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

51–60 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#51

Post by naiv »

Keyframe wrote: post #4
_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…

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.

Copyright and trademarks don't seem to be his strength, I doubt that he licensed the pictures on http://distantfutu.re/page/team.html .. But because he grew up "in the 70s/80s", these are public domain to him.

Re: Banned for Life

#52

Post by justinpaulson »

"These warnings to me felt like the warnings on a plastic bag telling you not to put it over your head"

And yet you still put the bag over your head and took a deep breath! Why not just remove the ten apps and use common sense to determine that naming your apps after another company's product is a bad idea??

Re: Banned for Life

#53

Post by ben0x539 »

icebraining wrote: post #25
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.

You'd have the same problem if you were on the open web and the company sent a DMCA takedown request to your hosting company.

At least the DMCA takedown wouldn't also somehow disable his google music subscription.

Re: Banned for Life

#54

Post by Cthulhu_ »

rquirk wrote: post #23
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…

The only thing that seems odd here is that Google appear to be proactively defending other companies' trademarks. Shouldn't the Khan Academy or Vice have been the ones to send the takedown notices? Or perhaps they did behind the scenes and this manifested itself in the app bans.

Well no; as far as those companies are concerned, Google is hosting those apps and is responsible for them. Google then by extension goes after the author of the app. Similar to Youtube; content owners just went after the hoster (youtube), not the uploader.

Re: Banned for Life

#55

Post by hxw »

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?

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"

Re: Banned for Life

#56

Post by ben0x539 »

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.

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.

Re: Banned for Life

#58

Post by w0utert »

ripb wrote: post #14

>1 app, 2 apps, 10 apps? Did it matter either way? I could have posted 50 apps if I wanted >So I was using the app store as my beta testing platform. >I was planning on taking all these apps down in a few weeks anyway. >I thought I could get maybe 20-30 apps suspended without repercussions >In this age of Google, it’s now “obey or face an instant lifetime ban.” This is progress? What does the future hold if we are fo…

> Zero sympathy. Well done to Google on taking down one of the many people spamming the Play store with junk.

Yes, also, I find it highly amusing how his long-winded whine about 'programmer freedom' makes me appreciate the walled-garden approach of iOS just a tiny bit more. Sure, it's not perfect, and it's not 'freedom', but at the very least it does make it very explicit to 'developers' like the author that they should take their spammy app tactics (and free-riding on someone else's content, using a free service and its users as your beta testing platform) somewhere else.

Funny thing is I'm pretty sure he would get banned from the Windows Phone store pretty quickly as well (and rightly so)

Re: Banned for Life

#59

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

Keyframe wrote: post #4
_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…

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.

Releasing an application called "Top Gear TV" is remarkably naive on its own (it's one of the BBC's biggest worldwide commercial franchises) - doing it with 10 other major properties just turned something that was only a matter of time, into an absolute inevitability.

Re: Banned for Life

#60

Post by rgbrenner »

Chinpokoman wrote: post #6
_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…

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.

Post reply on HN