discuss Let @x be a cautionary tale

[Nick]

This is exactly why businesses shouldn't be run solely on social media handles. A domain name should be the FIRST destination for customers.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I hate to be another guy that disagrees but I think it's perfectly OK for him to take any handle that he wants, or any that the platform/company wants.

That "news" article only exists as another way to on Elon Musk, rightly or wrongly.

I'm not even a "private company can do what it wants" kind've guy, but you've no right to a specific handle.

Compensation not owed. Suck it up.

 

[HotKey]

But the worst ones are the folks who show up to take what you are offering for FREE, at no charge whatsoever, and then believe you owe them something.

You've had a few mic drops in this thread sir

 

[HotKey]

Lesson is;

Never get too comfy in someone's favorite armchair. Especially at their house.

 

[poweredbyme]

poweredbyme said:
Users may try to claim compensation for their losses from service providers.

So if you say resell content from a streaming provider and you get shut down by them, you can try to claim compensation from the service provider? Or you crack a software product and sell it/give it away and you get shut down, can you claim compensation from the software provider?

That's irrelevant. Why do you keep giving irrelevant examples? Those irrelevant examples derail the topic. Let me remind you the topic: There is a website making profit from contents of users. One day site owner decides to take over the account of a user by abusing his power over his own website. One is not allowed to abuse his power for disadvantage to general public or any party that is weaker. That's illegal even if it's not written in TOS or contracts.

This website is still active and is still making profit primarily from users and don't pay anything, no revenue sharing. Since users accept this, that's okay. But taking over an account for profit is not okay even if user accepts this by using the site. Site owner may only disable an account but can't take over without permission of user. Because user account, even if it's not written in TOS is the property of user. An account is protected by password+username combination which makes accounts property. Site owner can only disable user account, can't take over or can't sell it without permission of user. Site owner may prohibit selling user accounts that's also okay. But it's doesn't change the fact, each account is a property of who created that account. Site owner can't take over account from user without permission. Because site owner is not the owner of user accounts. That's similar to bank accounts. Bank owner can't take over a bank account of his clients even if the bank account has zero balance. As a finance expert I am sure on this. Bank owner can disable usage of a bank account only if clients breach some rules. Bank account is highly relevant example to understand what's user accounts at user generated content websites.

poweredbyme said:
Based on my finance knowledge, one party is not allowed to make profit knowingly from financial losses of other party

There is no financial loss in the sense of the sale of the handle as it is explicitly forbidden by xitter.
If an influence who makes money influencing and their SM account is suspended for any reason that violates the SM content policy which then results in profit for the SM service, are they liable for the financial losses suffered by the influencer?

Again that's irrelevant. Here the user account has not been disabled for breaching some rules. If that was the case we could discuss on your example. But your example is out of the topic, hence there is no need to discuss.


poweredbyme said:
Financial losses could include but not limited to time, expenses, loss of communication means (one may claim they use the account for communication. Communication is a right protected by constitutions in many countries), loss of commercial or personal prestige, loss of anything one could claim.

only if such a commercial relationship has been established.

commercial relation is based on the fact that the website makes profit primarily from user generated content. User generated content and user activity is the primary source of profit. One can easily prove it by starting a similar site with no user accounts.

poweredbyme said:
Service provider may disable using an account if user breaches some rules. But taking over an account from user for commercial profit without any payment to the user is a bad faith. It's a bad faith because the purpose, the main drive is to make profit from losses of user. It doesn't matter what is written in TOS or contracts.

Well, the last line says it all. The ToS and contracts don't matter to you. But that's not how such matters work in the real world. Come to the real world and see what does matter.

TOS and contracts are not always valid. That's how real world works. Lawyers will defend the opposite view as writing contracts is one of their profit sources. Lawyers can't tell you even if they write a perfect contract for you, any perfect contract can't protect you in full. One of the best contracts are written for banks and those "perfectly written contracts" can't always protect commercial interests of banks. That's how real world works.

poweredbyme said:
Those examples are irrelevant. If online providers shut down the service completely, they stop making profit from users.

not quite. You're assuming that the provider is a one-trick pony. Shutting down one area of their business might actually make the org more profitable.

