A brazen ripoff of Twitvid | Hacker News Reader

A brazen ripoff of Twitvid

archub.org

109 pointspg85 comments

I hope people don't take this as a rip but ...

Says a lot when your product is cloned in a couple of days. Not that complexity means a better product, but you should at least expect this type of thing if you're app only took you a few days to implement yourself.

And not picking up the .com? Regardless of price, that'll be a decision that will come back and haunt you for quite some time.

It's the high seas out there.

Very reminiscent of the HuddleChat case: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_takes_down_huddl...

HuddleChat wasn't a rip. It was a tech demo, demo'ing a very small set of general features. There's only so many ways you can build a simple chat app. A text box at the bottom and a list of users on the side? Must be a rip. /rolls eyes.

And yes, it does say something if your product is 'ripped' as a demo for someone else's service ;)

It was following that episode that I lost all respect for 37signals.

Says a lot when your product is cloned in a couple of days.

Well, there's some truth to this statement regarding the functionality of the site, but at the same time I'd say that the design is harder than you might think; the work of creating designs, slogans, site names and copy text is underappreciated; it takes time and creativity to get those things right, and absolutely no work for someone to steal them. Not to mention any PR and press work done by twitvid to promote the site which could now be misdirected.

Stealing (or being influenced by or whatever you want to call it) the design wouldn't lead to misdirected traffic. Not owning the .com is what will do that job for them.

If they can get the trademark, they can maybe win a domain dispute via ICANN:

http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm

if they can prove registration in bad faith and that the owner has no legitimate interest.

If the twitvid.com guys really did buy the domain and design the site after twitvid.io got started, maybe they could somehow prove that stealing their thunder was the only "legitimate interest" and that the domain was acquired in bad faith.

Sadly it sounds like an uphill battle -- and even in the best case it might be a Pyrrhic victory as trademarks take the better part of a year to issue (if not more) and the UDRP procedure probably isn't speedy either. And then they'll fight it, and you'll spend all your time in court instead of building your company.

I doubt it took them just a few days, considering they have an API, flash plugins, design elements, etc..

Yeah, maybe they have had it built for months now and were just as mad at twidvid.io for copying their idea as the twidvid.io people are now that twitvid.com copied them...

They both copied twitpic didn't they?

You said it the best. It is clear that the "clone" had been around for a long time already

I can't upmod this comment enough. Regardless of whether they got some inspiration from twitvid.io they both copied the idea from somewhere else. It's not like twitvid isn't super-obvious as a name considering twitpics success.

Also, how many ways could a service like this be built? It's obvious what features you need, what look you are going for etc.

thanks trapper, that's a nice thing to say.

It's a inevitable service built on top of another service. It's like saying CBS copied NBC.

Use this as motivation to make yours better.

Sure, they have similar UI elements, but everyone knows it's a terrible risk to take not having <your product name>.com I don't understand why anyone would do it.

I'd hate a world where people claim they "own" certain UI layouts. It reminds me a little of when 37 signals were up in arms about huddlechat copying campfire, because both of them looked like chatrooms :/

Definitely if twitvid.io have a legitimate claim to the trademark, they might have a case, although afaik owning the .com counts for a fair amount. If it was me, I'd just change the name, knuckle down, and out maneuver the competition.

I definitely see what you're saying and still remember 37signals' outraged people are outraged ordeal. But...look at the Twitvid.com before and after shots, they changed to look like Twitvid.io.

I don't know if Twitvid.io has a case or not, but Twitvid.com is treading in the bush league.

>> " they changed to look like Twitvid.io."

That's usual competition :/ Company A does something, company B copies. Just a fact of life :/

The websites are different enough to avoid confusion IMHO, and the .com holds the .com name so has a fair advantage. To the unaware, they'd likely consider .io to be the ripoff, as users trust .com

It's just a raging asshole move online. If you were talking about cars, it might be okay for GM to copy something by Toyota, feature for feature -- because they'd still have to invest a billion dollars or so in reverse-engineering, designing, manufacturing, distributing, and advertising it.

