5 ms·

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

83 points by rms 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago
Corporation 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.
- andyking 17y ago
  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. Last time I took out a phone contract, I spent the first few months fielding debt collectors, university tutors and various other people looking for the number's last owner.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Popular guy :) It depends, from country to country and from company to company it changes. The nastiest bit about that is that you end up fielding 'air time' charges in some countries as well. In others you don't pay for incoming calls at all.
- hga 17y ago
  Modification suggested: A corporation that many people feel has something of a "do be evil" attitude does all this. Google's imperfect but still clear bias towards "don't be evil" helps them to avoid poisoning the well; if Facebook maintains its current culture, it might not end up well for them. Victory can be fleeting (e.g. see MySpace).
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I fully agree. Facebook will eventually be supplanted by 'the next facebook', in whatever form it will come. Lots of people disagree with this, but I feel that the root of their demise is in the seed of their origin. You can go a long way on a bad mentality but eventually it will catch up with you. That said I don't think they'll ever die completely, just very slowly wither away while one or more other networks will take its place. I believe facebook does not partake in open social precisely because they are afraid of that. A really good social site has no fears of losing its users and so does not need to lock them in.
bensummers 17y ago
We 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.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  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.
- IsaacL 17y ago
  I agree; I wrote something similar as a comment on the TC post. I really can't see a vanity URL on someone else's site that you got for free is really your property, so all this talk about Facebook 'snatching' it from him is over-dramatic.
- ohashi 17y ago
  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
  - qeorge 17y ago
    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.
    - ohashi 17y ago
      The guy couldn't use it commercially for many many years. That was one of the better outcomes.
BRadmin 17y ago
From 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 $$?
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  Read the article: it's his name. He's not squatting on their trademark!
  - BRadmin 17y ago
    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.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  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 uses 'impersonation' in their terms of service there is no reasonable case that could be made the 'Harman' is trying to impersonate 'Harman International', it is simply his name. 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.
  - BRadmin 17y ago
    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.
Tichy 17y ago
"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 "consumers" as they are called these days.
- joezydeco 17y ago
  Hey, corporations are people too! The Supreme Court said so! Be nice!
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    Actually corporations are more than people. This case is one data point. I can't imagine Harman Int paid facebook so much money to be noticable when it's added to their pile. We (many of us) just assume that a corporation has a right, stronger than an individual, to a name in a medium. If I were human Harman I would have responded to corporate Harman that, thank you very much but facebook has already stolen my name on your behalf, and cc'd the LA Times in the response.
    - joezydeco 17y ago
      I wish the article was more clear on which came first. I was under the impression the friendly email was sent, then the URL was stolen after a short period.
  - indiejade 17y ago
    Actually, the corporation would technically be classified as a "psychopathic person" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684415688278839051&ei=kxhbS5_rMoP8qAOxq9DvAg&q=the+corporation# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684415688278839051&... Documentary is standard movie length, but highly recommended. The readable bytes, if no time to watch: http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2004-03-28-corp_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2004-03-28-corp_...
jvdh 17y ago
"I am thhe emerging media strategist" That's funny, I wonder who is emerging, him or the media. ;)
- mahmud 17y ago
  It was probably a TechCrunch typo, and it has already been corrected.
abdulhaq 17y ago
A bit off topic but Facebook sends fake emails to me, claiming to be from my wife's Facebook account, inviting me to join Facebook. She actually doesn't use her account and only set it up as a test, months ago. I guess they can use paid-for email logs farming the to: and cc:, to associate her to me. Anyone else experienced that?
- brown9-2 17y ago
  Did she ever sign up for the "see email contacts of yours are on facebook" thing?
  - abdulhaq 17y ago
    She might have failed to untick some option when registering I guess - but that wouldn't give FB the right to impersonate her would it? The email said : The following person invited you to be their friend on Facebook: <wife's facebook account name>
mark_l_watson 17y ago
It really just matters what FB's terms and conditions are. Who really owns so-called vanity domains (really, not a domain at all)? Still, if this story is true, this reflects poorly on FB.
MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
Really? This much surprise and outrage? I agree it sucks, but how can we all feign so much surprise at Facebook doing this? They've never pretended to be a good, or even neutral party. Yeah, stupid that they claimed it was a TOS violation, but the whole "our system, our URLs" policy should be pretty clear to anyone who signs up. That's the gamble you take when you put down roots in someone else's system. I just hope that it gives people pause before putting any marketing dollars behind their facebook vanity urls.
d0nk 17y ago
Reminds me of what my last isp did to me with email, to an extent. Every account got 5 email addresses. The default was the bill payer's first initial, last name. I had one of the secondary email addresses of my first initial, last name too. One day, someone with the same first initial and last name as me signed up, and they assigned him my address and removed my access. That was really frustrating since I had that as my primary email account at the time.
nobosh 17y ago
Nice save facebook

