18 ms·

Prince Harry and Meghan took my Instagram name

143 points by shivinski 8y ago

ct0 8y ago
This goes to show that "your" handle on someone else's platform is never really yours. The only thing that can not be taken away from you is a domain name. Start hosting your voice via your own domain.
- kgwxd 8y ago
  I'm pretty sure there are many real world examples of domain names being taken.
  - anonymousiam 8y ago
    One of the more famous examples was Mike Rowe's domain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
    - Jorge1o1 8y ago
      Hilarious! They gave him an xbox and some cash.
    - kgwxd 8y ago
      I remember that, forgot about it, and now that you reminded me, hoped it turned out to be Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs. Alas, it is not.
  - glvn 8y ago
    Domains are a whole different ball game thought, I've seen instances of domain names being seized for legal reasons (ie FBI seizing domains of torrent sites), but if the UK govt wanted to seize say sussexroyal.com (which btw is available on GoDaddy right now or a cool $70), that would be a much bigger ordeal of going through ICANN vs just "asking" Instagram He mentioned that he was able to keep his twitter handle and that's most likely because Twitter doesn't pull this sort of shit. I remember a few years back Israel wanted to the twitter handle "@israel" for their official twitter account, asked twitter and they would not hand it over from the original user. I think they ended up paying the original user something like $500k for the handle, which IMO was a damn good deal for the user.
    - ValentineC 8y ago
      > I think they ended up paying the original user something like $500k for the handle, which IMO was a damn good deal for the user. I've always wondered such deals could just be bait for a user to violate the Twitter terms of service, and therefore free the username up for others to use.
- smnrchrds 8y ago
  Domain names can be taken away too, especially ccTLDs. It is harder to seize a domain, but as we have seen time and time again with TPB, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks, etc. you can lose your domain if entities with enough power and influence want it seized.
  - oarsinsync 8y ago
    I'm not sure that 'especially' applies to ccTLDs any more than gTLDs. Especially since most (all?) gTLDs are covered by the same jurisdiction as the .us ccTLD.
    - tankenmate 8y ago
      Actually gTLDs are restricted by their contract with ICANN (registry agreement (RA), search google for "ICANN RA"). ccTLDs however merely give lip service to domain registration norms, but as there is no contract beyond "this registry is yours to run" ccTLDs have far more leeway (public pressure sometimes withstanding) to do as they please. It is for reasons similar to this that a fair number of ccTLDs don't run EPP for example (running an EPP service is a requirement in the gTLD contract). EDIT: further explanation of the gTLD registry agreement
      - oarsinsync 8y ago
        In the context of accidental domain loss / attempted hijacking, absolutely agree on all of your points. In the case of "entities with enough power and influence", I don't think any of the ICANN RA requirements make gTLDs any less likely to being seized than any ccTLDs.
      - ValentineC 8y ago
        I'm sceptical of ccTLDs mostly because of how the Libyan government killed a domain shortener for linking to porn sites in 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-libya https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-lib... Heck, I own a .sg domain, and I don't trust the Singapore government to not overreact if I published anything politically sensitive on it.
- caprese 8y ago
  Forget the ToS and sue for damages. That account had value and this is a poor business practice. Courts award value and the damages are to make a point that its a bad practice if the judge/regulator finds it disturbing. Assuming that the judge / consumer regulator will say "well but you clicked I agree" is a bad assumption, ESPECIALLY when European countries are involved. the company is just as likely to axe that contract logic and just lean on their severability clause to keep the rest of the contract without self-granting the ability to reassign accounts. Instagram would be in a better place if it generally brokered and escrowed account trading on its platform, and took a fee from that.
  - ovao 8y ago
    The user still has the account, just with a different handle.
    - joering2 8y ago
      “You honor, the mortage owner still has a house, just in a different district.”, said bank representative.
    - caprese 8y ago
      the handle was valuable in this instance in other instances the follower and engagement to the userID is valuable in other instances a combination of all three is valuable
- jakejarvis 8y ago
  I have to agree that it's the better option. Certainly not a 100% fail-safe solution – I see people already listing domains that were seized for various inexcusable reasons – but the Nissan.com case [0] (Nissan the car company vs. Mr. Nissan the run-of-the-mill computer sales guy) comes to mind as a classic (and fascinating) counterexample. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Compu...
  - adventured 8y ago
    Madonna Ciccone famously thefted the Madonna.com domain away from Dan Parisi on the ridiculous basis that she somehow magically had a deserving claim on the domain due to her trademark of "Madonna" related to "entertainment services and related goods." https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d200...
    - jakejarvis 8y ago
      Yikes. Like I said, domains are still far from fail-safe. The Madonna theft was almost 20 years ago, when trademarks seem to have reigned supreme in court, so hopefully more judges are better informed today and know this is unacceptable and not how the internet operates anymore... ...but I am often told I'm too optimistic.