I am unsure if you know what you are talking about. You keep derail the topic or are unable to understand what's the topic. who started that discussion with giving irrelevant example on old websites which are no longer active.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Site owner may only disable an account but can't take over without permission of user. Because user account, even if it's not written in TOS is the property of user.

The data maybe. But that is all. He still has his account, but on a nice new username.

Then again, he can just delete the data. Nobody can force them to host someone else's data.

 

[poweredbyme]

The data maybe. But that is all. He still has his account, but on a nice new username.

Then again, he can just delete the data. Nobody can force them to host someone else's data.

When a username is available and it's taken by a user it's over. Site owner can't take over it from user.

I used to own and run a semi-popular forum site with around 5k members. I was hosting my forum on a dedicated linux server which I was managing manually. My forum was powered by free and open source phpbb software before I sold it. Site owner or forum admin has an option to disable some usernames such as "admin", "moderator" and other critical usernames. Those critical username examples were displaying on phpbb forum admin panel.

 

[silentg]

ok didn’t expect this, Multiple parties are trying to trademark Twitter name and the logo.

 

[jberryhill]

Multiple parties are trying to trademark Twitter name and the logo.

It's clear that X has intentionally abandoned use of the "Twitter" mark so, yes, even the previous owners of "Twitter" could re-launch as "Twitter" if they wanted to (and if there were no contractual restrictions pursuant to the sale).

But, sure, if someone wants to start a social networking and messaging services named "Twitter", they are free to do so.

There has long been a market for "revived" marks or marks that are kept alive on some form of life support after being abandoned by their former owners.

Remember any of these?

RCA - https://www.rca.com/

Underalls - https://www.underalls.com/

Probably the best known example of a revived brand is "Indian" motorcycles which, in its re-launched form, intentionally traded on the remaining nostalgic goodwill of the original company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re-established_companies

 

[silentg]

There's a pattern now

 

[bmugford]

There's a pattern now
Show attachment 243763

Well, hopefully you don't have a username that Elon wants or he is just going to snatch it.

So far, it is for their own use.

However, in the future I would not be surprised if premium usernames are just snatched to resell or give to another party.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

There's a pattern now
Show attachment 243763

Not just @x: Elon Musk also took @xAI from its original user for his AI company​

https://mashable.com/article/xai-twitter-handle-elon-musk-x

"Earlier this year, Platformer reported that shortly after Musk's Twitter takeover, he requested that the company transfer the single-letter @e handle to him. Combine that story with what we now know about @x and @xai and it's becoming clear that X users with rare, short usernames shouldn't become too attached to their handles on the platform formerly known as Twitter."

 

[silentg]

ok it gets worse

https://twitter.com/x/status/1684122671062175744

He took so many accounts but left the trail of evidence. All the @ mentions are still on Twitter (X).

 

[MadAboutDomains]

When a username is available and it's taken by a user it's over. Site owner can't take over it from user.

I used to own and run a semi-popular forum site with around 5k members. I was hosting my forum on a dedicated linux server which I was managing manually. My forum was powered by free and open source phpbb software before I sold it. Site owner or forum admin has an option to disable some usernames such as "admin", "moderator" and other critical usernames. Those critical username examples were displaying on phpbb forum admin panel.

We're talking about a custom built website here, not phpbb. Of course you can take a user's username, it's not "over". It's a database that the data can be deleted and manipulated.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

It's clear that X has intentionally abandoned use of the "Twitter" mark so, yes, even the previous owners of "Twitter" could re-launch as "Twitter" if they wanted to (and if there were no contractual restrictions pursuant to the sale).

But, sure, if someone wants to start a social networking and messaging services named "Twitter", they are free to do so.

The company will still own the IP for Twitter. Trademarks still stand if they are no longer being used, because they have been used.

A note unrelated to your post...

I just saw twitter is awash with people saying "he can't use X, this company has it for beans and this one for sausages". "He can't trademark an X, he can't trademark that X it's from a font" "Microsoft own X as a trademark already haha" and so it goes on. So many idiots out there weighing in...

