Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Cthulhu_ 4341 days ago
> Anyone using my simplistic beta quality app would know instantly that this is not “official”

A silly assumption that both generalizes the audience and is ignorant of copyright laws, imo. Not a valid argument in a court situation either. I could make the crappiest Geocities site out there, but as soon as I put a Google logo somewhere, people may assume it is an official Google site or affiliated with it.

> One of my apps contained the channel id for Vice.com. Since the length of the app name is so limited I decided on “Vice TV”

Yup, there you go. Using a brand name, showing a brand's video - intent isn't the issue here, the author was impersonating Vice.com there.

The author is guilty of being naive and lax about copyright and trademark laws, imo.

3 comments

I thought it was weird that he kept mentioning children's apps but then has one for Vice TV.
So you complain about being ignorant about copyright laws then demonstrate complete ignorance of them. Copyright has nothing to do with it.
The apps contained icons taken from third parties and then utilised to advertise these apps. So copyright is very much in play here, as well as trademark infringement.

As to your jab at the person above, it might have come across better if it was even remotely constructive. For example, you could explain WHY you feel they misunderstand copyright rather than just waving your hands around and claiming that they're "completely ignorant."

Almost like how Youtube ignores copyright and trademark laws.
Except they don't, and in fact have built a state-of-the-art video and audio recognition system to deal with infringement[1], and of course respond to DMCA takedown requests.

There's plenty of infringement on YouTube, of course, but that's inevitable for any platform where anonymous users can submit media files.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#Content_ID

> that's inevitable for any platform where anonymous users can submit media files

Exactly.