    - ABCLAW 8y ago
      >The only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain. That purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. Trademark Law. >[...] In the Sting decision there was evidence that the Respondent had made bona fide use of the name Sting prior to obtaining the domain name registration and there was no indication that he was seeking to trade on the good will of the well-known singer. >Because the evidence shows a deliberate attempt by Respondent to trade on Complainant's fame for commercial purposes, we find that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. She got the domain because he couldn't bring up a single non-Madonna-the-Singer reason for plopping $20,000 down to buy the domain.
- sbr464 8y ago
  A domain name can be taken away. Check the Terms & Conditions for most country related domains, but specifically the newly popular ones: .io, .ai, .al, etc. they specifically mention if not being used they can revoke. > All registered domains must be set in use within one year, otherwise the .AL Registry has the right to suspend them.
- ddalex 8y ago
  The unfortunate owner of Nissan.com would like a word.
joekrill 8y ago
We may not have the full story here, but it doesn't seem like Instagram is disputing that they simply took it. I don't see anyone suggesting that they even attempted to contact the guy first. Outrageously poor way to handle things. Also, at what point does an Instagram account become "inactive"?
- 6xggd7 8y ago
  And what were they going to tell the guy? It's not like they were going to give him a choice, or offer him restitution. Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS' handle be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his being POTUS, but you get the idea).
  - joekrill 8y ago
    You're suggesting that there is no other appropriate handle they could have come up with beyond "sussexroyal"? And beyond that, what gives one person the right more than any other to a particular handle? Even with your POTUS example. So yes, I think they should have at least asked first and tried to resolve it amicably.
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Are you saying that if another Pavel Lishin ascends to the office of U.S. President, you'd support him just being able to take away my Twitter handle?
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS' handle be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his being POTUS, but you get the idea). I actually find this a charming reminder of the old days of the web. there's a certain populist quality to the idea that no one is important enough to snatch a particular username that some commoner took first. I agree situations like @realdonaldtrump are kind of silly, but it doesn't hurt anyone. anyone who actually has a large audience has a verified account so there's little doubt regarding who actually controls it. that said, we really do need a responsible way to reclaim truly inactive accounts without enabling "reset my password via email" type attacks.
hervature 8y ago
Typo in title: should be Prince not Price
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  “Price” is far more fitting.
pavlov 8y ago
So I guess you don't have any ownership over a URL path component on somebody else's server when you're not even paying for that hosting. Not particularly surprising...
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Okay, I guess everyone should just shut up and not have any opinion on the matter then. Just because they can do this does not mean people cannot criticize it or find it reprehensible. Is it surprising that people don't approve of this?
yial 8y ago
I remember reading about this in their TOS years ago... I think they normally outline in under taking away names to give to rightful owners. (If you’re name is @apple for example ). This seems like a poorly handled extension of that power. But- truly just an example of how your use, data, name, etc on these services is really just at their whim.
- UweSchmidt 8y ago
  Who would the "rightful owner" of @apple be? Maybe the one who registered it in the first place? Or does that old instinct of defering to power make you want to give in to the presumptuous request of a large entity?
  - benatkin 8y ago
    The word apple has other meanings besides Apple, Inc, but it is a registered trademark in the USA. Since instagram is based in the USA, it's pretty clear that Apple, Inc is the rightful owner. Whether or not they should have a trademark on such a common word is a separate question.
    - UweSchmidt 8y ago
      This is absolutely not clear. How does someone who has @apple and posts pictures of apples infringe on Apple, Inc's trademark?
      - benatkin 8y ago
        I didn't say that they would be infringing on Apple, Inc's trademark and I don't think that. I only think that in disputed ownership, based on instagram's purpose of providing a communication platform, the rightful owner would be Apple, Inc, not someone who happened to register it first. And they have a way of determining who the rightful owner, to them, is. Clearly the definition of rightful owner isn't universal, nor is it 100% consistently determined, but a process can be made for determining it. Here's an example: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/faqs https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/...
Raphmedia 8y ago
> "I thought 'What's that all about?' He said 'Look on Instagram' so I looked on Instagram and suddenly my handle wasn't @sussexroyal anymore it was @_sussexroyal_ They could have at least explained the situation to that person and allow them to choose a new handle. I would be furious if my handle suddenly had "_" as prefix and suffix. What next, "@xXxsussexroyalxXx"?
fargo 8y ago
Love the typo, I guess everything can be bought for a price.
larrik 8y ago
