6 ms·

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company t

by geuis 18y ago

So someone is complaining that they registered a bunch of names they thought would be monetarily valuable at a later date, and is complaining when the company that provides the service is disallowing him from doing it? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me. I have no sorrow for domain squatters, and that extends to people who grabbed Facebook app names, Twitter names, whatever. Twitter isn't like the DNS system. You are using a service being provided at no charge. I'll grant that there are likely to be situations where your personal Twitter account name conflicts with some big company. However, on that level if you have a long history of actively using your Twitter account as your own identity then the weight of evidence is on your side. Twitter can tell the Big Bad Company "No, pick another name". But if you've gone out and just registered 50 names, with no activity on them, only in the hopes that you'll get companies to buy them from you later, go screw yourself.

swombat 18y ago
Twitter don't mandate that you have to use your account for personal reasons only, as far as I know. How you use your account is up to you - that's one of Twitter's strengths... every person uses it in their own way. I have no sympathy for domain squatters, but I have no sympathy for domain bullies either. the "Boston Celtics", whoever they are, have as little right to the username "celtics" as this guy. As such, he should probably keep it.
- catch23 18y ago
  then sell celtics their name for $10 million. Sounds like a good plan to me! Or maybe twitter is the one selling the celtics their brand name for $10 million...
- kragen 18y ago
  In this case he was using the username "celtics" to provide updates about the Boston Celtics, with their logo as the page background.
- webwright 18y ago
  If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names? It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the effort/expense of them building that brand and deserve to have it yanked. IMO, it's very similar to the Nissan.com case - the owner of that domain is named Nissan and has a business with that name. He got there first, and he's got rights. However, if it was some random guy who put up a splash page or a nissan car site, it's trademark infringement, no?
  - dmv 18y ago
    Did you pick McDonalds.com because of this? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say: "Are you finding that the Internet is a big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful McDonald's media-relations person, with whom I spoke a short while ago. Same thing here. 18 months ago, Twitter's namespace was considered worthless. Now Twitter leads to live commentary on cable television, celebrities use it, and companies need a Twitter Strategy.
  - tolmasky 18y ago
    This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username. If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.
    - webwright 18y ago
      I guess I did mention the law, but that's not where I was going... But, yes, I know that Twitter has no legal obligation to any party. But if you agree that domain squatters should have to give up domain names to trademark holders, then the parallel holds.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
thinkzig 18y ago
I'm siding with geius on this one. To the extent that no money changed hands and Steve wasn't paying them to use the celtics usename, then I think Twitter can do whatever they want whenever they want. It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't have a true right to the name in the first place. Perhaps they are getting some cash from the Celtics to use the name. So what? If you're one of the tens of thousands of people like Steve that are using Twitter for free to promote a business, then Twitter getting some cash to pay the bills another month is only a good thing.
- jerf 18y ago
  Define "right to a name". (I've actually got some potential thoughts, but I'd like to not poison the well.)
  - thinkzig 18y ago
    By "right to a name" I'm speaking specifically about Steve's right to own the Twitter username celtics. From a "first come, first serve" perspective, I suppose he has a right to use the username... until Twitter deems otherwise. The terms of service said they could come and take it, and Steve's not paying them any money for exclusive use of the name, so from that standpoint I don't feel he has a right to use the username any more than the Boston Celtics do. It's Twitter - who owns the service - that I think has the right to do what they please. I'm not saying that I agree with how they handled it and I can see why Steve is pissed off, but I don't think they have any obligation to let Steve keep the username.
    - jerf 18y ago
      OK. I was kicking around a definition involving trademarks. In general, owning a name that can be seen to infringe a trademark is a problem, no matter how you slice it. The Celtics baseball team have an actual, legal claim to the word "Celtics", which is not unlimited by any means, but is certainly stronger than "some guy registered this name on this site". Now, had he been some sort of Celtic organization (and I mean the ethnic group, not the team) it might be a more interesting discussion, legally. (And I'm just skipping out on the ethical issues.)
rokhayakebe 18y ago
First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at TechQuilaShots. He was sharing ideas on how businesses could take advantage of Twitter. Only a few read his blog and a fewer followed his advices. So he did it. Now they want to take that away from him. Not cool.
- radley 18y ago
  Twitter-squatting is not the same as domain-squatting. It's more in line with MySpace which has also reserved the right to manage names as they see fit. Steve's doing nothing more than assuming an opportunity and making an * of himself by complaining about it.
- Retric 18y ago
  That's just it there was no opportunity and Twitter is better off preventing people from trying exploit others by being the first to grab interesting names.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  In this case, it's quite clear that Steve saw an opportunity to make money where there wasn't one. His attempt to squat on these "quality" names that were "front row seats" was based on the ridiculous idea that a Twitter name is worth money. He was wrong.
- kragen 18y ago
  “Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.” That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that. That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you anything about whether exploiting that opportunity is moral or immoral.
jodrellblank 18y ago
I have no sorrow for land squatters. You have land being created by the universe at no charge. Just because you got to the country a hundred years before anyone else, now you think you can claim all the land you roped off and all the useful mineral content of that land? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me.
jamiequint 18y ago
Domains and account names all have a market value, to suppose that the value should remain at $0 is to ignore the fact that certain names hold value. I'm not sure how anyone expected that these names would not get taken by people who saw the (pretty obvious) fact that these would become "monetarily valuable at a later date" Hating domain squatters is the equivalent of disagreeing with free market principles in the domain economy. When things have uneven value and are sold for an even amount (free in the case of Twitter) its not surprising that a market develops to regulate this exchange. In this example Twitter is the central regulator and can control things in a way that benefits them the most. However, if you think they are any more worthy or have less of a profit motive than this other guy you are simply fooling yourself.
Tichy 18y ago
In defense of name squatters I have to say it is easy to become a squatter without any evil intentions. if you have any idea for a service, you are practically forced to reserve a name first (or risk investing the effort to implementing it in vain). If then for some reason the implementation is delayed, bingo, you have become a name squatter. At least the writer of that article sounded as if he was planning genuine services for those names, rather than just hoping to sell the names for profit eventually.
sh1mmer 18y ago
I think the point here is that if someone is using a twitter ID for a reasonable use then it's unreasonable for Twitter to turf them off. The use of 'celtics' as an unofficial fan site seems pretty legitimate. Why does a sports team have dibs? If I'm from Ireland can I kick them off? My claim would have more historic president. Twitter should have a resolution process similar to ICANN.
iamdave 18y ago
While I share your frustration with domain squatters, and the such, it's worth noting that you ought to read between the lines with your vociferation. His account "celtics" was being used for fans to check stats and news on the basketball team. I wouldn't call that no activity. I have the same kind of account on Tumblr for the Indianapolis Colts; pictures I take when I'm at football games or interesting news clips. It's not a dormant account. So on that note, saying "no activity" isn't correct, he was apparently doing something with the accounts.

