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

Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

blog.stevepoland.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#41

Post by webwright »

rokhayakebe wrote: post #14
geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at…

Totally disagree... And I believe the law does as well, when it comes to domain names (the best precedent I can think of).

If I bought toyota.com, nissan.com, honda.com, etc when domain names first came available, that doesn't mean I have the rights to keep them unless I had legitimate interests in those domain names that didn't compete with the trademark holder (as was the case in the Nissan.com situation).

Certainly, a lot of people benefited from those early buys, but if they got greedy, they generally got sued (and lost). Even typosquatters have successfully been sued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Trademarks_and_domain...

I've enjoyed some of Steve's writings in the past, but I think he's dead wrong here.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#42

Post by jamiequint »

kragen wrote: post #33
rokhayakebe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at…

“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.” That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that. That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you a…

So Twitter making money by getting the Celtics their @ name is more worthy than letting a guy run fan information using that name? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#43

Post by jamiequint »

I don't understand why most people here are siding with Twitter. Their TOS clearly say that they don't tolerate impersonation, but running a fan account (or even simply holding a Twitter name and not using it) doesn't amount to impersonation. Why should any company automatically be granted the right to their username on any service? Of course Twitter reserves the right to do whatever is best for their business, but stop glorifying Twitter for doing the right thing, they have just as much of an interest in profit as this guy does.

Also, I find it very odd that a community of people who seem to mostly fall on the libertarian/free market side economically have a big problem with domain squatters, or people on Twitter attempting to take advantage of an imperfect market. While I certainly did not like domain squatters when we were searching for company names, I understand why they exist. The market for domain names is not efficient because it values all names at the same price (lsdjhaofiwjleijwa.com costs the same per year to register as google.com) of course this is wrong. Where there is an imperfect market there is usually money to be made, with domains you have domain squatters. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that domains don't tend to lose value so the cost of holding them is very minimal. Its a market, someone is going to make money off of demand. To suppose that domains didn't have monetary value and then they suddenly did when a squatter bought the domain is absurd. They always had value, everyone was just paying below market rate before.

Don't like market pricing? Go back in time to Communist Russia.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#44

Post by jamiequint »

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

Domains and account names all have a market value, to suppose that the value should remain at $0 is to ignore the fact that certain names hold value. I'm not sure how anyone expected that these names would not get taken by people who saw the (pretty obvious) fact that these would become "monetarily valuable at a later date"

Hating domain squatters is the equivalent of disagreeing with free market principles in the domain economy. When things have uneven value and are sold for an even amount (free in the case of Twitter) its not surprising that a market develops to regulate this exchange.

In this example Twitter is the central regulator and can control things in a way that benefits them the most. However, if you think they are any more worthy or have less of a profit motive than this other guy you are simply fooling yourself.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#45

Post by dmv »

webwright wrote: post #40
swombat wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter don't mandate that you have to use your account for personal reasons only, as far as I know. How you use your account is up to you - that's one of Twitter's strengths... every person uses it in their own way. I have no sympathy for domain squatters, but I have no sympathy for domain bullies either. the "Boston Celtics", whoever they are, have as little right to the username "celtics" as this guy. As such, he…

If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names? It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the ef…

Did you pick McDonalds.com because of this?

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html

Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say:

  "Are you finding that the Internet is a 
   big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful 
   McDonald's media-relations person, with
   whom I spoke a short while ago.
Same thing here. 18 months ago, Twitter's namespace was considered worthless. Now Twitter leads to live commentary on cable television, celebrities use it, and companies need a Twitter Strategy.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#46

Post by GHFigs »

jamiequint wrote: post #42
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.” That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that. That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you a…

So Twitter making money by getting the Celtics their @ name is more worthy than letting a guy run fan information using that name? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

The author did not present any evidence that Twitter made money on this. It's only his speculation based on his own valuation of the name.

Since when does Twitter make money anyway?

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#47

Post by Tichy »

geuis wrote: post #2

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS…

In defense of name squatters I have to say it is easy to become a squatter without any evil intentions. if you have any idea for a service, you are practically forced to reserve a name first (or risk investing the effort to implementing it in vain). If then for some reason the implementation is delayed, bingo, you have become a name squatter.

At least the writer of that article sounded as if he was planning genuine services for those names, rather than just hoping to sell the names for profit eventually.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#48

Post by GHFigs »

jamiequint wrote: post #43

I don't understand why most people here are siding with Twitter. Their TOS clearly say that they don't tolerate impersonation, but running a fan account (or even simply holding a Twitter name and not using it) doesn't amount to impersonation. Why should any company automatically be granted the right to their username on any service? Of course Twitter reserves the right to do whatever is best for their business, but s…

I don't believe that you can honestly say that the author's valuation of "celtics" over "bc_fan_news" or any other name does not come from the potential for misidentification and association with the Boston Celtics brand. It may not be the most thorough attempt at deception, but it is reasonable to call that a form of impersonation.

From a "libertarian/free market" perspective, why the hell should I favor the guy who made a stupid mistake in thinking that he owned something that he didn't? Your tangent on domain squatters is irrelevant, given that the rules of each system are completely different. Twitter usernames are not a free market, and it is utterly stupid to have thought that they were.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#49

Post by kragen »

jamiequint wrote: post #42
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.” That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that. That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you a…

So Twitter making money by getting the Celtics their @ name is more worthy than letting a guy run fan information using that name? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.

You fail at reading comprehension.

Re: Evan - Twitter needs a better policy on Usernames

#50

Post by designtofly »

I would advocate a system similar to that used in trademark infringement cases.

From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.

I would say that in this case, the OP's argument fails in just about all of those factors listed above. The true trademark holder has exclusive rights to market their product as they see fit.

Post reply on HN