> What I'm trying to do is keep tweeting therefore they can't take it if it's active. Good luck with that, Twitter has a long history of taking handles on behalf of brands and celebrities...
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  Even for visibly active ones? Any reference or example?
geuis 8y ago
Twitter did the same thing to me a few years back. I registered @machinima back in 2006 or so and would semi frequently post links to interesting machinima videos I liked. After a couple of years I stopped posting for a while and I guess you could consider the account “inactive” even though my Twitter client was authenticated and checked it daily for activity via api (or so I thought). A few years ago I went to post something and found I couldn’t log in. Never got an email about it or any form of contact. They just up and gave my account to the machinima.com company.
- newsgremlin 8y ago
  Have you tried getting it back now that machinima.com is defunct (albeit much like the original content that got them off the ground)? I think rooster teeth probably don't want to be associated with that brand anyway.
clra 8y ago
Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] instead, and except for a few posts he made from the exciting run in the last 24 hours, he hadn't tweeted since 2013. I don't think they did a bad thing here — it's their platform, and they have some incentive to encourage a more lively and current community. Although it seems minor, one facet of this might be to help big users reclaim better names from the huge pool of defunct ones out there, especially given that Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. --- [1] https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ [2] https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/ https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/
- yashap 8y ago
  Yeah, zero posts and doesn’t even have a profile pic. It’s a dead account, I don’t have much of an issue with Instagram’s policy to “steal” handles on accounts like this.
  - RandallBrown 8y ago
    Or maybe he just likes photos and follows his nephews or something.
    - lightgreen 8y ago
      Not choosing sides but have to say that he can still do that with his old now renamed account.
- drb91 8y ago
  > encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.
NickBusey 8y ago
Meanwhile, I've been emailing Instagram yearly for many years now trying to gain control of an account that has had 1 post and 15 followers for YEARS now, that is squatting on an account name that is the same name as a registered LTD that I actually own and use. Crickets.
- sudosu- 8y ago
  Try signing your email with: His Royal Highness Duke of HN NickBusey. You never know.
vamos_davai 8y ago
Their platform, their voice. It's not part of public domain. Unreasonable outrage from the HN crowd.
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Just because you can do something does not make acceptable to all people. What you are talking about is essentially moral relativism. Most people see that as dubious. Just because one entity sees something as right does not make it objectively right. Can Instagram do this? Yes. Should everyone be okay with it in virtue of that ability? That comes down to personal opinion.
anonoholic 8y ago
The daft thing is there are plenty of alternative names they could have taken, that are genuinely idle accounts, and arguably better names: sussexroyals (there are two of them after all) thesussexroyals (more grammatically correct) thesussexes (as they are commonly referred to in the press) harryandmeghan (has only posted once since Dec 2017) meghanandharry (ladies first!) and so on...
- djhworld 8y ago
  I'd imagine the Prince's staff contacted Instagram to talk about having an account set up, and maybe suggested the name. Instagram people were probably star struck, and salivating at the idea of _millions_ of eyeballs and media interest on the site, that they pretty much waived anything through. I'd imagine a lot of the top brass at companies would do anything for a slice of celebrity/royal action, it's a gold mine and worth a lot more to them than some peon from Reading who just lurks.
notatoad 8y ago
The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Is this even that negative PR? They're probably going to get more people going "oooh Prince Harry and Meghan are on Instagram I should follow them" than being outraged and quitting
  - eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
    I don’t think it will fall on them, nor should it, they probably had no idea this was going to happen. It’s Instagram’s responsibility either way. They could have said “pick another name or we can nicely ask the current owner for that one.”
    - skinnymuch 8y ago
      They is referring to the Prince and Meghan, correct? They have to know by now what happpened. They can give the name back. Or not use it at the very least. Otherwise why shouldn’t it fall on them? Not knowing beforehand isn’t an excuse to go along with it now.
  - notatoad 8y ago
    I guess what I'm saying is if they aren't worried about the optics of it or don't consider this bad PR, why not take a better name?
    - skinnymuch 8y ago
      Could be that other ones have visible activity?
IronCoderXYZ 8y ago
I deleted Instagram a few weeks ago, one of the best decisions I've made.
covercash 8y ago
A while back, an Instagram employee stole the handle from my buddy’s wife. The only reason he got it back was because he had enough clout in the design community that he was able to get some press about it: https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-change-5c546662abc0 https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-change-5c54...
- mindslight 8y ago
