3 ms·

The title is a bit misleading. Tumblr took away a subdomain on their own domain.

by nixme 17y ago

zaidf 17y ago
Only semantically misleading. We've come to expect that if we get a subdomain on a service like tumblr, it becomes ours...if not legally, at least by norm.
- pyre 17y ago
  There is a difference between "come to expect" and "have a right to."
  - sophacles 17y ago
    Just because something is within the rules, does not mean that something is a good practice. In this case I have learned that tumblr is willing to not honor a social norm on my behalf, which means I'll take my business elsewhere.
    - pyre 17y ago
      No doubt. I'm just stating that I feel he may very well be over-stating his case. I agree that information like this is vital in making a decision on whether or not I want to do 'business' with Tumblr.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - zaidf 17y ago
    Strawman. I don't think the OP is rushing to his lawyers, you're putting it to that extreme. Blog post complaining = come to expect Calling up lawyers = have right to
    - pyre 17y ago
      > Strawman Not really. See this: Keep in mind that the word “pitchfork” is not a proprietary name, it is a noun dating back to the year 1364, so they had no legal right to the word or the subdomain.* By talking about how Pitchfork Media has 'no legal right' to the sub-domain, I take that to imply that he's claiming -- at least one some level -- that he does have a legal right to the sub-domain. I may be reading too much between the lines though. He also goes on about other 'rights' that he doesn't have. See: Sadly, I apparently no longer control this image or this information, nor can I exercise my right to remove it from the Internet. I'm pretty sure there is something in the Tumblr Terms of Service that gives them the right to redistribute his material, which would probably shield them in this case. He has no 'right' to 'remove it from the internet,' the best he has is copyright which could be used to prevent distribution.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        They don't have more rights than he does though. And because he got there first probably less.
      - noodle 17y ago
        > By talking about how Pitchfork Media has 'no legal right' to the sub-domain, I take that to imply that he's claiming -- at least one some level -- that he does have a legal right to the sub-domain. i think his point is that they aren't legally entitled to hijack the subdomain name. there was no infringement or impersonation or anything happening. tumblr wasn't put under the legal thumbscrews on this, they coughed it up willingly when asked. that is not a customer-friendly move, and so he is angry about it.
      - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
        >That’s because Tumblr stole my subdomain and gave (sold?) it to Pitchfork Media Inc. Keep in mind that the word “pitchfork” is not a proprietary name, it is a noun dating back to the year 1364, so they had no legal right to the word or the subdomain. It clearly wasn’t a case of impersonation as none of my posts had anything to do with music. If there was some kind of content quality threshold that failed to be met which led to my blog’s demise, then 98% of Tumblr should now be blank. FWIW this is poor reasoning. Whether a word is a noun, in common usage or of great age is not relevant to it's use as a trademark. A trademark has to be distinctive when used to indicate the origin of a specific category goods/services - pitchfork is distinctive in the field of music (I'm not sure which NICE class that would be) and indeed in most fields except farming AFAIK without specific research. The only way to determine if Pitchfork has a legal right to prevent others using this subdomain commercially one must inspect the TM records in the appropriate [geographical] domain. Pitchfork certainly can't demand to use the subdomain but they could prevent its commercial use. I expect this was well within the T&C of Tumblr.
btipling 17y ago
That's also not the original post. It's a post that's been reblogged a bunch of times. I think this might be the original post: http://tumbledore.tumblr.com/post/393030100/tumblr-stole-my-domain-at-the-behest-of-a-corporation http://tumbledore.tumblr.com/post/393030100/tumblr-stole-my-...
terrellm 17y ago
Good point - I've updated the title to indicate subdomain.
hyperbovine 17y ago
You mean "on their own subdomain", right? Subdomains are domains and tumblr.com is a subdomain of com. And com is a subdomain of " " for that matter. RFC 1034. So why misleading?

The title is a bit misleading. Tumblr took away a subdomain on their own domain.

by nixme 17y ago

The title is a bit misleading. Tumblr took away a subdomain on their own domain.

zaidf 17y ago

Only semantically misleading. We've come to expect that if we get a subdomain on a service like tumblr, it becomes ours...if not legally, at least by norm.

pyre 17y ago
There is a difference between "come to expect" and "have a right to."
- sophacles 17y ago
  Just because something is within the rules, does not mean that something is a good practice. In this case I have learned that tumblr is willing to not honor a social norm on my behalf, which means I'll take my business elsewhere.
  - pyre 17y ago
    No doubt. I'm just stating that I feel he may very well be over-stating his case. I agree that information like this is vital in making a decision on whether or not I want to do 'business' with Tumblr.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- zaidf 17y ago
  Strawman. I don't think the OP is rushing to his lawyers, you're putting it to that extreme. Blog post complaining = come to expect Calling up lawyers = have right to
  - pyre 17y ago
    > Strawman Not really. See this: Keep in mind that the word “pitchfork” is not a proprietary name, it is a noun dating back to the year 1364, so they had no legal right to the word or the subdomain.* By talking about how Pitchfork Media has 'no legal right' to the sub-domain, I take that to imply that he's claiming -- at least one some level -- that he does have a legal right to the sub-domain. I may be reading too much between the lines though. He also goes on about other 'rights' that he doesn't have. See: Sadly, I apparently no longer control this image or this information, nor can I exercise my right to remove it from the Internet. I'm pretty sure there is something in the Tumblr Terms of Service that gives them the right to redistribute his material, which would probably shield them in this case. He has no 'right' to 'remove it from the internet,' the best he has is copyright which could be used to prevent distribution.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      They don't have more rights than he does though. And because he got there first probably less.
    - noodle 17y ago
      > By talking about how Pitchfork Media has 'no legal right' to the sub-domain, I take that to imply that he's claiming -- at least one some level -- that he does have a legal right to the sub-domain. i think his point is that they aren't legally entitled to hijack the subdomain name. there was no infringement or impersonation or anything happening. tumblr wasn't put under the legal thumbscrews on this, they coughed it up willingly when asked. that is not a customer-friendly move, and so he is angry about it.
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      >That’s because Tumblr stole my subdomain and gave (sold?) it to Pitchfork Media Inc. Keep in mind that the word “pitchfork” is not a proprietary name, it is a noun dating back to the year 1364, so they had no legal right to the word or the subdomain. It clearly wasn’t a case of impersonation as none of my posts had anything to do with music. If there was some kind of content quality threshold that failed to be met which led to my blog’s demise, then 98% of Tumblr should now be blank. FWIW this is poor reasoning. Whether a word is a noun, in common usage or of great age is not relevant to it's use as a trademark. A trademark has to be distinctive when used to indicate the origin of a specific category goods/services - pitchfork is distinctive in the field of music (I'm not sure which NICE class that would be) and indeed in most fields except farming AFAIK without specific research. The only way to determine if Pitchfork has a legal right to prevent others using this subdomain commercially one must inspect the TM records in the appropriate [geographical] domain. Pitchfork certainly can't demand to use the subdomain but they could prevent its commercial use. I expect this was well within the T&C of Tumblr.

btipling 17y ago

That's also not the original post. It's a post that's been reblogged a bunch of times. I think this might be the original post: http://tumbledore.tumblr.com/post/393030100/tumblr-stole-my-domain-at-the-behest-of-a-corporation http://tumbledore.tumblr.com/post/393030100/tumblr-stole-my-...

terrellm 17y ago

Good point - I've updated the title to indicate subdomain.

hyperbovine 17y ago

You mean "on their own subdomain", right? Subdomains are domains and tumblr.com is a subdomain of com. And com is a subdomain of " " for that matter. RFC 1034. So why misleading?