Banned for Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Banned for Life

#151

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:24 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #63

mempko wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this shows is how anti-user closed app eco-systems are. Some users probably found his app very useful but can't use it because lawyers.

As a user, I tend to disagree. Finding the store full of knock-offs that just are a skin over a YouTube channel is frustrating when looking for actual content and not a simple YouTube skin. He's not the first guy to make this YouTube-wrapper app, there are a lot of them. Too many.

First, this sounds like a problem the application store provider needs to solve with an improved interface, not nuking anything they don't personally find useful from orbit.

Second, what's "actual content"? Official content only? Undoubtedly some people who searched for "top gear" were looking for exactly what this guy put out.

Re: Banned for Life

#152

Post by Perseids » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:24 PM UTC

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…

> he thinks he can no longer write apps for Android, whereas it is obvious to me that you can put a .apk file up for download anywhere you want, and get paid by means other than Google Wallet.

And how many people will find and buy such an app? You do know of the standard security advice to disallow app installations outside of the Play Store as this is the main attack vector for malware on Android, for example for banking trojans? Also I would have to be extremely motivated to get this app before I go through the hassle of paying via a non Play Store payment service.

> make a spammy app that only re-frames other people's content, and infringes on trademarks

What is Youtube if not a (not so spammy) service that reframes other people's content and for a long time infringed on copyrights?

Re: Banned for Life

#153

Post by stonemetal » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:25 PM UTC

alistairjcbrown wrote: post #127

stonemetal wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

What is your definition of pirated? Accessing content, and helping others access content in ways that you have not been given permission to rather sounds like piracy to me. The method of access doesn't really matter weather it be boot leg DVDs or youtube.

Re: Banned for Life

#154

Post by sergiosgc » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #146

enraged_camel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

They do, but I don't think Google is ethically obligated to let this guy post spammy apps that are closely named to companies he doesn't officially work with. I've been a professional Android developer for 2+ years and a user for longer than that. I'm 100% in support of Google banning this guy from the Google Play store. One of the major misunderstandings about the Play Store is that there "are no rules" in compariso…

> They do, but I don't think Google is ethically obligated to let this guy post spammy apps that are closely named to companies he doesn't officially work with.

But Google is ethically obligated not to punish the guy by closing associated services (GWallet). It is also ethically bound to treat the customer as good-intentioned, and bound to explain the basis for suspension.

Google failed on both counts.

Re: Banned for Life

#155

Post by darushimo » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:27 PM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #80

ben0x539 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignored warnings to stop? It sounds like the author did one thing (uploading ten apps) and then got three "strikes" and a full suspension without doing anything else.

That's like saying a mass murder just killed 10 people in a single go so it should be 'just one thing' in court. Each individual act is a separate 'crime'.

That's a false equivalence. Apps are not people.

Re: Banned for Life

#156

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:27 PM UTC

stevejones wrote: post #74

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #45

> Anyone using my simplistic beta quality app would know instantly that this is not “official” A silly assumption that both generalizes the audience and is ignorant of copyright laws, imo. Not a valid argument in a court situation either. I could make the crappiest Geocities site out there, but as soon as I put a Google logo somewhere, people may assume it is an official Google site or affiliated with it. > One of my…

So you complain about being ignorant about copyright laws then demonstrate complete ignorance of them. Copyright has nothing to do with it.

The apps contained icons taken from third parties and then utilised to advertise these apps. So copyright is very much in play here, as well as trademark infringement.

As to your jab at the person above, it might have come across better if it was even remotely constructive. For example, you could explain WHY you feel they misunderstand copyright rather than just waving your hands around and claiming that they're "completely ignorant."

Re: Banned for Life

#157

Post by sjs382 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

TuringTest wrote: post #29

rrrx3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime?

Yes.

>The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes?

The novice mistakes were made without bad faith, I agree. This is why his first app was suspended.

The reason he was banned however, was continuing to ignore warnings. He has no concept of what he did wrong—he's not someone I would want to do business with, either.

Re: Banned for Life

#158

Post by me1010 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #26

"Google could have, and still could block my gmail" They have a different revenue generation business model for gmail. My son's account was blocked, couldn't figure out why, and they wouldn't say. I suspect some kind of data mining thing where watching more than 5000 blitzwinger videos on youtube "proves" you're a kid or a teen. He does like his video games... He falls into that gap between being old enough to have a…

I know lots of people don't know how to setup an email server. But gmail, as an email account, is worth less than $10/month. And, in fact, your ISP probably includes several email accounts with your internet service. If your child needs an email account, just assign him one...

If you have Verizon, here's how... [8 extra] http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpee...

If you have Comcast, here's how... [5 extra] http://customer.comcast.com/help-and-support/internet/adding...

If you have Cablevision, here's how... [4 extra] http://optimum.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1673/~/c...

So, in point of fact, gmail - as a 'free' email service - is actually a huge additional COST, considering the payment in privacy. And this is why I do not use it myself...

Re: Banned for Life

#159

Post by GFischer » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:28 PM UTC

mootothemax wrote: post #131

Fuxy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 me…

Edit: wrong thread.

I would gladly pay for Google support, and I've stated as much in the past.

I have paid for Microsoft support, and it was a great experience. Microsoft is (or was) as big or bigger than Google, and used by a significant fraction of the population.

So, it can be done. Google doesn't want to do it.

Re: Banned for Life

#160

Post by krschultz » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:31 PM UTC

jpwagner wrote: post #16

Sure Google is a private company. Sure this means they have no formal responsibility to this developer. Programmatically, he seems to deserve to be sanctioned: he violated their policies for several weeks with several different apps. 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 an…

A good faith effort would be reading the terms & conditions. He obviously didn't, because they are quite clear about not being able to put other companies' names in your app name.

If the article was about someone that had this happen, and they read the conditions and didn't see anything that they had violated, and then asked Google - that would be a different story. This guy just can't be bothered to put the effort in himself.