  Github yanked away my 4 character username to hand it over to some hipster startup. My account was 10 years old, no published repos, but consistent other activity. I don't have the desire nor the connections stir up a twitrage, but I'll certainly make their behavior known on HN. These companies point to "inactivity", yet there is never any attempt to contact beforehand. The policy is merely a thin justification to do whatever the heck they want to suit corporate or personal employee whims. That's SaaS (Surveillance as a Sharecropper) for ya.
- alaskamiller 8y ago
  Josh Williams had a startup bought, became a tech exec at Facebook, and hijacked my two letter instagram name that I had since 2012 because he wanted the vanity of @jw on every thing he can get his grubby hands on. Thanks a lot Josh Williams you thief: http://instagram.com/jw http://instagram.com/jw
- flycaliguy 8y ago
  I had a two letter tumblr URL that got two serious corporate requests for purchase, including one from a huge European telecommunications company. I always counter offered a crazy high number to test their budget. Both times they thanked me for the response and moved on. I had a couple tumblr employees following me, cool people. I even had the founder “like” a couple of my posts. My sense was that there wasn’t an avenue open to poach a day-one user like me. This was all pre-yahoo. Eventually, when I was done with the site more or less, I put out a feeler for a buyer and made a quick buck. That buyer I think tried to sell it themselves and it ended up shuttered. Good times. Tumblr had a fun niche art community at the time and my “tumblr fame” helped me network with some interesting people.
pytyper2 8y ago
That family has been stealing from the plebs for hundreds of years, why is this newsworthy?
some1else 8y ago
Not cool, but nothing new. Distrokid was blatant enough to brag about it in his newsletter in 2017. I sent a polite email voicing my concerns, but I never received more than the auto-reply. Distrokid email: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-email.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-email.png?d... My reply: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-reply.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-reply.png?d...
brudgers 8y ago
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php
jcomis 8y ago
It's well known that if you know people at Instagram you can highjack almost any handle. There is plenty of stories out there documenting the theft of prime handles like @firstname or 3 character handles.
mindcrime 8y ago
Fuck royalty. The whole idea is stupid. Actually, as far as that goes, fuck "celebrity worship" in general, royal or otherwise. IMO, too many people spend too much time worrying about what some "famous" twit is doing.
- 14 8y ago
  You and me both can sit and here and wait and see if they break up and chew on their shared instagram name. I wish them the best but to me they are just another celebrity couple and any moment could stop enjoying each other.
sbr464 8y ago
Somewhat related, I find it unusual that a lot of SaaS companies get you to choose a subdomain during the trial signup process. Sometimes I just want to try out a service and kind of feel bad squatting on a somewhat premium subdomain so easily. I’m launching a product soon and it made me think about different ways to handle this, especially wrt to shorter (more premium), and trademark/brand related names.
drKarl 8y ago
We should be pushing for decentralized self-sovereign identity to become mainstream
drefanzor 8y ago
This isn't uncommon. Twitter is another prime example. Their "rules" state that you cannot (since 2009) make a three letter handle in your username, and yet @AOC was able to acquire hers. I don't have any problem with this but it does bring up the fact that there seems to be certain people able to skirt the rules because of "who they are". What about famous people getting verified on Twitter when the verification program was supposedly halted? It goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is "money talks".
- dkrich 8y ago
  When the incentives align they will surely bend the rules. It's in Instagram's and Twitter's interest to have the royal family and high profile politicians, respectively, active, happy, and easy to find.
bambax 8y ago
You own nothing. You are nothing. In the 90s, Mr. Nissan was able to fight and keep nissan.com. That feels like a thousand years ago. Now everything is governed by private "policies" that amount to "we can do anything we want". I don't like the new world at all.
- moate 8y ago
  Old world sucked too and had shittier wifi.
- skinnymuch 8y ago
  Hasn’t Mr, Nissan spent a ton of money fighting? It’s great that it was and is an option for domains sometimes. But 99% of the time, you’re not going to be able to fight anyway.
OrgNet 8y ago
Someone made an offer on sussexroyal.com yet? it look available...
microtherion 8y ago
Droit du seigneur for the internet age.
throwawaymanbot 8y ago
I'm not sure if anyone is au fait with British Royalty, but taking things that don't belong to them is what they do and have done throughout history.
papermill 8y ago
I called this "legal" theft, but the law doesn't apply to "royals". The sad thing is that people like little harry and meghan aren't people anyone should be looking up to or even paying attention to. But the propagandists and the elites sure love the power they wield over the weak minded individuals. It's 2019 and there are actual idiots fawning over "royalty". It's absurd. Especially considering their marriage is a creation of a PR firm.
abductee_hg 8y ago
just imagine what the world would look like if everyone(private person or company) exercised all the things they can lawfully do at all times.
cwkoss 8y ago
The concept of royalty in 2019 is so repugnant. Fuck the crown and their hundreds of years of theft from the people.
jocoda 8y ago
No guilty party in this tale. But don't see how you can now use that name without having some social justice warrior somewhere foaming at the mouth with righteous indignation.
abductee_hg 8y ago
wow, what a dick-move - even by fb-standards.