by geuis 18y ago

swombat 18y ago

Twitter don't mandate that you have to use your account for personal reasons only, as far as I know. How you use your account is up to you - that's one of Twitter's strengths... every person uses it in their own way. I have no sympathy for domain squatters, but I have no sympathy for domain bullies either. the "Boston Celtics", whoever they are, have as little right to the username "celtics" as this guy. As such, he should probably keep it.

catch23 18y ago
then sell celtics their name for $10 million. Sounds like a good plan to me! Or maybe twitter is the one selling the celtics their brand name for $10 million...
kragen 18y ago
In this case he was using the username "celtics" to provide updates about the Boston Celtics, with their logo as the page background.
webwright 18y ago
If you'd grabbed "celtics.com" do you think you would have a legal right to it? What about McDonalds.com? Why is this different than general brand trademarks as they relate to domain names? It seems to be a conflict if you're in the same "domain". i.e. If I grab @celtics and talk about Celtic language and culture, it shouldn't be a conflict. If I grab it to build a following about the team, I'm piggybacking on the effort/expense of them building that brand and deserve to have it yanked. IMO, it's very similar to the Nissan.com case - the owner of that domain is named Nissan and has a business with that name. He got there first, and he's got rights. However, if it was some random guy who put up a splash page or a nissan car site, it's trademark infringement, no?
- dmv 18y ago
  Did you pick McDonalds.com because of this? http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/mcdonalds.html Because that's the first thing that came to mind reading this complaint. That was back in the wild days of the Internet, when official company spokespeople could say: "Are you finding that the Internet is a big thing?" asked Jane Hulbert, a helpful McDonald's media-relations person, with whom I spoke a short while ago. Same thing here. 18 months ago, Twitter's namespace was considered worthless. Now Twitter leads to live commentary on cable television, celebrities use it, and companies need a Twitter Strategy.
- tolmasky 18y ago
  This is nothing like that since its not a publicly-available domain (with ties to the govt. no less), but a private username. If I held a party at my house where I gave out unique nametags, the Celtics wouldn't have the right over the one that said "celtics" on it.
  - webwright 18y ago
    I guess I did mention the law, but that's not where I was going... But, yes, I know that Twitter has no legal obligation to any party. But if you agree that domain squatters should have to give up domain names to trademark holders, then the parallel holds.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

thinkzig 18y ago

I'm siding with geius on this one. To the extent that no money changed hands and Steve wasn't paying them to use the celtics usename, then I think Twitter can do whatever they want whenever they want. It may not be good karma for them to take the names without warning, but Twitter's job is to pay the bills and keep the lights on, not turn down good exposure (and perhaps some coin) to keep one guy happy who didn't have a true right to the name in the first place. Perhaps they are getting some cash from the Celtics to use the name. So what? If you're one of the tens of thousands of people like Steve that are using Twitter for free to promote a business, then Twitter getting some cash to pay the bills another month is only a good thing.

