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 '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?
Maybe listen to one of the many warnings he was given?
Please correct this error immediately or your account will be terminated. /s
When his first app was suspended, Google should have given a better response when he asked what he did wrong. But to just continue forward doing the exact same thing he was doing before was asking for trouble. If Google wouldn't give him a clear answer, he should have asked his friends or the community.
Well yeah, repeated trademark infringement / impersonation; if Google wasn't strict about that kinda thing, the owners of those brands would sue them for millions, just as much as they were with Youtube. They're similarly strict with Youtube videos for that matter.
Is that impersonation? Basically his app let you have a "bookmark" that opened a YouTube provided channel.
Sure he seems to be naive about the trademark issues (but interestingly never mentions how much money was made, if any) but Google were highly flawed in their customer service/developer relations [as usual]. The trademark issue isn't entirely clear cut (but I wouldn't want to try and defend it in court) as it's descriptive of what it is. There's an exhaustion of rights angle too - like being able to sell Nike shoes and call them Nike shoes as long as they are really from Nike. My point I suppose is it's not entirely without complexity.
Google, how hard is it to have a pro forma response that says "You can not use other business names or trademarks, which you don't have a license for, as part of your app name.".
I'm sure Nike wouldn't like that, even if you were actually selling Nike shoes.
I agree that Google wasn't exactly communicative (they never are).
I understand that Nike wouldn't want the unauthorized usage, but an app is a product, not a store.
What the developer did is hardly unique, my GF was looking for a Prezi app yesterday, and she almost installed an unofficial app, which looked really official (like the original author's, it says "This is unofficial app."):
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andromo.de...
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."
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.
Google has the right to terminate a business relationship with partners who violate their terms and conditions and ignore their warnings.
Developer account with Google is not a birthright. The provision of it is a business relationship conditioned on following certain rules which the author broke multiple times and despite warnings.
"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".
"The suspension email stated that I was trying to impersonate another company, and that this was forbidden. I had no intention of impersonating anyone." I would say, in this gentleman's situation, that's pretty specific. Especially since he admits above, below, and all around his Google correspondence that he's got a very good understanding that what he's doing violates either US copyright law or Google's terms of services, regardless of intent.
"You, sir, are in violation of copyright law. What? You didn't intend to violate copyright law and have a "disclaimer" in your app? Oh, well in that case..."
"Maybe I'm naive" is truly the understatement of the century here. This guy credential-izes himself out the ass (developer since 1991!), yet still can't grasp the concept of copyright infringement? At a certain point, you, as an adult, need to learn to swim or stay 20ft away from large bodies of water. This guy belly-flopped right in and dropped straight to the bottom. Then, Google pulled him out and he went right for the diving board again. This guy was clearly hopeless from Google's perspective and in no way worth the trouble he would cause (assuming that this is truly naivety and not some sort of sympathy trolling). Good riddance.
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.
How is this true in any sense? Adding a frame around a YouTube channel is basically an RSS reader.
The value is that you now have an icon on your home screen instead of having to go through a browser. That's valuable. I value that. I'd use that app.
God had already sent him two boats, waiting for the helicopter is the act of a mad man.
Yes.
>The 'whine' was about being banned for life because of novice mistakes made without bad faith. How is one supposed to learn the ropes?
The novice mistakes were made without bad faith, I agree. This is why his first app was suspended.
The reason he was banned however, was continuing to ignore warnings. He has no concept of what he did wrong—he's not someone I would want to do business with, either.
Not suggesting he was right, but you can't be apart of this community without noticing these things.