8 ms·
Google un-bans Downloader app, but developer still mad about “broken” DMCA
- jeroenhd 3y agoGoogle can't exactly fix the DMCA like the dev may want, but its fake appeal process is infuriating. You can appeal the takedown to Google but no human will ever validate that the DMCA notice even makes sense. Filing a counter notice is your only option but it also hands over your personal details to whoever filed the DMCA takedown request for a potential lawsuit. This turns the DMCA mechanism into an excellent doxxing system for anyone publishing anything onto Google's platforms. Perhaps even worse is the insinuation, or sometimes even lie, that appeals are verified by humans. They're either not passing by any humans or they're not being verified. If an actual human had read the DMCA takedown in the first place, this whole saga never would've happened.
- shakna 3y agoLast time I was looking into it, the DMCA required that the subject was taken down _before_ you did the verification of the claim. So the DMCA basically is required to be an automatic process.
- chii 3y agoas it is written, the DMCA strongly favours the accusing party, and there's minimal blowback from a fraudulent claim. It has got to be one of the worst pieces of legislation to have been written and enacted.
- sophacles 3y agoNot to mention anti-circumvention provisions that change the definition of "own".
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoIn the case of a proper DMCA takedown (as opposed to something like YouTube's pre-DMCA report system), you can (and should) sue the person who issued a fraudulent takedown for damages caused by the takedown.
- dspillett 3y agoThe post you replied to wasn't particularly complaining about the initial takedown (required, as you say, by the DMCA), but the terrible appeals process when this is applied to a spurious claim.
- jeroenhd 3y agoOh, for sure! The takedown itself must happen immediately because of the unbalanced nature of the DMCA. However, the verification doesn't need to be an automatic system. Google would not be at fault if they took down the page, had someone competent enough investigate the takedown, and then make a decision. The current system doesn't even start a real investigation until you object and even then the investigation isn't exactly thorough.
- RobotToaster 3y agoI do wonder, if you are in Europe, you would have a claim for violation of artists' "moral rights"?*. One of those legal rights is to be published under a pseudonym or anonymously. *I don't think it's something really recognised in the USA.
- pjc50 3y ago> One of those legal rights is to be published under a pseudonym or anonymously. This seems to conflict with German "impressum" requirements https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/websites/digital-law/a-case-for-thinking-global-germanys-impressum-laws/ https://www.ionos.co.uk/digitalguide/websites/digital-law/a-...
- jeroenhd 3y agoAs much as I like the "code is a form of expression so code is art" movement, I don't think that's legally the case.
- 8note 3y agoIsn't "code is art" table stakes for having copyright apply?
- jeroenhd 3y agoI can't speak for any other countries, but here in the Netherlands software doesn't follow the "normal" copyright rules. For example, ripping CDs is perfectly fine but copying software requires permission from the developer. Programmers also can't apply for compensation from the private copy levy (the thing that makes us pay €6 on top of every phone so we can legally use it to play music). This utterly ridiculous special case (as well as the plain corrupt private copy levy) doesn't necessarily exist anywhere else, but it does show that you can't just assume uniformity of copyright law.
- PaulKeeble 3y agoIts more that Google's implementation of the DMCA is broken. They have automated take downs and have a completely broken appeal process. They certainly aren't the only company failing to deal with the DMCA correctly. There are clauses in the DMCA specifically targetted at false claims, if those were enforced we might start to see a change in the system but as is the DMCA is misused too often.
- taneq 3y agoThey don’t get sued for DMCA and they don’t get bothered by disgruntled victims of false positives. Sounds like an absolute win! /s
- ttctciyf 3y ago> They have automated take downs and have a completely broken appeal process Before regulating AI, maybe we should consider regulating Artificial Stupidity.
- passwordoops 3y agoASS! Artificial Stupidity eventS... I'll show myself out
- Matheus28 3y agoWeirdly enough, it’s not automated. I’ve recently submitted a valid DMCA against a play store app (that was simply a web view embedding my app without authorization, claiming it as theirs) and weirdly enough they emailed back saying they will not be acting on it. So now they’ve abandoned their safe harbor and I’ll have to file a claim against Google, instead of them just doing the right thing.
- cultureswitch 3y agoThe DMCA as a law is horribly written. The law is the reason why companies like Google behave the way they do. Change the law to something less retarded and there's a chance fewer problems will occur.
- 4pkjai 3y agoI had an app that was making about $10,000 USD a month. It was taken down by Google because apparently I copied some other developer's iOS app. I asked them to tell me the name of the iOS app they believed I copied. They named the iOS version of my Android app. They basically accused me of copying myself because the Android version was under my company's name while the iOS version was under my name. Google unbanned the app, but sales dropped to $1000 a month. After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only.
- JodieBenitez 3y ago> After that ordeal I decided to build web apps only. Way to go ! Not everything can be a web app right now, but it's getting closer every year.