jerf 18y ago
Define "right to a name". (I've actually got some potential thoughts, but I'd like to not poison the well.)
- thinkzig 18y ago
  By "right to a name" I'm speaking specifically about Steve's right to own the Twitter username celtics. From a "first come, first serve" perspective, I suppose he has a right to use the username... until Twitter deems otherwise. The terms of service said they could come and take it, and Steve's not paying them any money for exclusive use of the name, so from that standpoint I don't feel he has a right to use the username any more than the Boston Celtics do. It's Twitter - who owns the service - that I think has the right to do what they please. I'm not saying that I agree with how they handled it and I can see why Steve is pissed off, but I don't think they have any obligation to let Steve keep the username.
  - jerf 18y ago
    OK. I was kicking around a definition involving trademarks. In general, owning a name that can be seen to infringe a trademark is a problem, no matter how you slice it. The Celtics baseball team have an actual, legal claim to the word "Celtics", which is not unlimited by any means, but is certainly stronger than "some guy registered this name on this site". Now, had he been some sort of Celtic organization (and I mean the ethnic group, not the team) it might be a more interesting discussion, legally. (And I'm just skipping out on the ethical issues.)

rokhayakebe 18y ago

First of, you could have skipped the insults. Apparently you do not know much about Steve. I recommend you go read some of his 70+ ideas he posted almost 2 years back. Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it. 18 months ago, most people did not know about Twitter and they could not see it being useful to anyone. Steve did. You should go back to his blog entries at TechQuilaShots. He was sharing ideas on how businesses could take advantage of Twitter. Only a few read his blog and a fewer followed his advices. So he did it. Now they want to take that away from him. Not cool.

radley 18y ago
Twitter-squatting is not the same as domain-squatting. It's more in line with MySpace which has also reserved the right to manage names as they see fit. Steve's doing nothing more than assuming an opportunity and making an * of himself by complaining about it.
Retric 18y ago
That's just it there was no opportunity and Twitter is better off preventing people from trying exploit others by being the first to grab interesting names.
GHFigs 18y ago
In this case, it's quite clear that Steve saw an opportunity to make money where there wasn't one. His attempt to squat on these "quality" names that were "front row seats" was based on the ridiculous idea that a Twitter name is worth money. He was wrong.
kragen 18y ago
“Secondly, he saw an opportunity when most people did not, so he should totally benefit from it.” That happened to my wife a couple of months ago; she was trying to use her laptop on the street to record a protest, and someone saw an opportunity where most people did not, and ran off carrying her laptop. I bet he benefited from that. That someone “saw an opportunity when most people did not” doesn't really tell you anything about whether exploiting that opportunity is moral or immoral.

jodrellblank 18y ago

I have no sorrow for land squatters. You have land being created by the universe at no charge. Just because you got to the country a hundred years before anyone else, now you think you can claim all the land you roped off and all the useful mineral content of that land? Sorry, but that just earns a big f*ck you from me.

jamiequint 18y ago

Domains and account names all have a market value, to suppose that the value should remain at $0 is to ignore the fact that certain names hold value. I'm not sure how anyone expected that these names would not get taken by people who saw the (pretty obvious) fact that these would become "monetarily valuable at a later date" Hating domain squatters is the equivalent of disagreeing with free market principles in the domain economy. When things have uneven value and are sold for an even amount (free in the case of Twitter) its not surprising that a market develops to regulate this exchange. In this example Twitter is the central regulator and can control things in a way that benefits them the most. However, if you think they are any more worthy or have less of a profit motive than this other guy you are simply fooling yourself.

Tichy 18y ago

In defense of name squatters I have to say it is easy to become a squatter without any evil intentions. if you have any idea for a service, you are practically forced to reserve a name first (or risk investing the effort to implementing it in vain). If then for some reason the implementation is delayed, bingo, you have become a name squatter. At least the writer of that article sounded as if he was planning genuine services for those names, rather than just hoping to sell the names for profit eventually.

sh1mmer 18y ago

I think the point here is that if someone is using a twitter ID for a reasonable use then it's unreasonable for Twitter to turf them off. The use of 'celtics' as an unofficial fan site seems pretty legitimate. Why does a sports team have dibs? If I'm from Ireland can I kick them off? My claim would have more historic president. Twitter should have a resolution process similar to ICANN.

iamdave 18y ago

While I share your frustration with domain squatters, and the such, it's worth noting that you ought to read between the lines with your vociferation. His account "celtics" was being used for fans to check stats and news on the basketball team. I wouldn't call that no activity. I have the same kind of account on Tumblr for the Indianapolis Colts; pictures I take when I'm at football games or interesting news clips. It's not a dormant account. So on that note, saying "no activity" isn't correct, he was apparently doing something with the accounts.