143 points by shivinski 8y ago

ct0 8y ago

This goes to show that "your" handle on someone else's platform is never really yours. The only thing that can not be taken away from you is a domain name. Start hosting your voice via your own domain.

kgwxd 8y ago
I'm pretty sure there are many real world examples of domain names being taken.
- anonymousiam 8y ago
  One of the more famous examples was Mike Rowe's domain. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
  - Jorge1o1 8y ago
    Hilarious! They gave him an xbox and some cash.
  - kgwxd 8y ago
    I remember that, forgot about it, and now that you reminded me, hoped it turned out to be Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs. Alas, it is not.
- glvn 8y ago
  Domains are a whole different ball game thought, I've seen instances of domain names being seized for legal reasons (ie FBI seizing domains of torrent sites), but if the UK govt wanted to seize say sussexroyal.com (which btw is available on GoDaddy right now or a cool $70), that would be a much bigger ordeal of going through ICANN vs just "asking" Instagram He mentioned that he was able to keep his twitter handle and that's most likely because Twitter doesn't pull this sort of shit. I remember a few years back Israel wanted to the twitter handle "@israel" for their official twitter account, asked twitter and they would not hand it over from the original user. I think they ended up paying the original user something like $500k for the handle, which IMO was a damn good deal for the user.
  - ValentineC 8y ago
    > I think they ended up paying the original user something like $500k for the handle, which IMO was a damn good deal for the user. I've always wondered such deals could just be bait for a user to violate the Twitter terms of service, and therefore free the username up for others to use.
smnrchrds 8y ago
Domain names can be taken away too, especially ccTLDs. It is harder to seize a domain, but as we have seen time and time again with TPB, Sci-Hub, Wikileaks, etc. you can lose your domain if entities with enough power and influence want it seized.
- oarsinsync 8y ago
  I'm not sure that 'especially' applies to ccTLDs any more than gTLDs. Especially since most (all?) gTLDs are covered by the same jurisdiction as the .us ccTLD.
  - tankenmate 8y ago
    Actually gTLDs are restricted by their contract with ICANN (registry agreement (RA), search google for "ICANN RA"). ccTLDs however merely give lip service to domain registration norms, but as there is no contract beyond "this registry is yours to run" ccTLDs have far more leeway (public pressure sometimes withstanding) to do as they please. It is for reasons similar to this that a fair number of ccTLDs don't run EPP for example (running an EPP service is a requirement in the gTLD contract). EDIT: further explanation of the gTLD registry agreement
    - oarsinsync 8y ago
      In the context of accidental domain loss / attempted hijacking, absolutely agree on all of your points. In the case of "entities with enough power and influence", I don't think any of the ICANN RA requirements make gTLDs any less likely to being seized than any ccTLDs.
    - ValentineC 8y ago
      I'm sceptical of ccTLDs mostly because of how the Libyan government killed a domain shortener for linking to porn sites in 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-libya https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/oct/08/bitly-lib... Heck, I own a .sg domain, and I don't trust the Singapore government to not overreact if I published anything politically sensitive on it.
caprese 8y ago
Forget the ToS and sue for damages. That account had value and this is a poor business practice. Courts award value and the damages are to make a point that its a bad practice if the judge/regulator finds it disturbing. Assuming that the judge / consumer regulator will say "well but you clicked I agree" is a bad assumption, ESPECIALLY when European countries are involved. the company is just as likely to axe that contract logic and just lean on their severability clause to keep the rest of the contract without self-granting the ability to reassign accounts. Instagram would be in a better place if it generally brokered and escrowed account trading on its platform, and took a fee from that.
- ovao 8y ago
  The user still has the account, just with a different handle.
  - joering2 8y ago
    “You honor, the mortage owner still has a house, just in a different district.”, said bank representative.
  - caprese 8y ago
    the handle was valuable in this instance in other instances the follower and engagement to the userID is valuable in other instances a combination of all three is valuable
jakejarvis 8y ago
I have to agree that it's the better option. Certainly not a 100% fail-safe solution – I see people already listing domains that were seized for various inexcusable reasons – but the Nissan.com case [0] (Nissan the car company vs. Mr. Nissan the run-of-the-mill computer sales guy) comes to mind as a classic (and fascinating) counterexample. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_vs._Nissan_Compu...
- adventured 8y ago
  Madonna Ciccone famously thefted the Madonna.com domain away from Dan Parisi on the ridiculous basis that she somehow magically had a deserving claim on the domain due to her trademark of "Madonna" related to "entertainment services and related goods." https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0847.html https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d200...
  - jakejarvis 8y ago
    Yikes. Like I said, domains are still far from fail-safe. The Madonna theft was almost 20 years ago, when trademarks seem to have reigned supreme in court, so hopefully more judges are better informed today and know this is unacceptable and not how the internet operates anymore... ...but I am often told I'm too optimistic.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    >The only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain. That purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. Trademark Law. >[...] In the Sting decision there was evidence that the Respondent had made bona fide use of the name Sting prior to obtaining the domain name registration and there was no indication that he was seeking to trade on the good will of the well-known singer. >Because the evidence shows a deliberate attempt by Respondent to trade on Complainant's fame for commercial purposes, we find that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. She got the domain because he couldn't bring up a single non-Madonna-the-Singer reason for plopping $20,000 down to buy the domain.
sbr464 8y ago
A domain name can be taken away. Check the Terms & Conditions for most country related domains, but specifically the newly popular ones: .io, .ai, .al, etc. they specifically mention if not being used they can revoke. > All registered domains must be set in use within one year, otherwise the .AL Registry has the right to suspend them.
ddalex 8y ago
The unfortunate owner of Nissan.com would like a word.

joekrill 8y ago

We may not have the full story here, but it doesn't seem like Instagram is disputing that they simply took it. I don't see anyone suggesting that they even attempted to contact the guy first. Outrageously poor way to handle things. Also, at what point does an Instagram account become "inactive"?

