Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
1–10 of 54 posts
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#2Corporation puts bottom line ahead of its users.
Color me surprised, really I am totally stunned.
The reason the phone company can't use your phone number the minute you cancel your contract is so that there will not be a large number of people dialing that number and getting someone else than the one they expect.
Since 'the real Harman' has probably done more than his share to promote this particular URL he's not only screwed out of his vanity url, he also has spent time and effort promoting it.
After a t.o.s. violation that kills an account that account should simply be declared 'dead', at least for a significant amount of time.
Re-sale or re-use should be expressly forbidden.
And t.o.s. violations should always be accompanied by the specific rule in the t.o.s. that has been breached.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#3We already have a good system for establishing identity on the internet. They're called domain names, and they have reasonable ownership semantics and established case law.
I have no idea why anyone thinks it's a good idea to use a URL on someone's platform with ToS allowing arbitrary revocation and reassignment.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#4From FB's ToS regarding usernames:
If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name).
As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#5From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
Read the article: it's his name. He's not squatting on their trademark!
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#6From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities:
- facebook has indeed sold the name
- facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names
(they may have been threatened to be sued, but then they should
have simply stood up for their users).
Facebook is first and foremost a site for PEOPLE, not companies so the rights of users should always go before the rights of incorporated entities.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#7From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
Read the article: it's his name . He's not squatting on their trademark!
Where did I say he was?
I just quoted the ToS and tangentially remarked that, despite the articles title, I couldn't find any evidence that Harman International actually paid Facebook.
I edited to avoid ambiguity.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#8We already have a good system for establishing identity on the internet. They're called domain names, and they have reasonable ownership semantics and established case law. I have no idea why anyone thinks it's a good idea to use a URL on someone's platform with ToS allowing arbitrary revocation and reassignment.
Because they use that platform ?
Of course they don't 'have to' as in nobody is holding a gun to their head but if the terms of service have been lived by (and I don't see anything that this guy has done to cross the rules, except that his parents named him 'Harman') then he should have a reasonable expectation of being able to use it.
If he had named his vanity domain 'harman international' and his real name was 'John Smith' I could see the point but in this case in my opinion they are simply plain wrong.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#9From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
It looks to be pretty circumstantial, but the fact that Harman International contacted 'Harman' to try to persuade him to turn it over 'voluntarily' in return for some beads and mirrors, and that within a very short time after that his vanity url is taken back leaves open only two possibilities: - facebook has indeed sold the name - facebook gives trademark law preference over personal names (they may have been threa…
I'm going with the latter. They offer a guy some free swag, so they must have come up with enough dough to pay-off FB to do the deed for them?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but based on just that I don't see how TC can run such a headline... FB's actions being deplorable or not.
Re: Facebook Snatches User’s Vanity URL And Sells It To Harman International
#10From FB's ToS regarding usernames: If you select a username for your account we reserve the right to remove or reclaim it if we believe appropriate (such as when a trademark owner complains about a username that does not closely relate to a user's actual name). As an aside, where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
where is evidence that shows (or even suggests) that Facebook actually sold the URL for $$?
Any hard evidence will be on private email servers and we may never see it. But the fact of the confiscation and reallocation is obvious; it is its own evidence.
Whether or not money actually changed hands or whether it was part of some quid pro quo arrangement or whatever is kind of besides the point. Obviously FB is getting something out of the deal, or it wouldn't have done it. Either way the user is getting screwed.