| OMG, was this posted for comic relief? "I decided on “Vice TV” It was simple informative and it fit on screen just right. I didn’t think they would mind..." I called _my_ new app "CBS TV". What it does is pull stuff from cbs.com and puts it in a browser wrapper. CBS shouldn't have a problem with that, right? "It’s free advertising and I was in no way profiting from using this name." Ah, the ol' "we won't pay you for your work, but it will be great exposure" line. Plus, the author did plan to profit from it, that profit just hadn't emerged yet: "I was also secretly hoping I would get a contract job out of this or someone might say, 'Hey, add my blog and Facebook pages and I’ll buy the app from you.'" "Maybe I’m naive" That might be a huge understatement. But I'm not buying the naivety routine. The content that belongs to others is packaged up into an app that uses the content owner's name. They're spammy apps at that, you know, the kind that wrap an RSS feed into an app and then 200 different variations are posted to the app store. You get warned, but blow it off. Google told the author that there was a problem, but the author thought the rules didn't apply to him. Or perhaps naivety is is the reason. In that case, the experiment produces useful data: the author is not cut out for running a business and should stick to coding for someone else. Before you hit that downvote button, dear reader, consider the lack of knowledge of copyright, trademark, and content ownership. Note the lack of follow-up when a business partner says that there is a problem that needs resolution. And finally, realize the profound lack of acceptance of any responsibility in all of this. Those are not the characteristics of a person who will build a successful business. |