6xggd7 8y ago
And what were they going to tell the guy? It's not like they were going to give him a choice, or offer him restitution. Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS' handle be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his being POTUS, but you get the idea).
- joekrill 8y ago
  You're suggesting that there is no other appropriate handle they could have come up with beyond "sussexroyal"? And beyond that, what gives one person the right more than any other to a particular handle? Even with your POTUS example. So yes, I think they should have at least asked first and tried to resolve it amicably.
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Are you saying that if another Pavel Lishin ascends to the office of U.S. President, you'd support him just being able to take away my Twitter handle?
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > Not doing something like this leads to stupid stuff like having POTUS' handle be "real donald trump" (yes, I know choosing that handle predates his being POTUS, but you get the idea). I actually find this a charming reminder of the old days of the web. there's a certain populist quality to the idea that no one is important enough to snatch a particular username that some commoner took first. I agree situations like @realdonaldtrump are kind of silly, but it doesn't hurt anyone. anyone who actually has a large audience has a verified account so there's little doubt regarding who actually controls it. that said, we really do need a responsible way to reclaim truly inactive accounts without enabling "reset my password via email" type attacks.

hervature 8y ago

Typo in title: should be Prince not Price

skinnymuch 8y ago
“Price” is far more fitting.

pavlov 8y ago

So I guess you don't have any ownership over a URL path component on somebody else's server when you're not even paying for that hosting. Not particularly surprising...

robdachshund 8y ago
Okay, I guess everyone should just shut up and not have any opinion on the matter then. Just because they can do this does not mean people cannot criticize it or find it reprehensible. Is it surprising that people don't approve of this?

yial 8y ago

I remember reading about this in their TOS years ago... I think they normally outline in under taking away names to give to rightful owners. (If you’re name is @apple for example ). This seems like a poorly handled extension of that power. But- truly just an example of how your use, data, name, etc on these services is really just at their whim.

UweSchmidt 8y ago
Who would the "rightful owner" of @apple be? Maybe the one who registered it in the first place? Or does that old instinct of defering to power make you want to give in to the presumptuous request of a large entity?
- benatkin 8y ago
  The word apple has other meanings besides Apple, Inc, but it is a registered trademark in the USA. Since instagram is based in the USA, it's pretty clear that Apple, Inc is the rightful owner. Whether or not they should have a trademark on such a common word is a separate question.
  - UweSchmidt 8y ago
    This is absolutely not clear. How does someone who has @apple and posts pictures of apples infringe on Apple, Inc's trademark?
    - benatkin 8y ago
      I didn't say that they would be infringing on Apple, Inc's trademark and I don't think that. I only think that in disputed ownership, based on instagram's purpose of providing a communication platform, the rightful owner would be Apple, Inc, not someone who happened to register it first. And they have a way of determining who the rightful owner, to them, is. Clearly the definition of rightful owner isn't universal, nor is it 100% consistently determined, but a process can be made for determining it. Here's an example: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/faqs https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/...

Raphmedia 8y ago

> "I thought 'What's that all about?' He said 'Look on Instagram' so I looked on Instagram and suddenly my handle wasn't @sussexroyal anymore it was @_sussexroyal_ They could have at least explained the situation to that person and allow them to choose a new handle. I would be furious if my handle suddenly had "_" as prefix and suffix. What next, "@xXxsussexroyalxXx"?

fargo 8y ago

Love the typo, I guess everything can be bought for a price.

larrik 8y ago

> What I'm trying to do is keep tweeting therefore they can't take it if it's active. Good luck with that, Twitter has a long history of taking handles on behalf of brands and celebrities...

skinnymuch 8y ago
Even for visibly active ones? Any reference or example?

geuis 8y ago

Twitter did the same thing to me a few years back. I registered @machinima back in 2006 or so and would semi frequently post links to interesting machinima videos I liked. After a couple of years I stopped posting for a while and I guess you could consider the account “inactive” even though my Twitter client was authenticated and checked it daily for activity via api (or so I thought). A few years ago I went to post something and found I couldn’t log in. Never got an email about it or any form of contact. They just up and gave my account to the machinima.com company.

newsgremlin 8y ago
Have you tried getting it back now that machinima.com is defunct (albeit much like the original content that got them off the ground)? I think rooster teeth probably don't want to be associated with that brand anyway.

