To be fair, the email included in the OP is not really bellowing. She's politely explaining that she found his contact information inside the documentation distributed with the app, and providing screenshots as proof. I think a simple explanation that the name is included only due to technicalities of copyright law and that there is no direct involvement whatsoever is sufficient. After that reply, there is no need to respond further, and almost all lawyers will immediately understand and refuse to proceed with a case.
It should also be noted that hosting an ecommerce platform is a lot different from being one of the many low-level libraries employed by the application. It's not necessarily unreasonable to expect an ecommerce processor or host to have reasonable fraud detection schemes in place, and it's certainly plausible that some lawyers would consider suing the ecommerce vendor (especially if the company makes money).
This sounds like bellowing. It's borderline blackmail. Help me with my request or else I make sure Facebook knows what a scumbag you are.
The funny thing about this whole story is that she's not contacting him because she thinks he works at Instagram, which would be an understandable misconception, but instead she thinks he's with the hacking team. You have to be completely imbecile to think of villains answering with their real names.
This is what many "average" people do, and people have built businesses and political careers out of this.
-Defensive: Remove links to: "made by"
-Reactive: Handle the situation every time it appears.
-Proactive: See if this represents an opportunity for you and approach the market.
-Not responding.
Edit: format and form.
If you think everyone has to know everything before seeking help, then you are the idiot, sorry.
The woman probably doesn't know what a software is, other than a "Download" button on a website and an icon on the toolbar. Do you expect those people to differentiate between the software and the libraries underneath ?
Of course she doesn't understand, but she doesn't know she doesn't understand. That's the very source of the problem, and assuming they're idiot for not having spent the hundreds of hours necessary to understand what we're talking about is ludicrous.
But the thing is, does the bellower know they don't understand something? Few people are mature enough (especially when angry) to admit they really don't understand something (and this is probably prevalent in software development circles / communities, too)
I don't think these people are dumb, just frustrated. But your phrasing was curious to me.
That is to say: I know what I don't know in the fields that I study/practice in. I don't know what I don't know about the fields I don't.
No, they don't, that's what makes them an idiot.
A non-idiot doesn't have to know everything, but they do need to be aware of what they don't know.
I'd like to hope an "average" person would not gloss over gaps in their knowledge and jump to a hostile conclusion.
In your scenario, say you're the phone company - would you think it reasonable if the customer who called in your example blames you for their having made a call and placed an order, because the phone line must have made the call itself and faked the customer's voice?