3 ms·
Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with
by markmark 5y ago
Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with that.
- 3np 5y agobytecode, not source code.
- kangalioo 5y agoModified bytecode, not just bytecode (or else any APK hoster would be illegal)
- 3np 5y agoAs noted in OP, the takedown was related to reuse of trademark (logo, name), not redistribution of the modified binary.
- shabier 5y agoThe comment tread is arguing that it's hard to prove modified binary rather than the easier way; reuse of the trademark. Either way, both the modification and redistribution are illegal.
- arlcode 5y agoAny APK hoster which distributes bytecode (or any other software) without prior permission acts illegaly. Redistribution of copyright protected material requires authorization of the right holder. Code (or programs compiled from code), usually fall under this rule. (In the US) hoster privilege usually allows them to not be liable unless they know about a specific infraction. In some jurisdictions some platforms (such as youtube) are required to monitor uploads proactively for known copyright violations.