But if you can just apple-C, apple-V your way into stealing someone else's brand value, it's a sleazy trick that adds no value. At best, this means that the next time someone has an idea like this, they'll be more likely to go after the dot-com -- and if they can't afford the dot-com, they may move on to their second-best idea instead.

If they copied HTML code, or graphics, then sure. But if they looked at the site and incorporated similar elements and wording, which seems to be what happened, I'd say "meh - it happens".

IMHO not getting the .com is a really bad idea. The best case scenario is you start paying adwords a ton of money to get the traffic. Worst case is probably what happened here.

Outside of 3rd party app integration, I think this will be a big determining factor:

http://www.google.com/search?q=twitvid

And in a funny twist, neither twitvid.com or twitvid.io are showing in position #1. If people really want to help out, they should link to twitvid.io with the anchor text twitvid.

That's going to be a losing battle IMHO. Also google likes .com and so do users. Change the name and take it as a lesson learnt.

I haven't seen any evidence that extensions matter one way or the other. Backlinks/keywords/content play much larger roles.

You're right about the user part. However, Twitvid could end up like Twitter in that the majority of people end up using it via 3rd party apps.

"That's usual competition ... Just a fact of life"

Not really. Some of us choose to operate ethically, helping others in our business communities and the public at large. There are plenty of things you can do without screwing over another small business.

Everyone copies everyone else. That's just the way this business works, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it.

I agree they should just change the name and try to out hustle these guys. If they didn't have the $ to buy the .com domain in the first place, they certainly can't afford to pay lawyers to wage a protracted trademark battle.

Does anyone know who posted the original entry? Was it someone at twitvid.io/fliggo, a friend, or just someone random?

There's a difference between copying individual elements, and making a knockoff of something. That's why there's a distinct word "knockoff" for that case.

To me, the only thing that makes twitvid.com wrong is choosing the same name. Some of the features and accompanying copy are the same, but the layout is basically a combination of any ugc site and Twitter. These two both look a lot like justin.tv and okcupid.com.

Also, twitvid.com looks better, which makes this situation more painful, I'm sure.

In my experience, that line is pretty fuzzy in this business. E.g., take all the various mafia games on facebook, myspace, iphone, and now twitter. They're more or less all knockoffs of one another, but nobody seems to care. In fact, consumers seem to love them all.

In this case, shame on twitvid.com for using the exact same name (and filing a trademark application for it), but I think copying features and design elements is fair game. Ultimately the one that provides the best service will win.

Both sites took a ridiculously generic template for designing their page. Bubbly letters, Twitter colors, show users, 1-2-3 list. The designers for both products lack imagination and created products that fail to stand out. Maybe that works because they're making such a "widespread use" product, but you can't accuse people of stealing genericism. Not when every Twitter site works the exact same.

They tried to buy twitvid.com, but they couldn't afford the asking price. But "Twitvid" (not .io or .com) is what both parties are claiming a trademark on, and there Twitvid was clearly first.

twitvid.com Created : Mar 30 2008.

twitvid.io Created : May 12 2009.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore those facts, and according to http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/23/twitvidcom-lets-you-tweet-... they 'launched' within days of each other.

Also http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?&w=400&h=220&o=f&...;

I'm no lawyer, but I think the launch is too close to award anyone anything. I'd expect you have to have a clear established customer base to claim they will be confused - not a couple of days usage.

Trademark protection doesn't apply to names themselves, but to names used for particular purposes. You could start an apiary called Apple Honey Co, and you'd be fine. Start a computer company called Apple, though, and you'd be infringing Apple Computer's trademark.

The mere registration of a name means nothing.

Right. But surely you also have to be able to demonstrate that you have been active in that space for a while, and that people associate that name, in that space, with you. And, that the issue is causing widespread customer confusion.

I'm just skeptical that can be done when both services launched within days of each other. Seems like not enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions.