clra 8y ago

Well, it feels weird to defend Instagram, but here we go. The important lines from the article are these ones: > Instagram confirmed to Newsbeat that Kevin's handle had been changed in line with its policy. > It allows it to make changes to an account if it's been inactive for a certain amount of time. I tried going to the guy's new Instagram [1], but couldn't see any posts there at all. I visited his Twitter [2] instead, and except for a few posts he made from the exciting run in the last 24 hours, he hadn't tweeted since 2013. I don't think they did a bad thing here — it's their platform, and they have some incentive to encourage a more lively and current community. Although it seems minor, one facet of this might be to help big users reclaim better names from the huge pool of defunct ones out there, especially given that Instagram has gotten so big that finding anything that's not a conflict is difficult. --- [1] https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ https://www.instagram.com/_sussexroyal_/ [2] https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/ https://twitter.com/Sussexroyal/

yashap 8y ago
Yeah, zero posts and doesn’t even have a profile pic. It’s a dead account, I don’t have much of an issue with Instagram’s policy to “steal” handles on accounts like this.
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  Or maybe he just likes photos and follows his nephews or something.
  - lightgreen 8y ago
    Not choosing sides but have to say that he can still do that with his old now renamed account.
drb91 8y ago
> encourage a more lively and current community Ahh yes, nothing more lively and current than watching senior citizens coo over monarchs. In all seriousness, this is just another step towards instagram being another bland reflection of the media fun house in which we all live: famous people get air time to pimp products and movements.

NickBusey 8y ago

Meanwhile, I've been emailing Instagram yearly for many years now trying to gain control of an account that has had 1 post and 15 followers for YEARS now, that is squatting on an account name that is the same name as a registered LTD that I actually own and use. Crickets.

sudosu- 8y ago
Try signing your email with: His Royal Highness Duke of HN NickBusey. You never know.

vamos_davai 8y ago

Their platform, their voice. It's not part of public domain. Unreasonable outrage from the HN crowd.

robdachshund 8y ago
Just because you can do something does not make acceptable to all people. What you are talking about is essentially moral relativism. Most people see that as dubious. Just because one entity sees something as right does not make it objectively right. Can Instagram do this? Yes. Should everyone be okay with it in virtue of that ability? That comes down to personal opinion.

anonoholic 8y ago

The daft thing is there are plenty of alternative names they could have taken, that are genuinely idle accounts, and arguably better names: sussexroyals (there are two of them after all) thesussexroyals (more grammatically correct) thesussexes (as they are commonly referred to in the press) harryandmeghan (has only posted once since Dec 2017) meghanandharry (ladies first!) and so on...

djhworld 8y ago
I'd imagine the Prince's staff contacted Instagram to talk about having an account set up, and maybe suggested the name. Instagram people were probably star struck, and salivating at the idea of _millions_ of eyeballs and media interest on the site, that they pretty much waived anything through. I'd imagine a lot of the top brass at companies would do anything for a slice of celebrity/royal action, it's a gold mine and worth a lot more to them than some peon from Reading who just lurks.

notatoad 8y ago

The only surprising thing here is that it's not even that good of a name. I understand platforms yanking the handles of established brands and registered trademarks, but is "sussexroyal" really as good an Instagram name as Harry and Meghan can come up with, and worth the negative pr of stories like this one?

kalleboo 8y ago
Is this even that negative PR? They're probably going to get more people going "oooh Prince Harry and Meghan are on Instagram I should follow them" than being outraged and quitting
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  I don’t think it will fall on them, nor should it, they probably had no idea this was going to happen. It’s Instagram’s responsibility either way. They could have said “pick another name or we can nicely ask the current owner for that one.”
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    They is referring to the Prince and Meghan, correct? They have to know by now what happpened. They can give the name back. Or not use it at the very least. Otherwise why shouldn’t it fall on them? Not knowing beforehand isn’t an excuse to go along with it now.
- notatoad 8y ago
  I guess what I'm saying is if they aren't worried about the optics of it or don't consider this bad PR, why not take a better name?
  - skinnymuch 8y ago
    Could be that other ones have visible activity?

IronCoderXYZ 8y ago

I deleted Instagram a few weeks ago, one of the best decisions I've made.

covercash 8y ago

A while back, an Instagram employee stole the handle from my buddy’s wife. The only reason he got it back was because he had enough clout in the design community that he was able to get some press about it: https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-change-5c546662abc0 https://medium.com/@behoff/they-say-nothing-will-change-5c54...

