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

151–160 of 195 posts

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

#151

Post by Hasz »

Ansil849 wrote: post #130

The responses here to this story defending the plugin author are appalling. They all seem to boil down to "you didn't read the fine print or the source code, so whatever the plugin does is defensible". What if instead of taking a percentage of the ad revenue, the plugin siphoned credentials or ran malware as a revenue generator, or did whatever else? And what if it openly explained in the fine print that it would be…

You don’t read the contract, you pay the price.

People just arbitrarily pulling in code from random people on the internet and expecting everything to be fine is hilarious. Your project, due the due diligence.

To answer the hypothetical, the author is still at fault even if was malware.

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

#152

Post by MrWiffles »

ceejayoz wrote: post #141
withinboredom wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article seems to be down for me. But I’ve gathered it was spelled out in the license? They even returned money? Removing a person’s revenue stream because someone wrote a blog post is by default, an overreaction. If they’re going to change it all anyway, why rush it?

> But I’ve gathered it was spelled out in the license? A 2% cut was spelled out in the license. A 30% cut was not, but the plugin author silently upped it to that over vague assertions of abuse of the plugin. > "After check, we find your app in the black list, and a random higher rate will be applied. Usually when a guy is using a fake license key, or send unusual attacking request..."

Further in that same paragraph, the plug-in author goes on to say that they removed the guy’s app from said blacklist and even upgraded him to a fully paid license for free. And on top of all that he even gave dude back $4000 bucks!

I really don’t see either party as underhanded here, maybe lazy in respect to both communicating and with paying attention, but I can’t see either as being shady. It’s just a series of human errors.

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

#153

Post by Ansil849 »

Hasz wrote: post #151
Ansil849 wrote: post #130

The responses here to this story defending the plugin author are appalling. They all seem to boil down to "you didn't read the fine print or the source code, so whatever the plugin does is defensible". What if instead of taking a percentage of the ad revenue, the plugin siphoned credentials or ran malware as a revenue generator, or did whatever else? And what if it openly explained in the fine print that it would be…

You don’t read the contract, you pay the price. People just arbitrarily pulling in code from random people on the internet and expecting everything to be fine is hilarious. Your project, due the due diligence. To answer the hypothetical, the author is still at fault even if was malware.

> To answer the hypothetical, the author is still at fault even if was malware.

Wow, that's as explicit victim blaming as you can get.

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

#154

Post by MrWiffles »

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.

Not arguing here at all because I agree with you in principle, but I wanted to point out for the sake of consideration trust it appears the plug-in author was in Russia if I’m not mistaken. I have no idea how Russian law works with regard to this, but I think it’s somewhat unfair for us to jump to the conclusion that their courts are acting like ours; for all we (I?) know, IP law for software may not be enforceable in Russia. Or it could be dark pattern gated behind high court fees, unattainable representation, etc.

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

#155

Post by abofh »

InsomniacL wrote: post #138
colejohnson66 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code being free does not mean usage is free. Qt’s code is free to look at, but you still need to pay them for certain things. Licenses apply to the code, not what it does.

Firstly, I was addressing the claim in the comment I replied to that it's not open source. It's licenced under MIT That's not what the licence states at all... > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person ... including without limitation the rights to use .. copies of the Software. The licence states Permission is granted free of charge to use the software, if the software is charging then that's a b…

They used the software, it did what it was programmed to do. The breach seems entirely on the licensee

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

#156

Post by abofh »

arthur6667 wrote: post #106

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.

Anon wrote the code, op ran the code thousands and thousands of times.

Yeah, anon is the enemy for wanting to get paid

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

#157

Post by rat9988 »

yesimahuman wrote: post #108
abofh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No it is not. Someone was misusing a plugin, wrote a blog about it, and you take side of the one who would be able to make bad press of your platform. This is not a temporary measure. This is a whim of a one person to remove someone from your platform without any due process nor integrity.

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

#158

Post by abofh »

InsomniacL wrote: post #144
abofh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You.. Ran... Their.. Code.. How anyone can think they're entitled to assume how it should run is ignorance sufficient to shred what remains of my humanity. He didn't demand you give him money, he said if you ran his code, it will act as he intended. You ran his code. It worked as intended.

> You.. Ran... Their.. Code.. I did not... > He didn't demand you give him money, he said if you ran his code, it will act as he intended. He did not... He said it would act one way, then it secretly acted another against the contract that was entered in to > It worked as intended. It did not... Even their staff admit they never intended to charge him 30%

No post body was provided.

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

#159

Post by mirzap »

This is not a theft. You used the plugin from the github, didn’t even bother to check the license, used someone elses work with small fee. Guy even returned you the money. It’s probably some kind of dark pattern, but certainly not a theft. Pay the plugin and you’ll not have to pay the fee.

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

#160

Post by dang »

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!

Please don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post reply on HN