 

[jberryhill]

Trademarks still stand if they are no longer being used, because they have been used.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say there. In the US, you must continue to use the mark in order to maintain rights in the mark. While there is what is called “excusable non-use” such as a pause in use with an intent to continue use in the future, what we have here is an intentional abandonment of the mark.

If someone stops using a mark and it is not clear if they intend to resume use, the mark will be presumed abandoned after three years of non-use. But again, here we have an intentional, announced abandonment of the mark.

The example I’ve used countless times on this forum is a dog license. Your dog license might say it is valid for five years. But if your dog dies in three years, no, you do not have a valid dog license after that.

Maybe an example would help. In 1958, the Ford Motor Company launched a new division and brand of automobile called the “Edsel”. They discontinued it in 1960:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel

So, in your opinion, does Ford still own trademark rights in “Edsel”? And, if not, when is it do you believe those rights ended?

 

[Jv1999]

Exqueeze me?

What do you think I do for a living? You think food magically falls onto my table?

I got a letter from my HOA that my deck is in bad shape and they are going to fine me if it is not fixed. Now, when I bought my place, I was told that the deck is part of the outside fixtures that the community maintains. Well, gee, they changed that on me somewhere along the line.

So, I've been calling around trying to get someone out here in the middle of the g-d-mmed summer to see if I can get my deck fixed and NOT ONE of them cares about the great injustice done to me. They just want to get paid to fix my deck. I had a guy quote me $3000 a while back, I agreed, and he's been a no-show ever since.

Well, s--t, I guess he found something that pays better than solving my problem.

I have NEVER had an auto mechanic, plumber, or any other service provider do a thing for me because, gosh, I deserved to have it done for me. Every damn one of them wants to make sure they get paid first. It was really unfair that my car broke down when it did, or my pipes burst, or whatever.

Back in 1989, I was sitting out on the side of a snow-covered road in the middle of the night in Indiana with an engine that quit on me. I'd finished by doctoral work and was on my way to my first job clean across the country from Delaware to Utah in a 1972 VW bus that gave out in Indiana. I was alone in the cold in the middle of the night. My first son was born two weeks earlier, my wife was recovering from the C-section, I had maybe $500 to my name, and my first paycheck after years of graduate school was another three weeks away, but I needed to get to that job. Tow truck showed up and the guy wanted CASH before he'd back it up to my front end. Can you imagine? If I didn't have money, he'd have left me out there to freeze.

Hell, I was wheeled into an ER with a heart attack five years ago and the first thing THEY wanted to know how they were going to get paid.

I'm supposed to be up in arms about this guy losing his Twitter handle, and give two s--ts of my time so that HE can get paid?

YOU said you'd "even contribute money to this guys case" - that's how the subject of money came up.

I don't know what you do for a living but how about this. Quit doing whatever it is you do, go around helping other people make money for free, and let me know how that works out for you.

This is the United States of America. If I want to give away services for free - like Twitter does - then I can make any danged rules I want. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all - provided it is not among a short list of prohibited reasons (i.e. public accommodations based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, advanced age, or disability). If I don't want to do business with you because your name is "Kevin" and I don't like people named "Kevin", then I'm free to do that. Maybe next week, I won't do business with anyone named "Bryan" and I can do that too.

If I don't like your attitude, I can kick you out of my bar, my shop, my club or whatever else I'm running that you're using. If walk into my restaurant and I want to use your table for something else, I'll re-seat you somewhere else or you can leave. It's my restaurant and I'll run it my way.

I mean, can you imagine?

How about if I give everyone a free picnic out on my deck every Saturday, if I ever find someone I can afford who feels like actually showing up to fix it. Now, one of my deck chairs rocks and the rest of them just stay in one position, so that chair is more comfortable than the others. Every weekend you show up and you sit in that chair that I provide you for free. One weekend, I decide, you know what, I'd like to sit in that chair instead. You get all worked up at me and say you're going to sue me because I'm not going to let you use the chair that I provide you, for free, on my damned deck? GTFO of here.

I've done a lot of work for people who couldn't pay, and quite a bit for people who didn't pay. But nobody is entitled to freebies - including their Twitter handles.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, one thing you ARE entitled to get for free in the US is a lawyer if you are criminally charged and can't afford one. You can't get a doctor, a plumber, an optometrist, or a chicken dinner for free, but you can get a lawyer.

