Banned for Life • Hacker News Board

Re: Banned for Life

#251

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:46 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #116

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…

>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…

If you want that analogy to be right, the person would be buying copies of the DVD and then repacking them 1:1 at a cost of 5 cents. It's totally OK to do that.

Remember, their app is nothing more than a small blob of java[script] that provides a limited but improved window onto youtube.

Re: Banned for Life

#252

Post by avz » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:47 PM UTC

I'm absolutely astonished by the degree of egocentric delusion, arrogance and lack of self-criticism displayed by the author:

* he smashes thousands of dollars worth of equipment because the producer's business model no longer fits his idea of freedom,

* he writes a trivial wrapper app with no original content or behavior,

* he spams Google Play with ten versions of it hard-coding different YT channel IDs in each,

* he values this contribution to the Android ecosystem on about $500,000,

* his apps obviously infringe on trademarks and possibly copyrighted content,

* he ignores multiple warnings and app suspensions, because they don't tell him precisely what to change,

* he considers Google to be under the obligation to handhold him through the nature of his violation of the terms and conditions,

* after all this he continues to think he is in the right,

* he writes a rant and expects to receive sympathy riding on general disappointment in devs community with Google's admittedly lacking customer support.

Wow.

Re: Banned for Life

#253

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:50 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #153

alistairjcbrown wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Piracy is making unauthorized copies, either to or from another person.

Re: Banned for Life

#254

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:53 PM UTC

therobot24 wrote: post #135

mattstocum wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

On the other hand I would be quite hesitant to hire a developer to build a customized video player for tens of thousands of dollars if he was going to go on and sell that same code to others for $200 a pop.

Re: Banned for Life

#255

Post by piratebroadcast » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

I used to make Android themes back in the day. I would wait until a game got really popular on iOS and count on Android users checking the Android app store for the same titles. I'd sell an "Angry Birds" phone theme for 99 cents. Many Android users werent that technologically savvy and thought they were buying the actual game. This went on for about 6 months. I was making serious money. Eventually they caught on and I was banned from the store. I was a kid and doing something a bit douchey but I definitely understand banning me.

This guy doesn't quite seem to feel the same way.

Re: Banned for Life

#256

Post by moron4hire » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:00 PM UTC

VLM wrote: post #203

moron4hire wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ludicrous. Do you have any evidence to back up any of this?

A complicated question to answer. First of all you have a technical win because I screwed up, this was months ago, and its thirty cents not fifty cents. On the other hand, if you won't google for "gmail locked out of account 30 cents" yielding "About 676,000 results (0.96 seconds)" although only the first hundred or so results are relevant, there's nothing I can do to help you or convince you.

It's all from 3 years ago and they all say it was a defect in the age calculation. That doesn't sound, as you state, like a deliberate system to generate revenue.

Re: Banned for Life

#257

Post by rmrfrmrf » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:05 PM UTC

dpark wrote: post #108

Fuxy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Description of the app clearly states that the app is not actually affiliated in any way with the original content creator. So it's not really impersonation is it? Plus they can always just request nicely for it to be removed if their really that bothered by it. What is with this need of taking drastic measures for something as simple as this. Whatever happened to talking to the developer and sorting it out like…

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.

Even worse: he'd offer to sell you the app for $50,000!

Re: Banned for Life

#258

Post by rmrfrmrf » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:12 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #22

icebraining wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule is explicit: it's called trademark law. You can't just copy the name and logo of another company, append " TV" and distribute it publicly. This is an official app of The Verge: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Ios&appID=54251... This is OP's unofficial app: http://www.myappwiz.com/home/getapp?platform=Android&appID=c... It's pretty clear that this is prone to cause confusion, even with the discla…

Quotes from 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" "Why didn’t you give the apps a different name? We…

My next business venture definitely needs to be 'common sense as a service'

Re: Banned for Life

#259

Post by rmrfrmrf » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:15 PM UTC

api wrote: post #202

"I was a die hard Apple fan since 1985 and was an Apple developer all through the darkest days of the Apple death spiral. I continued to be an Apple fan until they announced the “walled garden” and the app review process for iOS. I am totally against having to get permission from a corporation to write and sell apps, and I certainly don’t think I should be forced to sell my work through their store and their store on…

I think you missed the part where Microsoft and Apple had completely different core businesses.

Re: Banned for Life

#260

Post by hashtag » Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 7:27 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…

While I don't disagree that Google support is abysmal, they do respond if you know the appropriate channels.

I've gotten support for both Adwords and Adsense and can successful claim I've been unbanned from both at different periods of time. That isn't to excuse your point but wanted to put this out there that while difficult, it is possible.