- busymom0 3y agoWith his finally adding support for web push notifications, I think we are pretty much there already. What else is missing that’s needed for most apps?
- 4pkjai 3y agoI think browser push notifications are considered a bit of a failed standard. Lots of browser's don't support them e.g. iOS browsers.
- manmal 3y agoI haven’t tried iOS PWA push notifications yet, but I was under the impression that they should work similarly to the native ones. I agree that the standard is wonky, but if you develop a PWA with specific iOS polish, it might work well.
- plonk 3y agoIs there a writeup about how they work? Is there a message broker server that the browser stays connected to?
- RobotToaster 3y agoIt's not broken, it's working as intended, giving more power to large corporations.
- Lerinsmooris23 3y agoI think the Developer of the app is frustrated.
- Lerinsmooris23 3y agoI think the Developer of the app is frustrated...
- activiation 3y agoAt least someone is
- babymatics 3y ago[dead]
- alveenasadaf 3y agoyes I agree with you. You are right that the developers still made broken DMCA but we work with protectional team they do not made such mistake.
- DeathArrow 3y agoGovernments should demand open app stores for Android and iOS.
- kwanbix 3y agoCompanies that send DMCA takedowns should be financialy liable for fake/wrong ones. That way, they will take more time to think it trough.
- josephcsible 3y agoRather than a financial penalty, how about this? What if the consequence of a bogus takedown were that the work you own and claimed was being infringed upon immediately and permanently became public domain? (For takedowns where the lie is that you don't actually own copyright of the work you claim, that part is what's supposed to carry the penalty of perjury, so we should just start enforcing that.)
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoThey already are. You're given all the details of the DMCA claimant in the DMCA claim itself, so that you can sue them.
- kwanbix 3y agoI mean that you don't need to sue them. There should be some sort of jury (to call it something) that is not as expensive/slow as a trial.
- 4cao 3y agoI think there might be more to this story. This app is what people generally use to sideload apps on a locked Google TV device such as the Google Chromecast. One such commonly sideloaded app is SmartTube, an unofficial YouTube client with no ads and SponsorBlock included: https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/ https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/ I'm not surprised Google is eager to take it down under any pretext, and not so eager to restore it.
- capableweb 3y agoSo because the application can load a URL that can be loaded in any browser, the application should be banned? Time to ban all browsers then I guess... Besides, Google claimed that the application was collecting email addresses while the app technically couldn't collect email addresses. If they want to ban something, setup proper rules like "No browsers allowed" and then ban the apps under those rules, instead of trying to hide the real reason for the ban.
- 4cao 3y agoI'm not saying what they did was in any way justified, just providing context that seems to be missing from the reporting: to sideload e.g. SmartTube you need an app like this first, and it must be available from the Play Store. Google has an incentive to disrupt this under any pretense as it costs them ad revenue.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- T3RMINATED 3y ago[dead]
- JohnGB 3y agoGoogle's entire process is opaque and open to dodgy behaviour. I had an app which was growing really well with about 5-10k downloads a day growing at about 20% a week and an average rating of 4.8 stars over a few thousand reviews. Suddenly this is tanking overnight and when we look into the data, we have twice as many new uninstalls per day as we do downloads a day. Next to no uninstalls from existing users, no change in the ratings, and no technical outages. It looked like a bot farm was just installing and immediately (as in less than a minute later) uninstalling the app over and over again. Google decided that this meant the app was bad, and we went from position 2-5 for our main keywords to not even in the top 50 overnight. I tried appealing, and tried getting information, but Google did absolutely nothing about it.
- mynonameaccount 3y agoGoogle is also broken
- Rakshith 3y agoWell they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?
- Rakshith 3y agoWell they recently unbanned my youtube/youtube music account too after writing to them a second time, its been about a few months without those accounts. They said it doesnt violate their policies after saying it did the last time. Are there any grounds to sue them for this?
- Liquix 3y agoGrounds to sue? No. A good reason to stop using Google products wherever possible? Yup
- CommanderData 3y agoThis type of behaviour should encourage all users to have a third party app store ecosystem similar to how we have with browsers. Google and Co can't be trusted, just because it's their operating system is a awful argument.
- kbenson 3y agoTo be fair on the second complaint, if the first thing your app does is display a web view of a page that requests an email address (even if just for a mailing list), I might also say a claim that it doesn't collect that information is incorrect. It's too easy to just say the site is unaffiliated because you used a different entity name for the site and circumvent their controls, and it may be unclear to people whether an email address is required for full functionality. The alternative to marking the form to indicate they collect personal information would be to load a different web page by default that doesn't try to collect email addresses. I underatand how when you're mad at a company it can be hard to give the benefit of a doubt about other actions and use that think about them rationally, but I think that's all that was required in the second case.