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

241–250 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#241

Post by smoe »

PythonicAlpha wrote: post #198
g051051 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did tell him, didn't they? They told him 3 times.

As much I understood, they did tell him not enough, that he could understand what was wrong. Automated eMails are "customer-support from hell".

I have no experience with google customer support as a normal developer[1], but I guess there is a vast amount of this kind of arguably spamy apps submitted every day. On that scale it's probably hard and too time consuming to distinguish naive from fraudulent developers.

For me its difficult to believe, that someone who has been a developer for so long, really didn't think, that using another companies name in an app name, use their logo – and removing their ads(?)[2] – couldn't lead to some sort of serious problems.

The punishment might be too harsh, but defending yourself in this case with 70/80 rebelism and doing them a favor with "free advertisement" is just bizarre.

[1] I've worked in the advertisement team of the biggest swiss news site, and we got decent personal support from google. Unfortunately, i guess it is as always in life: If you're big, others will listen to you. If not, you'll be ignored.

[2] "No ads, no junk, just videos" http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c...

Re: Banned for Life

#242

Post by paraserv »

cookiecaper wrote: post #138
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…

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 And…

Excellent and logical response, cookiecaper. The developer's article could have been written more succinctly, but the points he makes are completely valid and the larger issue of how Google's unintended power to credibly damage a developer's career should not be taken lightly.

Re: Banned for Life

#243

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ColinCera wrote: post #192
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not fair use. No court has ever held that it's fair use to reproduce copyright images because you think they look cool, you think they're funny, you think they illustrate some point you're trying to make, etc. And using an image of DeNiro as your avatar does not even begin to approach a legally acceptable form of parody. Just because hardly anybody ever gets sued for using copyrighted images as avatars, as hu…

Using the US courts 4-factor analysis where in particular do you think this use - of a low-pixel screencap transformed as an avatar - fails?

Do you happen to know the jurisdiction applicably here, as it's behind Cloudfront the location of the servers are hidden. Clearly there's the .re domain. It might be considered that Cloudfront's proxying causes a US jurisdiction claim of infringement to be pertinent no matter where the files are hosted, but that moves rather to my point that it's not a simple analysis and so the vilification of the alleged infringer seems unwarranted at this time.

>No court has ever held that it's fair use to reproduce copyright images because you think they look cool //

Low-pixel copies of images have been allowed for various purposes. Are you saying this particular issue has been addressed by the courts, I'm not aware of it, could you post the details? Thanks.

Re: Banned for Life

#244

Post by fuzzywalrus »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #50
baldfat wrote: post #3

March 25th post that was on Hacker News at least twice already. This is the only article on his blog. Here is hi github page: https://github.com/sgehrman He is still developing. I am wondering what the updated status is on this? Seems that if he is still developing he isn't banned for life? There already were some petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/sergey-brin-respect-the-eff...

So that petition is accusing one dude in Google of disrespecting 'small and indie android developers' when they're blatantly violating trademark law? Lols.

Never underestimate the pariah complex...

While it'd be nice for Google to explain why he was banned, it already sounds like he understands why he was banned but he had a chance to grand-stand so he's on his soapbox.

Re: Banned for Life

#245

Post by palakchokshi »

icebraining wrote: post #24
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.

Here's a copy of the app information, copied by some app discovering site: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c...

he used their logo too? That is just wrong. the OP seems like a naive developer who doesn't grasp even the basics of trademarks and if he does then he has complete disregard for them and should be banned for life.

Re: Banned for Life

#246

Post by MetaCosm »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #196
wolfgke wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Some developers have a serious problem with understanding that there are times when an app's problems aren't about checkboxes on an issue tracker. The entire spirit of this app is about infringing on intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the app is so basic that it provides zero value to simply bookmarking the YouTube channel in your browser. The entire concept is so terrible that he had to hide behind an appeal…

What astounds me -- I think -- is his honesty. He overstates and overestimates his value... but... he wrote it as it is.

I read his account and think he is a goddamn idiot... basically a self-indulgent, petulant child. I think it shows a profound disconnect with reality, he legitimately thought that if he told the story... people would be on his side.

I am deeply curious about his mental state... he considers himself victimize, he considers disclaimers meaningful, he really can't understand why people would take offense at his shallow, low value wrapper trading off the names and content of other people.

Re: Banned for Life

#247

Post by me1010 »

JohnBooty wrote: post #225
me1010 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..…

This is terrible advice. Why tie yourself to your ISP like that? What if you want to switch ISPs, or need to switch ISPs?

No offense meant - but why tie yourself to a huge multinational corporate entity that sells your privacy to whomever, whenever, and forever - so that you, the user, can have email or know where the next coffee shop might be... The cost of using Google's services is not nothing. And while some here may be aware of that, and accept that - the generalized user is not fully aware - even if told...

There are several reasons not to use Google's services, but there are even more reasons not to sign up a minor for Google's services. It's useful to look at the issue from Google's point of view... Google's terms of services are meant to be taken seriously - they track you, and tell you they track you. If a parent signs up a child for these services, the parent is giving Google the right to track that child - if the services are tied to a mobile platform - the parent is giving Google the right to track the location of that child --- and Google has every right to assume that the child is not a child, but an adult, as that's in the terms of services --- thus, a parent signing a minor child up for Google services is giving away the child's anonymity and privacy, for pretty much forever --- that's a pretty big decision, and I would want my children to make that decision for themselves after trying to understand the long-term consequences.

Re: Banned for Life

#248

Post by Dylan16807 »

Eiriksmal wrote: post #179
wolfgke wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

My beef with this article is that he knew something was wrong, hence his questions basically asking, "Which of my many actions violated copyright law?" And tattles on himself when he admits everything about his "app" revolved around unfair use of others' copyrighted material: "I 'borrowed' your icon and your name when I created my 'app.' Is that wrong?"

If you tell me I've done 'something' wrong I can make an enormous series of increasingly-tenuous possible justifications in my mind, but that doesn't mean I have any clue if I've actually done something wrong or if there was a mistake in evaluation somewhere.

Re: Banned for Life

#249

Post by agrotera »

tim333 wrote: post #98
hxw wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never submitted anything to Google Play, but there has to be some sort of guidelines for what you can submit and not? Or he could have just searched the web - "(...) searching the web I find dozens of similar stories"

There is a guide and it's pretty clear: https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ... "For example, if your app displays the brand, icon, or title from another app [...] your apps can be suspended and your developer account terminated."

I was trying to feel some kind of sympathy for the guy and though that maybe the terms and conditions may have been full of jargon and hard for someone without a legal background to understand. That's about as clear as can be.

Re: Banned for Life

#250

Post by Dylan16807 »

JamesMcMinn wrote: post #213
cookiecaper wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 upl…

So using YouTube's API to use other people's content isn't using other people's content? I don't follow the logic there. Yes, he was not banned simply because he used other people's content. He was banned because he was using other people's content to create low quality apps which (even if unintentionally) imitated official applications. Taking someone else's content and serving it up in a way that looks like it's of…

>So using YouTube's API to use other people's content isn't using other people's content? I don't follow the logic there.

It's not using it without permission. That's what the API is there for, to let you use the content in certain ways such as what the app did. The only issue was branding, and this is a severe overreaction to a branding issue.

Post reply on HN