4 ms·
Right, of course. It can get really hard to tell where the line is, though. For example, multiple for-pay third-party clients for Google Music now exist [0]. P
by simon_weber 13y ago
Right, of course.
It can get really hard to tell where the line is, though. For example, multiple for-pay third-party clients for Google Music now exist [0]. Personally, I think this is still a value-add for Google, but I could understand why some would think it's exploitative.
Another thought experiment: say the unofficial use of the platform originally required a fair amount of reverse engineering. Can the person who figured it out be held responsible for other's abusive behavior?
[0] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gomusic/id457883228 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gomusic/id457883228
- timrogers 13y agoVery interesting point - I'm not sure how best to judge what is exploitative and what isn't. I guess it becomes exploitative if it serious subverts in some way the business model of the original data/service provider. But then I'm not sure still...maybe that is okay if consumers massively benefit from the reverse engineering, and thus overall utility is increased...! What do you think?
- simon_weber 13y agoYeah, I'm not sure myself. Generally, though, I think the situation has interesting parallels to piracy. Companies have many options on how to respond to unofficial use: - cracking down on unofficial users == chasing down pirates - attempting to control unofficial use (probably at the cost of normal usability) == DRM - embracing unofficial users == the "piracy as free marketing" view - viewing unofficial users as a sign of a specific weakness in the product == the "piracy as a service problem" view I suppose that would make the original reverse engineer similar to someone who cracks a game's DRM?