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.
Banning his developer account is one thing. Cancelling his other Google accounts is complete bullshit.
Banned for Life
91–100 of 294 posts
Re: Banned for Life
#92Re: Banned for Life
#93That said, I'm not sure I actually side with the author outside of that point of agreement. Looks like the apps were mega shady.
I would advise the author to (1) not place their trust in a corporation again, and to secure their business & personal affairs against single points of failure, (2) not make shady software, and finally (3) consult a lawyer on the implementation of the law and contracts.
Re: Banned for Life
#94Earlier 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?" Everything, and the "you're not profiting from it" part is completely irrelevant and can be skipped from the sentence. Redistributing other people's content without their consent is simply not allowed, and the fact that they have made this content freely available on channel A doesn't give you permission to make it freely av…
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 gentlemen.
Re: Banned for Life
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
How about a bit of text near your content warning me that I'm not allowed to use your stuff regardless of my intentions be it a free fan app that will actually spread your content further or whatever. That would be helpful and remove all the confusion. Edit: We don't all live in the US so don't assume your laws apply to everyone lawyer-san. Even if something equivalent did exist in every other country it still doesn'…
Edit: We don't all live in the US so don't assume your laws apply to everyone.
I'm well aware that we don't all live in the US; I don't, either. But if you publish an app in an US marketplace, it's subject to US law.
Re: Banned for Life
#96Summary: No sympathy for the blog author, but its still terrifying how broad Google's ban-hammer can be if you run afoul of them.
- Google's continued lack of communication (most everything is automated),
- and their ban-hammer (much like Paypal's, it can be terrifying for a small developer).
BTW, he added the following disclaimer to his app (not that it did much good):
"DISCLAIMER: The Verge TV App is not affiliated with The Verge. Information shown in this app is obtained through public YouTube APIs. We are fans of The Verge and we wanted a better viewing experience to watch their videos.
Any copyrighted material belongs to the original owners. If you want changes made to this app, please let us know."
I want to use (for example) photos and names of cars for an app - do I need to get permission from the brand owners?
Re: Banned for Life
#97> 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 (...). All Apple products are banned in my household to make a statement about programmer freedom. > Now my Google play account and Google Wallet account are both banned for life. I’m no longer able to write Android apps e…
Well, this isn't true. You don't have to use Google Play to distribute your app - unlike with Apple, where you do have to use their store (unless you like personally managing users' ids)
Re: Banned for Life
#98Earlier 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?
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"
"For example, if your app displays the brand, icon, or title from another app [...] your apps can be suspended and your developer account terminated."
Re: Banned for Life
#99Earlier 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…
When it comes to copies of things, though, that all breaks down. When you make a movie and I make an illegal copy (I don't pirate things but let's suppose for a second) you aren't prevented from owning the movie any longer. You've lost a sale for sure, but I didn't just take the copyright away from you and now it's mine and I can sell it and you can't. But that's not even what this guy did.
What we're talking about here is the creation of an "unauthorized" front-end that uses public APIs to display things which are already public.
When you said "take" you're really abusing language in a preposterous way.
First of all nobody was denied use of anything so it's not STOLEN.
Second this content is already freely available on the web.
Third it's freely available via the generic youtube apps google publishes.
Fourth his app didn't download copies to his servers which it then served up (which would be copyright infringement) denying the originating youtube channels views or likes or whatever.
By your "packaging" logic anyone who embeds a bunch of a particular youtube channel's videos onto a webpage should have their servers nuked from orbit. That doesn't pass the laugh test.
https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+embed+channel
If using an unauthorized front-end is really so naughty then why are people allowed to embed things?
Should youtube channel owners be able to dictate which browsers people are allowed to use to view their channels on youtube? Should they be allowed to say "IPv4 only" and disallow the use of IPv6? Should they have the right to dictate which networks are allowed to transport their video? Maybe their content should only be visible to Mac owners and sufficiently cool linux guys but under no circumstances should a windows user be able to view their video.
Re: Banned for Life
#100You were a die hard Apple fan boy since '85 even during their darkest times... then you can't provide your users updates within hours so you...
"threw out my macs, smashed my iPhones, switched my whole family to Ubuntu and Android."
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/dont_b...