Anyone who wants to pitch in to get my deck fixed, please DM.

LOL. He's basically saying to Keith that the case is not at all interesting to him that he'd give free legal advice on nP that @x3252525254245322930 user could potentially see and then utilize.

Atty Hill is usually top notch and very generous on nP and he's known to help out and give advice when the passion is there -- Epik, Lambo case. Etc.

For this one, the legal matter is really very easy that saying something would be enough Mr. Hwang to take action and easily win or... it's really difficult and painstaking and Atty. Hill just couldn't give af.

Imho, there is some fudge language in the contract where they promised not to take twitter handles sans good faith -- that's enough for a lawsuit, imho. Breach of contract, gg.

Problem is, Mr. Hwang had breached the contract himself by attempting to sell the handle... unless he can hide that evidence/delete it now. Then suddenly everone saying he tried to sell it = rumors w/o actual proof.

Unless he was dumb enough to tweet an ad for the sale of @x... then his case gets harder.

But there's a difference between "attempting to sell" a handle and selling a handle. I'm not sure attempting to sell = violation. So there's the fudge room there.

Either way, if it's prohibited to sell a handle, then exactly what kind of cash value does a handle provide that a judge/jury could find a fair market value of? Yet another factor.

Either way, he should lawyer up, but it sounds like he's dumb and won't because it sounds like he simply moved on.

Most people don't think of getting a lawyer. Because they don't see legal issues.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I’m not sure what you are trying to say there. In the US, you must continue to use the mark in order to maintain rights in the mark. While there is what is called “excusable non-use” such as a pause in use with an intent to continue use in the future, what we have here is an intentional abandonment of the mark.

If someone stops using a mark and it is not clear if they intend to resume use, the mark will be presumed abandoned after three years of non-use. But again, here we have an intentional, announced abandonment of the mark.

The example I’ve used countless times on this forum is a dog license. Your dog license might say it is valid for five years. But if your dog dies in three years, no, you do not have a valid dog license after that.

That is fair, but they may continue to use the name even in a limited capacity. It's not abandoned until it's abandoned.

 

[Jv1999]

Wouldn't *that* set a precedent, given that twitter's terms forbid selling and buying handles?
"Attempts to sell, buy, or solicit other forms of payment in exchange for usernames are also violations and may result in permanent account suspension."
Imagine Elon attempting to buy @x and getting his account suspended.

Anyway, I think @x would have had a better chance at retaining his name and/or getting some reasonable compensation if he was actually using it. From what was said, the account was set to private and he only waited for offers. While it might not be a bad thing by itself, it made it awfully easy for twitter/X to reappropriate it.

no, it's different.

If the company was going to take it, either way, then it's akin to "adverse possession" / "eminent domain"

If you have no choice but to forfeit your handle, it's no longer a "sale" but rather an adversarial action that needs fair compensation.

Look up eminent domain lol. And how it's a legal thing to compensate fairly when the gov takes your shit.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

I agree it sucks to have a @handle seized, but it was expected.
On the flip side, everything related to this X.com rebrand has increased value of dotCom domains this week.

1. X.com has the entire world talking about dotCom.
2. Brands should be rethinking their prioritization of their own dotCom.
3.Brands may start to wean themselves off their dependency to third party platforms.

Some claim owner of @ X was offering the handle for $1M and as much as I hate to see the handle seized, it was in violation of Twitter TOS. They can check your DMs and history anytime they please, private or not.

Sure, people have been selling Twitter handles for years, even employees were taking money under the table during the prior regime in violation.

Elon will make a lot of money next year when they start dropping unused handles and auction them to brands and the public.

If you are a brand, the time to focus on your own domain development is now.

@o was sold to overstock I believe

 

[HotKey]

Site owner can't take over account from user without permission. Because site owner is not the owner of user accounts. That's similar to bank accounts. Bank owner can't take over a bank account of his clients even if the bank account has zero balance. As a finance expert I am sure on this. Bank owner can disable usage of a bank account only if clients breach some rules. Bank account is highly relevant example to understand what's user accounts at user generated content websites.

How do you equate a private bank account number to a public social media username?