mindslight 8y ago
Github yanked away my 4 character username to hand it over to some hipster startup. My account was 10 years old, no published repos, but consistent other activity. I don't have the desire nor the connections stir up a twitrage, but I'll certainly make their behavior known on HN. These companies point to "inactivity", yet there is never any attempt to contact beforehand. The policy is merely a thin justification to do whatever the heck they want to suit corporate or personal employee whims. That's SaaS (Surveillance as a Sharecropper) for ya.
alaskamiller 8y ago
Josh Williams had a startup bought, became a tech exec at Facebook, and hijacked my two letter instagram name that I had since 2012 because he wanted the vanity of @jw on every thing he can get his grubby hands on. Thanks a lot Josh Williams you thief: http://instagram.com/jw http://instagram.com/jw
flycaliguy 8y ago
I had a two letter tumblr URL that got two serious corporate requests for purchase, including one from a huge European telecommunications company. I always counter offered a crazy high number to test their budget. Both times they thanked me for the response and moved on. I had a couple tumblr employees following me, cool people. I even had the founder “like” a couple of my posts. My sense was that there wasn’t an avenue open to poach a day-one user like me. This was all pre-yahoo. Eventually, when I was done with the site more or less, I put out a feeler for a buyer and made a quick buck. That buyer I think tried to sell it themselves and it ended up shuttered. Good times. Tumblr had a fun niche art community at the time and my “tumblr fame” helped me network with some interesting people.

pytyper2 8y ago

That family has been stealing from the plebs for hundreds of years, why is this newsworthy?

some1else 8y ago

Not cool, but nothing new. Distrokid was blatant enough to brag about it in his newsletter in 2017. I sent a polite email voicing my concerns, but I never received more than the auto-reply. Distrokid email: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-email.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/8tw90s0n8urj9j3/distro-email.png?d... My reply: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-reply.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ym9oxvwprkqm9ph/distro-reply.png?d...

brudgers 8y ago

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-peascene.php

jcomis 8y ago

It's well known that if you know people at Instagram you can highjack almost any handle. There is plenty of stories out there documenting the theft of prime handles like @firstname or 3 character handles.

mindcrime 8y ago

Fuck royalty. The whole idea is stupid. Actually, as far as that goes, fuck "celebrity worship" in general, royal or otherwise. IMO, too many people spend too much time worrying about what some "famous" twit is doing.

14 8y ago
You and me both can sit and here and wait and see if they break up and chew on their shared instagram name. I wish them the best but to me they are just another celebrity couple and any moment could stop enjoying each other.

sbr464 8y ago

Somewhat related, I find it unusual that a lot of SaaS companies get you to choose a subdomain during the trial signup process. Sometimes I just want to try out a service and kind of feel bad squatting on a somewhat premium subdomain so easily. I’m launching a product soon and it made me think about different ways to handle this, especially wrt to shorter (more premium), and trademark/brand related names.

drKarl 8y ago

We should be pushing for decentralized self-sovereign identity to become mainstream

drefanzor 8y ago

This isn't uncommon. Twitter is another prime example. Their "rules" state that you cannot (since 2009) make a three letter handle in your username, and yet @AOC was able to acquire hers. I don't have any problem with this but it does bring up the fact that there seems to be certain people able to skirt the rules because of "who they are". What about famous people getting verified on Twitter when the verification program was supposedly halted? It goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is "money talks".

dkrich 8y ago
When the incentives align they will surely bend the rules. It's in Instagram's and Twitter's interest to have the royal family and high profile politicians, respectively, active, happy, and easy to find.

bambax 8y ago

You own nothing. You are nothing. In the 90s, Mr. Nissan was able to fight and keep nissan.com. That feels like a thousand years ago. Now everything is governed by private "policies" that amount to "we can do anything we want". I don't like the new world at all.

moate 8y ago
Old world sucked too and had shittier wifi.
skinnymuch 8y ago
Hasn’t Mr, Nissan spent a ton of money fighting? It’s great that it was and is an option for domains sometimes. But 99% of the time, you’re not going to be able to fight anyway.

OrgNet 8y ago

Someone made an offer on sussexroyal.com yet? it look available...

microtherion 8y ago

Droit du seigneur for the internet age.

throwawaymanbot 8y ago

I'm not sure if anyone is au fait with British Royalty, but taking things that don't belong to them is what they do and have done throughout history.

papermill 8y ago

I called this "legal" theft, but the law doesn't apply to "royals". The sad thing is that people like little harry and meghan aren't people anyone should be looking up to or even paying attention to. But the propagandists and the elites sure love the power they wield over the weak minded individuals. It's 2019 and there are actual idiots fawning over "royalty". It's absurd. Especially considering their marriage is a creation of a PR firm.

abductee_hg 8y ago

just imagine what the world would look like if everyone(private person or company) exercised all the things they can lawfully do at all times.

cwkoss 8y ago

The concept of royalty in 2019 is so repugnant. Fuck the crown and their hundreds of years of theft from the people.

jocoda 8y ago

No guilty party in this tale. But don't see how you can now use that name without having some social justice warrior somewhere foaming at the mouth with righteous indignation.

abductee_hg 8y ago

wow, what a dick-move - even by fb-standards.