Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#51

Post by Tichy » Sun, Jan 24, 2010, 2:23 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #47

Tichy wrote: post #14

"One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar, we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero" The nerve of some people. OK, maybe "avtr" is not all that great, but to think that they'll give you some useless plastic crap (or poisonous coke) and then proceed to make their millions. It just shows how the big corps think about the "normal" people - they are just sheep, or "consum…

it's not like that facebook vanity url is making the millions.

It's just offering the junk that puts me off. Maybe even asking nicely, it would be conceivable to give it away for free. But to pay with junk is demeaning.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#52

Post by radu_floricica » Sun, Jan 24, 2010, 2:42 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #49

radu_floricica wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. It's a better life for the domain to be used for the movie, more people will enjoy it and you get some toys and some bragging rights. It's an URL, not a wife. You can give it up simply if you want to be nice. You don't _have_ to, of course, and that's important, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't if you feel like it.

Shit, I upvoted you by mistake ... now I have to give a response. > Ok, why the poison? Maybe the owner simply wanted to do something cool. So doing something cool means intruding on other people's rights? The threshold must be getting really low these days. Really, people should start paying attention to the online world, and what does "property" mean in such a context. And if your online presence on a social networ…

Thanks for the upvote! ;)

I think we have a misunderstanding here. First thing to clarify, I think, is whether the owner of the "avtr" name gave it up willingly. If he didn't, the discussion it closed: it was at best bullyish. But what I understood from the article is that it was mutual:

> ... but I wanted to explore opportunities to work with you to acquire the name. In the past, we have offered product in exchange for social domain names. One case in mind was for the new movie Avatar , we were able to give promotional items to the owner of twitter.com/avtr for Coke Zero.

I read this as a transaction. Now, the GP is still very very upset. Personally, I think it simply isn't GP's business what the avtr owner did with his domain. It's very much like Richard Stallman berating you rudely in public for buying commercial software. His ideals, just like GP's, should not dictate what one does with his property, time and money. If the GP thinks offering "useless plastic crap" was an offence, he's free to reject such an offer whenever it's made to him. But I do not understand why we should all align to his standards and refuse transactions we may find profitable or charitable or just the right thing to do. Not to mention that a promotional item can easily be anything from a t-shirt to a bike or a car.

Now again, if I misunderstood something I apologize. But I find the GP to be the one trying to push things here, not the big corporation.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#53

Post by ohashi » Sun, Jan 24, 2010, 4:09 PM UTC

qeorge wrote: post #38

ohashi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domain laws are pretty unreliable and disproportionally favor big companies filing complaints. It's a VERY broken system. EDIT: just wanted to add a case, lookup nissan.com

Even better, goto nissan.com. Despite their best efforts, Nissan (the car company) has never been able to get it from its rightful owner. Sounds like the system is working to me.

The guy couldn't use it commercially for many many years. That was one of the better outcomes.

Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International

#54

Post by sailormoon » Mon, Jan 25, 2010, 6:06 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #40

sailormoon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true, but you're omitting the fact that judges routinely order the accusing party in nuisance lawsuits to pay the defendant's costs. $50k is nothing to facebook in the long run, especially since they are quite likely to get it back, and may in fact be worth it to establish a clear precedent in such cases - if such a precedent does not exist already. By caving they are in effect setting their own prece…

> judges routinely order the accusing party in nuisance lawsuits to pay the defendant's costs. That's not so 'routinely' as you think, and these costs are not equal to the actual costs billed by the defendants lawyers. I wished it was, then I could recover a 100K or so from various idiots that sued us over the years. > especially since they are quite likely to get it back, They really likely would not. The judge migh…

Thanks for providing such a comprehensive summary of the "opposing" view. I'm kind of at a stalemate re. how to reply but appreciate your considered responses.