Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

pitchfork.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#21

Post by pyre »

codexon wrote: post #12
jackowayed wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not a resolution. Tumblr's response ( http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchf... ) totally contradicts it.

There is only 1 contradiction: the part about notifying the original owner through email. There is really no way to verify this since the screenshot of the email may have been forged. The part about having 0 posts was explained by Meaghan all the way at the bottom of the page. The RSS feed shows deleted posts. I found this comment thread amusing though. http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchf...

> The part about having 0 posts was explained by Meaghan all the way at the bottom of the page. The RSS feed shows deleted posts.

The screenshots that Pitchfork Media posted would have to be RSS screenshots because that is the only place that you can access the old posts right now, no? Pitchfork Media had no reason to screenshot the old pitchfork.tumblr.com before this whole drama-fest started.

I think that it's telling that Pitchfork Media also dealt with a 'Megan' (the same person?). To me, it's equally likely that this Meaghan was the person that deleted the account and turned it over to Pitchfork Media, and now she's trying to cover her ass by saying that the person was notified, and that the blog was completely empty. Has she really stated anything that could not be a lie on her part? This whole thing looks like it could just be a he-said-she-said deal.

[edit] The best I can come up with is this:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:HRNL2z4fQcwJ:pitchfork....

The Google cache for his last blog post was fetch on Nov 24.

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#22

Post by pyre »

I can see why Tumblr though it was abandoned:

From March 14, 2009:

  DON'T FOLLOW ME

  I AM NOT A REAL TUMBLE BLOG, I AM USED AS A FILTER
  SINCE TUMBLR TOOK AWAY MY REAL FILTER.
From Nov 18, 2009:

  I Have Found The Tumblr Filter

  This Filter is Obsolete
How can this guy claim (with a straight face) that he was actually using this as a blog, when he has posts on the blog explicitly stating that it is not a blog?

Personally, I think there is enough blame to go around:

* Meaghan is probably trying to cover her ass because she over-stepped herself in removing this blog without notification to the user because she though it was abandoned.

* Tumbldore is just using this to generate drama and publicity. It's also possible that Tumbldore is just a giant troll that had this whopper of a piece of bait dumped onto his lap, so now he's just going to milk it for all it's worth.

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#23

Post by nopal »

tdm911 wrote: post #10

The original owner of pitchfork.tumblr.com has his own response with a screenshot of an email from Tumblr stating that they didn't ask him before reassigning it: http://tumbledore.tumblr.com/post/393276231/this-is-in-respo...

From Tumblr's TOS: "Tumblr reserves the right to remove any Subscriber Content from the Site, suspend or terminate Subscriber’s right to use the Services at any time, or pursue any other remedy or relief available to Tumblr and/or the Site under equity or law, for any reason...or for no reason at all."

Just because they can, does it mean they should have? It doesn't seem like a fair assumption that the account is abandoned if there are a few posts form the past year, especially when Tumblr didn't contact the user (assuming they did not).

It sucks, but you get what you pay for.

I can't say that the original owner has made the best case for himself. Throwing around terms like "libel" and "exercise my right" is off-putting and makes it hard to empathize with him.

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#25

Post by jasonlotito »

andymoe wrote: post #15

It sound like they did not try very hard to contact anyone, this is pretty bad even from a free service. If this was a facebook or google doinging this there would be a huge shitstorm from you guys.

When the user says he isn't using the URL anymore, and tells people not to use it... that's pretty definitive in my mind.

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#26

Post by sounddust »

codexon wrote: post #12
jackowayed wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not a resolution. Tumblr's response ( http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchf... ) totally contradicts it.

There is only 1 contradiction: the part about notifying the original owner through email. There is really no way to verify this since the screenshot of the email may have been forged. The part about having 0 posts was explained by Meaghan all the way at the bottom of the page. The RSS feed shows deleted posts. I found this comment thread amusing though. http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchf...

Well, Pitchfork claimed that the subdomain was handed over by tumblr 10 minutes after their inquiry. That would imply that it would have been impossible for tumblr to have sent a "72-hour notice" mail.

Also, it appears that the person was actively using the account as a filter (following people and reading news), so the "inactive" part seems to be a contradiction as well.

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#27

Post by jmm »

Yeah, I can't say I feel all that sorry for this guy. He got his 15 minutes of HN fame, if that's what he was after.

This is a more interesting to me as a Pitchfork copyright/trademark issue: http://pitchforked.com/ (Context here: http://twitter.com/zachklein/status/9188476155 )

I hope the guy doesn't get the smackdown after just building the site, but who knows. (A lawyer knows.)

Re: Response from Pitchfork Regarding Tumblr Subdomain

#29

Post by [deleted] »

sounddust wrote: post #26
codexon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only 1 contradiction: the part about notifying the original owner through email. There is really no way to verify this since the screenshot of the email may have been forged. The part about having 0 posts was explained by Meaghan all the way at the bottom of the page. The RSS feed shows deleted posts. I found this comment thread amusing though. http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchf...

Well, Pitchfork claimed that the subdomain was handed over by tumblr 10 minutes after their inquiry. That would imply that it would have been impossible for tumblr to have sent a "72-hour notice" mail. Also, it appears that the person was actively using the account as a filter (following people and reading news), so the "inactive" part seems to be a contradiction as well.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN