[JamesMcMinn]

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.

[cookiecaper]

The author didn't use other people's content. He simply used the YouTube APIs for exactly what they're there for -- remixing the YouTube experience to match a specific use case YouTube has not yet accommodated. What else are APIs supposed to be used for?

The original uploader of that content still retained all control over the content. If the original uploader didn't like his content being reskinned, he shouldn't upload it on a provider that gives users that ability through an API.

The potential problem is in the implication that the mark's owner endorsed the application. The post claims that the the author made significant effort to indicate he was unofficial. It's arguable whether this continued to constitute infringement, and for that reason I think the guy should've at least been given a polite human touch and a direct, non-automated opportunity to correct the specific issue, which was never directly elucidated ("Impersonating how? I'm just using the YouTube APIs that Google published for me to use...").

I'm not saying that the author has great judgment. I'm just saying that Google's actions aren't really proportional, that the author's actions are not at all as illegal as everyone is saying, and that Google should recognize that they have a social responsibility to at least follow-up on things like this with a human to clear up any potential miscommunication. An expectation of care in account deletion is one of the side effects of knowing and doing everything about and for everyone. It's a big deal to lose big chunks of your Google account.

[JamesMcMinn]

So using YouTube's API to use other people's content isn't using other people's content? I don't follow the logic there.

Yes, he was not banned simply because he used other people's content. He was banned because he was using other people's content to create low quality apps which (even if unintentionally) imitated official applications. Taking someone else's content and serving it up in a way that looks like it's official is just asking to be banned, especially when the thing you're imitating is YouTube and the app is on the Play store.

If someone is, for all intents and purposes, spamming your app store with imitation apps, why should you waste time giving them a "polite human touch"? If this had been a Chinese company rather than someone with a sob story would you still expect Google to offer a polite human touch?

[Dylan16807]

>So using YouTube's API to use other people's content isn't using other people's content? I don't follow the logic there.

It's not using it without permission. That's what the API is there for, to let you use the content in certain ways such as what the app did. The only issue was branding, and this is a severe overreaction to a branding issue.

[ben0x539]

Ignored warnings to stop? It sounds like the author did one thing (uploading ten apps) and then got three "strikes" and a full suspension without doing anything else.

[true_religion]

That's like saying a mass murder just killed 10 people in a single go so it should be 'just one thing' in court. Each individual act is a separate 'crime'.

[darushimo]

That's a false equivalence. Apps are not people.

[true_religion]

It's a comparison, an analogy if you will not a 1:1 equivalence.

[AppSec]

This even includes some bad police work. Because since the developer didn't post a single app of this type after the initial suspension google could have easily identified all apps and found them all and notified the developer that all apps must be dealt with.

This would be akin to the police having 10 open murders with the same exact weapon, charging the assailant with one and not looking for any other open murders on file.

[ColinCera]

> Apps are not people.

Not yet.

[cheepin]

Coming soon to a Supreme Court near you.

[izacus]

So banning him from using Google Wallet to BUY anything ever again is a proportional response? O.o

[hawleyal]

Banning his developer account is one thing. Cancelling his other Google accounts is complete bullshit.

[fnordfnordfnord]

The lack of feedback would be annoying.