Banned for Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Banned for Life

#161

Post by cookiecaper » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:32 PM UTC

JamesMcMinn wrote: post #5

The author used others people's content and spammed with play store with official sounding apps, then ignored warnings to stop. Got caught and punished for it, now Google won't let him do it again. Honestly, it just sounds like Google were doing the right thing and protecting it's users from low quality spam apps.

The author didn't use other people's content. He simply used the YouTube APIs for exactly what they're there for -- remixing the YouTube experience to match a specific use case YouTube has not yet accommodated. What else are APIs supposed to be used for?

The original uploader of that content still retained all control over the content. If the original uploader didn't like his content being reskinned, he shouldn't upload it on a provider that gives users that ability through an API.

The potential problem is in the implication that the mark's owner endorsed the application. The post claims that the the author made significant effort to indicate he was unofficial. It's arguable whether this continued to constitute infringement, and for that reason I think the guy should've at least been given a polite human touch and a direct, non-automated opportunity to correct the specific issue, which was never directly elucidated ("Impersonating how? I'm just using the YouTube APIs that Google published for me to use...").

I'm not saying that the author has great judgment. I'm just saying that Google's actions aren't really proportional, that the author's actions are not at all as illegal as everyone is saying, and that Google should recognize that they have a social responsibility to at least follow-up on things like this with a human to clear up any potential miscommunication. An expectation of care in account deletion is one of the side effects of knowing and doing everything about and for everyone. It's a big deal to lose big chunks of your Google account.

Re: Banned for Life

#162

Post by GFischer » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:33 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #144

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is, was the punishment proportional to the crime? Well yeah, repeated trademark infringement / impersonation; if Google wasn't strict about that kinda thing, the owners of those brands would sue them for millions, just as much as they were with Youtube. They're similarly strict with Youtube videos for that matter.

"Khan Academy TV - youtube.com/user/khanacademy" Is that impersonation? Basically his app let you have a "bookmark" that opened a YouTube provided channel. Sure he seems to be naive about the trademark issues (but interestingly never mentions how much money was made, if any) but Google were highly flawed in their customer service/developer relations [as usual]. The trademark issue isn't entirely clear cut (but I woul…

To continue your analogy, it would be more akin to selling Nike shoes in your store, and calling your store Nike Store Seller, and using Nike's logo prominently in your store.

I'm sure Nike wouldn't like that, even if you were actually selling Nike shoes.

I agree that Google wasn't exactly communicative (they never are).

Re: Banned for Life

#163

Post by dpark » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:39 PM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #159

mootothemax wrote: post #131

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 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.

Did you reply to the wrong comment? The discussion here is about whether the content owner should make a polite request to the creator of an infringing app rather than filing a takedown notice with Google. Google's lack of support is legendary, but not relevant.

Re: Banned for Life

#164

Post by bitJericho » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:42 PM UTC

I love how the tl;dr bit is at the end of the article. If I were too lazy to read the entire article, why would I scroll to the end before closing?

"If one of their algorithms thinks you’re a bad guy, you’re banned for life."

In his case scratch out "thinks" and put in "knows"

Re: Banned for Life

#165

Post by moogleii » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:45 PM UTC

sergiosgc wrote: post #86

_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…

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 agree Google support is awful, but if I'm reading this correctly, he named one of his apps "Vice TV." He sounds pretty naive if he thinks he can get away with that. I don't buy it either. I think he intentionally played dumb.

Re: Banned for Life

#166

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:46 PM UTC

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…

Lets not get into the car analogies here. Please.

I don't see how wrapping that content is/was different from what Firefox does - except that firefox allows you to go to more than one webpage.

This is, in my mind, a separate issue from impersonating a company.

Re: Banned for Life

#167

Post by kelvin0 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

Google's 'normal' support is horrendous and it takes forever to get someone to even pretend to help you. We had a paying google app engine account for our company... I've dealt with them, and it`s a pain to say the least. Now I can only imagine how they treat people who they consider 'deliquent' (not saying that the author is one)

Re: Banned for Life

#168

Post by SnacksOnAPlane » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #142

SnacksOnAPlane wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To be fair, he claimed that those he would have charged out each of those apps at 50K for custom development time. I don't know if he has the pipeline, infrastructure, etc. to actually bill out clients for Android apps at that rate, but that doesn't sound like an extremely high number to me for custom software work. You are confusing $500K worth of "work" with $500K worth of billing. A common problem in our industry.

I don't think he could have found clients gullible enough to pay that much for what's essentially a web view in a minimal wrapper. But I suck at the marketing.

Re: Banned for Life

#169

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #60

Chinpokoman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And to be honest I don't know why he's scared to make a new google account. Yeah sure they track your IP address and whatnot but they certainly wont do anything about it. They wont ban an entire household, that's just bullshit. I don't know why he thought getting suspended wasn't a big deal because he was "innocent". That's also a fairly stupid idea as well.

Wait.. so Google's terms state that any new accounts will be terminated.. but you're saying he should just go ahead and violate that term of Google's policies as well? And assuming that Google won't carry out the threat is a poor way to run a business.. at any time, Google may decide any earnings he's made will be forfeited.

Well he has already violated the terms, might as well keep going - he has very little left to lose.

Re: Banned for Life

#170

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 2:48 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #40

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?

How is one supposed to learn the ropes? Maybe listen to one of the many warnings he was given?

Warning, your post is in breech of my policies, the policies of HN, the law local to you or some other policy that applies due to jurisdiction that applies to the server, you, me or HN.

Please correct this error immediately or your account will be terminated. /s