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

61–70 of 294 posts

Re: Banned for Life

#61

Post by bicx »

therobot24 wrote: post #10
_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…

"I thought I was doing these guys a favor. The apps I wrote would have cost about $50,000 each if I had charged for my time. I basically donated $500,000 to the Android community. That’s how I saw things." This is where i stopped reading - the author is a bit delusional.

Yeah, he clearly wasn't thinking straight on that one. Even if the time he spent on the first app was worth $50k, he said earlier that he created the other apps just by changing the YouTube channel on the first app and repackaging. Definitely not $500k of work by any stretch.

Re: Banned for Life

#62

Post by chrisBob »

danielweber wrote: post #44
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.

If you are trying to monetize, you have likely given Google your real name and address and bank account information, and would need to do the same thing for your new account. Submitting fraudulent information in order to get money could cross you into serious trouble with the IRS or the law.

If you are making a business out of this then creating a new business entity shouldn't be that difficult.

Re: Banned for Life

#63

Post by Pxtl »

mempko wrote: post #21
_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…

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.

Re: Banned for Life

#65

Post by hawleyal »

_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…

Completely disagree. People at Google acted in a ridiculous manner. This is atrocious.

Re: Banned for Life

#67

Post by VLM »

tomordonez wrote: post #37

I understand that an app is content wrapped around a concept. It is common sense not to use a known name unless you are asking for trouble. I could make a news app. Do I want to name it CNN? No, unless I am authorized to use that name. It is naive to think you can use just any name, even if you meant good. You are looking for trouble. Next time call it something else. The video app. Learn by Watching...I mean you cou…

The problem is he specifically tried to figure out if that was the problem and google wouldn't say. Perhaps he got the banhammer for not getting using a (TM) after the brand name in the descriptions. Perhaps he's actually in trouble for not getting permission for some of the content in the screenshots. All of that is probably a good idea. But specifically, he will never know why he got the banhammer and we will never know either.

The problem with whatever-as-a-service business model, is you're never worth more than a penny more to the provider than the cost of sales to replace you when/if you leave. So, people are throwing themselves at google to be an app dev, so I guess he's worth precisely nothing at all to GOOG.

A business relationship where one side is worthless to the other is best described as parasitism and often that doesn't turn out well for the parasite. That is the true lesson for all app developers to learn from this story. An inherent part of the biz model is you can get annihilated and the host (host as in parasite lifecycle model) will not care. Make sure you understand that, when making business decisions.

Re: Banned for Life

#68

Post by claudius »

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?

There was no crime (at least no criminal prosecution of one form or another) and no punishment. There was a violation of the contract the OP agreed upon and the other party decided to make use of their right and terminate that contract. That other party has no obligation whatsoever to continue to uphold the contract or not make use of the clause which allows them to exit. The other party is also under no obligation to provide someone some leeway to “learn the ropes”. Lastly, the ropes which the author failed to learn are founded in civil and criminal law, not in the ToS of the other party specifically. Since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse to violate said law, there is particularly little reason for anyone to give the OP any sort of leeway to learn obeying the law.

TL;DR: Don’t trust companies with important stuff if you are not certain to have appropriate forms of recourse if they decide in a way you don’t like. Don’t ignore civil and criminal law because they’re just “rules”. Read the terms of service if you agree to them.

Re: Banned for Life

#69

Post by icebraining »

VLM wrote: post #31
icebraining wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mentioning that venue B is screwed up, is hardly proof that that venue A being screwed up, is a good thing.

I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm saying it's not a problem caused by "closed app eco-systems". Trademarks apply to both closed and open marketplaces.

Re: Banned for Life

#70

Post by Fuxy »

ascendantlogic wrote: post #18
_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…

The only thing I side with him on is this: "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." If you ask why, you should be told exactly what is wrong. Or better yet, be told exactly what is wrong right away. Obviously packaging other people's content is th…

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 it's going to be enforced so heavy handedly for what is obviously a minor issue that could have been resolved by a email conversation.

Not to mention other Google accounts like Google Wallet and Google Music getting banned for something like this.

What does one have to do with the other? Do you mean to tell me if i get banned in the Play store all Google account on all services get banned including my Google drive, Google docs, gmail etc

Doesn't that seem a bit absurd to anyone?

How would you like your entire music library deleted because your developer account got banned?

Post reply on HN