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

131–140 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#131

Post by mootothemax »

Fuxy wrote: post #114
dpark wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did request for it to be removed. They sent Google the request, which is what I would do, because dealing with some spammy app developer isn't worth my time. And frankly, given how this guy doesn't admit to wrongdoing or even breaking the rules, I don't buy that he'd be particularly responsive. I expect I'd get a defensive and argumentative email in response.

This is why we can't have nice things you just assume he's not going to comply but you don't even make an attempt to resolve the issue in a gentlemanly fashion. Why? Because you can't be bothered to. You would rather give him a black mark on his account with the knowledge that only 3 in his life time would get him permanently banned.

This is why we can't have nice things you just assume he's not going to comply but you don't even make an attempt to resolve the issue in a gentlemanly fashion.

Why? Because you can't be bothered to

Yes, because it's a waste of time and resources.

One developer, one email conversation, fine, not the largest time investment.

What about all of the other developers in the world?

Especially if this became a recognised method of gaining work?

Suddenly you need full-time staff dedicated to the non-core-business activity of writing "gentlemanly" emails.

It's unworkable.

Re: Banned for Life

#132

Post by dictum »

1. Don't repackage other people's content. Especially with their trademarks attached. If they had no role in creating the app, don't be a jerk. If you want to make a video app, make a general-purpose video app and teach your users how to add channels.

2. I can't help but appreciate the karma angle of someone who tried to repackage web content as apps getting bitten by the gatekeepers of the walled garden.

3. Ah, Google, the business that would certainly still exist (and be as large and powerful as it currently is) had it been forbidden to ever skirt the limits of copyright law...

Re: Banned for Life

#133

Post by wolfgke »

Shivetya wrote: post #82
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…

Packaging another person's content should result in an immediate take down of an app. A content owner should not have to opt out of other people using their material, that is akin to telling people you can use someone's stuff until they catch you. I put along the lines of, would you let people use your house just because the door was open? Take your car? It is content/stuff you own. Why do some many discount digital…

> Packaging another person's content should result in an immediate take down of an app. A content owner should not have to opt out of other people using their material, that is akin to telling people you can use someone's stuff until they catch you.

Why do you place the content into the internet if you don't want other people to use it? You also don't complain about search engines indexing your content or other people linking to your content.

Re: Banned for Life

#134

Post by SnacksOnAPlane »

baldfat wrote: post #119
kazinator wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

He also claims to have done $500,000 of development for the eco system for Google in the spirit of Open Source with the development he had done before being banned.

Yeah. That's a bit ridiculous. If that was $500,000 of work, I should be a billionaire.

Re: Banned for Life

#135

Post by therobot24 »

mattstocum wrote: post #109
therobot24 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I thought I was doing these guys a favor. The apps I wrote would have cost about $50,000 each if I had charged for my time. I basically donated $500,000 to the Android community. That’s how I saw things." This is where i stopped reading - the author is a bit delusional.

"The app was simple. Launch it and it display the videos for a single YouTube channel. I made the app, and it was really nice and a pleasure to use." I'm assuming his hourly rate is $50,000/hr. Did he do anything other than wrap the web page for the channel in a web view? I'm not familiar with Android, but on iOS, you can accomplish this without writing a single line of code, everything could be done inside Interface…

he probably factored in all the time he spent learning to build the first app, and then multiplied it by 10...if he's an independent developer i'd be very hesitant to contract him given his poor billing techniques

Re: Banned for Life

#136

Post by 0x0 »

If he spent even 5 minutes looking at the ios sdk, he'd see that there's no review process involved in distribution of beta apps to customers...

Re: Banned for Life

#137

Post by [deleted] »

Fuxy wrote: post #90
Shivetya wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Packaging another person's content should result in an immediate take down of an app. A content owner should not have to opt out of other people using their material, that is akin to telling people you can use someone's stuff until they catch you. I put along the lines of, would you let people use your house just because the door was open? Take your car? It is content/stuff you own. Why do some many discount digital…

How about a bit of text near your content warning me that I'm not allowed to use your stuff regardless of my intentions be it a free fan app that will actually spread your content further or whatever. That would be helpful and remove all the confusion. Edit: We don't all live in the US so don't assume your laws apply to everyone lawyer-san. Even if something equivalent did exist in every other country it still doesn'…

[deleted]

Re: Banned for Life

#138

Post by cookiecaper »

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…

Most normal users would search for apps for each channel. I don't think the guy is really trying to say that they are all totally unique codebases.

The author openly admits that this was a small, throwaway app that he wrote as an experiment, which contributed to his indifference as apps got suspended. It doesn't have to be complex to qualify as an "app".

I'm sure the author understands he can still write code for Android, but as he stated in the article, he might as well not if he expects any exposure. Alternative app stores and sideloaded APKs are used by approximately no one.

I don't think it can really be said he's liable for any kind of infringement just by using the YT API to wrap content. The issue would be in using the company name to imply endorsement of his applications, but even that could be a stretch. Should he have broken down to the old Red Hat trick and said "a prominent North American YouTube channel TV"?

While I probably wouldn't have made the same decisions this guy did, tolerance and handling of these types of uncommon miscommunications are part of the responsibility a company assumes when it decides to hook into so many parts of its users' lives. With the indispensability of something like Google, they really should be more careful before they mess up someone's life with this kind of action. Not everything can be resolved with a static, generalized FAQ.

The whole thing could've been averted if Google had taken the effort to clarify what was happening and why directly, by real communication from a human that is obviously personalized, at any point in the process.

Re: Banned for Life

#139

Post by dpark »

Fuxy wrote: post #114
dpark wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did request for it to be removed. They sent Google the request, which is what I would do, because dealing with some spammy app developer isn't worth my time. And frankly, given how this guy doesn't admit to wrongdoing or even breaking the rules, I don't buy that he'd be particularly responsive. I expect I'd get a defensive and argumentative email in response.

This is why we can't have nice things you just assume he's not going to comply but you don't even make an attempt to resolve the issue in a gentlemanly fashion. Why? Because you can't be bothered to. You would rather give him a black mark on his account with the knowledge that only 3 in his life time would get him permanently banned.

The BBC should not be expected to reach our to every spammy app developer personally to politely ask that their infringing app be removed. Not only would this be more costly for them than interacting directly with Google, it would likely get some IP enforcement employees there fired when someone higher up noticed that apps were not being taken down promptly.

I don't like that Google banned this guy from Google wallet and from buying apps, but I have no issue with them banning him from publishing new apps. He blatantly violated trademarks repeatedly, and he published low-quality apps that by his own admission were identical except for an ID change, and provided no functionality aside from being a YouTube wrapper. He's a spammer.

Re: Banned for Life

#140

Post by enraged_camel »

_petronius wrote: post #120
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'm not sure I was painting him as "different" from me, or even making it about him vs. me at all. The onus is on you, the person using the service, to understand what terms and conditions you have agreed to abide by when using that service. If Google fail to uphold their end of the agreement and you lose revenue, you can seek remedy through legal means (although, obviously, that's a pretty crap position to be in); i…

>>but ultimately they have no legal obligation to be any of those things, and in business your legal obligations are your only obligations.

So businesses don't have any ethical obligations then? Cool.

Post reply on HN