83 points by rms 17y ago

Corporation 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.

andyking 17y ago
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. Last time I took out a phone contract, I spent the first few months fielding debt collectors, university tutors and various other people looking for the number's last owner.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Popular guy :) It depends, from country to country and from company to company it changes. The nastiest bit about that is that you end up fielding 'air time' charges in some countries as well. In others you don't pay for incoming calls at all.
hga 17y ago
Modification suggested: A corporation that many people feel has something of a "do be evil" attitude does all this. Google's imperfect but still clear bias towards "don't be evil" helps them to avoid poisoning the well; if Facebook maintains its current culture, it might not end up well for them. Victory can be fleeting (e.g. see MySpace).
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I fully agree. Facebook will eventually be supplanted by 'the next facebook', in whatever form it will come. Lots of people disagree with this, but I feel that the root of their demise is in the seed of their origin. You can go a long way on a bad mentality but eventually it will catch up with you. That said I don't think they'll ever die completely, just very slowly wither away while one or more other networks will take its place. I believe facebook does not partake in open social precisely because they are afraid of that. A really good social site has no fears of losing its users and so does not need to lock them in.

bensummers 17y ago

We 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.

jacquesm 17y ago
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.
IsaacL 17y ago
I agree; I wrote something similar as a comment on the TC post. I really can't see a vanity URL on someone else's site that you got for free is really your property, so all this talk about Facebook 'snatching' it from him is over-dramatic.
ohashi 17y ago
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
- qeorge 17y ago
  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.
  - ohashi 17y ago
    The guy couldn't use it commercially for many many years. That was one of the better outcomes.

BRadmin 17y ago

From 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 $$?

ComputerGuru 17y ago
Read the article: it's his name. He's not squatting on their trademark!
- BRadmin 17y ago
  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.
jacquesm 17y ago
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 uses 'impersonation' in their terms of service there is no reasonable case that could be made the 'Harman' is trying to impersonate 'Harman International', it is simply his name. 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.
- BRadmin 17y ago
  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.

Tichy 17y ago

"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 "consumers" as they are called these days.

joezydeco 17y ago
Hey, corporations are people too! The Supreme Court said so! Be nice!
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  Actually corporations are more than people. This case is one data point. I can't imagine Harman Int paid facebook so much money to be noticable when it's added to their pile. We (many of us) just assume that a corporation has a right, stronger than an individual, to a name in a medium. If I were human Harman I would have responded to corporate Harman that, thank you very much but facebook has already stolen my name on your behalf, and cc'd the LA Times in the response.
  - joezydeco 17y ago
    I wish the article was more clear on which came first. I was under the impression the friendly email was sent, then the URL was stolen after a short period.
- indiejade 17y ago
  Actually, the corporation would technically be classified as a "psychopathic person" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684415688278839051&ei=kxhbS5_rMoP8qAOxq9DvAg&q=the+corporation# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-684415688278839051&... Documentary is standard movie length, but highly recommended. The readable bytes, if no time to watch: http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2004-03-28-corp_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/2004-03-28-corp_...

jvdh 17y ago

"I am thhe emerging media strategist" That's funny, I wonder who is emerging, him or the media. ;)

mahmud 17y ago
It was probably a TechCrunch typo, and it has already been corrected.

abdulhaq 17y ago

A bit off topic but Facebook sends fake emails to me, claiming to be from my wife's Facebook account, inviting me to join Facebook. She actually doesn't use her account and only set it up as a test, months ago. I guess they can use paid-for email logs farming the to: and cc:, to associate her to me. Anyone else experienced that?

brown9-2 17y ago
Did she ever sign up for the "see email contacts of yours are on facebook" thing?
- abdulhaq 17y ago
  She might have failed to untick some option when registering I guess - but that wouldn't give FB the right to impersonate her would it? The email said : The following person invited you to be their friend on Facebook: <wife's facebook account name>

mark_l_watson 17y ago

It really just matters what FB's terms and conditions are. Who really owns so-called vanity domains (really, not a domain at all)? Still, if this story is true, this reflects poorly on FB.

MicahWedemeyer 17y ago

Really? This much surprise and outrage? I agree it sucks, but how can we all feign so much surprise at Facebook doing this? They've never pretended to be a good, or even neutral party. Yeah, stupid that they claimed it was a TOS violation, but the whole "our system, our URLs" policy should be pretty clear to anyone who signs up. That's the gamble you take when you put down roots in someone else's system. I just hope that it gives people pause before putting any marketing dollars behind their facebook vanity urls.

d0nk 17y ago

Reminds me of what my last isp did to me with email, to an extent. Every account got 5 email addresses. The default was the bill payer's first initial, last name. I had one of the secondary email addresses of my first initial, last name too. One day, someone with the same first initial and last name as me signed up, and they assigned him my address and removed my access. That was really frustrating since I had that as my primary email account at the time.

nobosh 17y ago

Nice save facebook