your first clause stands.

Re: Banned for Life

#129

Post by wolfgke »

Keyframe wrote: post #4
_petronius wrote: post #2

The author used other people's content, packaged them into an app, and then repeatedly submitted the same app (with one minor modification -- the use of someone else's content) to the Play store. 'Beta' apps or apps that you write for close friends/family can be distributed via other means than the main app market. This article admits that he ignored all of the warnings he was given, and now accuses Google of unfair…

Judging by the names of the apps/wrappers (if they were same in the store) from here http://distantfutu.re/page/portfolio.html he is lucky to not get sued at the same time as well. He's even argumentative about trademark infringement in his post. I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

> I don't think he fully understands what he really did wrong.

Google not making it entirely clear in their hellbanning email what he did wrong makes the hellbanning double unfair in my opinion.

Re: Banned for Life

#130

Post by wolfgke »

mattstocum wrote: post #105
TuringTest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes? It's like learning to drive in a country where driving schools didn't exist and the full extent of traffic laws applied to you. How possibly could the author learn what he was doing wrong?

He was warned. Repeatedly. What the hell else did he want? An overt act of divine intervention?

What he wanted is stated clearly in the article:

"I emailed Google back and asked them to tell me exactly what I need to change to be compliant with the rules. Is it the icon? The name? The disclaimer? What? Google refused to give me any additional information. So, I just left the app in the suspended state and never attempted to update it since I really didn’t know what I needed to change".

Post reply on HN