[Ansil849]

I feel like their response is not at all an overreaction. The plugin author was underhanded in their conduct. I wouldn't want to use a platform which allowed nonsense like that to proliferate, so am happy to see dubious stuff like this removed. To me it signals that the platform owners care about what is on their platform and are concerned about their users. That is a good thing.

[withinboredom]

The article seems to be down for me. But I’ve gathered it was spelled out in the license? They even returned money? Removing a person’s revenue stream because someone wrote a blog post is by default, an overreaction. If they’re going to change it all anyway, why rush it?

[Ansil849]

> But I’ve gathered it was spelled out in the license?

Just curious, is this your attitude towards other things as well? There used to be a very popular ebay scam, which had people sell large screen TVs and video game systems for very cheap. At the bottom of the auction description, in fine print, the auction also clearly stated that you were bidding/buying only a photo of the product, not the actual product. In other words, it was "spelled out", so no one was getting scammed according to your perspective here, right? It was on the fault of the buyers for not reading the license/auction description?

[withinboredom]

LOL. That’s pretty funny, actually. Is it a scam when toys say batteries not included in small print too? IDK, maybe it’s my outlook on making sure I’m getting what I’m buying (or what I’m not getting as the case may be)! I don’t see anything shady here, but I couldn’t access the article earlier. I’ll try again here in a bit!

[Ansil849]

So this scenario I proposed in another comment, you are fine with?

If on line 37, page 409, of a car rental agreement that you sign, it states that if you are an hour late in returning your vehicle, the car rental company will take your firstborn, and you sign this agreement, then it's on you, right?

[withinboredom]

Well, it would be non-binding since you can’t sign away another adult’s rights (assuming your first born is over 18). If the first-born is under 18, I guess it would depend on adoption laws as to whether this is something you can give away via a contract.

Folklore is full of this kind of stuff. Always read what you sign. Always. No exceptions. Better yet, get a lawyer to read it too.

[Ansil849]

Except that's not practical in real life. Do you get a lawayer to read the 40-page pamphlet full if liability disclaimers that comes with your coffee maker or any other appliance?

[ceejayoz]

> But I’ve gathered it was spelled out in the license?

A 2% cut was spelled out in the license.

A 30% cut was not, but the plugin author silently upped it to that over vague assertions of abuse of the plugin.

> "After check, we find your app in the black list, and a random higher rate will be applied. Usually when a guy is using a fake license key, or send unusual attacking request..."

[MrWiffles]

Further in that same paragraph, the plug-in author goes on to say that they removed the guy’s app from said blacklist and even upgraded him to a fully paid license for free. And on top of all that he even gave dude back $4000 bucks!

I really don’t see either party as underhanded here, maybe lazy in respect to both communicating and with paying attention, but I can’t see either as being shady. It’s just a series of human errors.

[withinboredom]

> It’s just a series of human errors.

This reminds me of a game I ported from iOS to Windows Phone, actually. It was free and ad supported. I told my contact like 50 times he needed to get me an API key for Microsoft Ads, so I just used my own while I waited. Fast forward six months and the game launched after still asking every week and informing them that they needed to get me the API key or all ad revenue would go to me.

I set up an auto email to go out once a week asking for the API key. That person would reply back for literally any other issue.

They emailed me like 2 years later asking where their money is. I replied with the entire situation, screen shots of the emails and would be happy to send them the 1¢ they earned.

I never heard back from them until their lawyer contacted me. Sent him the same stuff. Never heard back from them either. They did post a blog post about how they were going after their ex-developer for “stealing” their ad revenue though. I lol’d and went on with my life. People do weird shit for some publicity. I’m not saying that’s what’s going on here, but it sure smells like it.

[ceejayoz]

I'm left wondering how many other sites are quietly getting 30% of their revenue siphoned off due to a similar "malfunction", and how much of the easy refund process is to avoid a public fuss that'd reveal that fact.