If bing.io had launched a few days before ms unveiled bing.com do you think they'd have a hope in hell?

True, but it does make it much easier to make the case that they registered the domain a year ago with the intent of launching that brand and have been working on the idea ever since, while we know that Twitvid.io just spent a few days throwing this together a couple weeks ago. Hardly an airtight case for trademark protection.

I'm not saying what they did is right, as it clearly isn't, but I agree with axod; Twitvid.io should just change their name and move on. They're going to fight a losing battle otherwise.

the domain twitvid.com was created earlier but may have been bought from the original owner just recently.

They didn't register the domain a year ago. They bought it from a squatter after Twitvid launched.

What I simply cannot understand, is why twitvid.io would launch, knowing that twitvid.com was out there. What did they think it would be used for? Selling flowers?

It's obvious that twitvid.com would become a competitor, and due to the service they both copied - twitpic.com - would look very similar to twitvid.io.

How do you guys know this?

Because (as I said in the post) the Twitvids also tried to buy twitvid.com from the guy who'd registered it, but couldn't afford his asking price.

Sorry for the ambiguity...I meant to say: how do you know that they bought it after Twitvid.io launched?

True, but that cuts both ways. Twitvid.io xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx see below xxxxxxxxxxxxx hasn't been in existence very long, so there is no way they can argue their domain is an established mark. Twitvid.com could point to the early registration (and possibly the date of their purchase of it) as evidence that they planned to move into this space and had to move up their launch schedule in response to twitvid.io.

Trademarks are quite different from copyright, where proof of authorship is all; given the relative youth of both sites, I wouldn't rely on a legal remedy if I were twitvid.io. If nothing else, one would have to ask whether the cost of defending the mark would exceed the cost to buyout the .com, and indeed if/why not this was budgeted for.

Just noticed that twitvid.com (not .io as I mistakenly noted above) actually has an active trademark application on the name Twitvid. Specifically, it's their parent eatlime.com, an existing video-sharing service that has done the filing. So I don't see much hope for twitvid.io leveraging their < 1 week launch advantage into a defensible trademark.

Are they connected with Twitpic (http://twitpic.com/), or are they ripping them off as well?

One of the Y Combinator Funding Application's questions says:

Why would your project be hard for someone else to duplicate?

I think the minimum answer is: because we've already bought the .com name!

...and <productname>hq.com <productname>now.com get<productname>.com do not qualify.

So... do people assume you have those? Should we get those so people don't squat them? We have the dot com.

He's making a dig at 37signals apps. Campfirenow.com, highrisehq.com. I think also at getdropbox.com

From the USPTO:

Word Mark TWITVID Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Video Upload Service Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 77742689 Filing Date May 21, 2009 Current Filing Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Owner (APPLICANT) EatLime, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1417 Guerrero St. San Francisco CA 94110 San Francisco CALIFORNIA 94110 Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Google "twitvid" and http://twitvid.in ranks first, ahead of .io and .com. So there's a third one now, I guess.. I should make one.

All of these Twitter apps are really just a diversion. The rest of us can hack with a little more peace of mind since our potential competition is off in the echo chamber.

I used to think like that as well before I launched TweetLinx - I was working on my news engine with peace of mind in my personal echo chamber when I realized that I might be able to make use of Twitter's buzz to introduce people to my company and technology. You can always expand your product line later - if there's easy traffic, sometimes it's worth taking.

HN is quickly becoming the place to air out inter-startup grievances.

hmmm... that gives me an idea for a startup

Me too! You'd better not steal my idea.

Haha...a couple days after the story on TechCrunch was first posted about Twitvid.io, these comments appeared:

http://img.skitch.com/20090602-jyfihr2g3x4rnhgeui63s7nikk.pn...

I don't get it - what's been "ripped"?

You can't copyright an idea, so that's a no.

Web 2.0 icons - I have those on my site. The words "Upload from your computer" - I have those on my site. A list of the latest stuff being added/uploaded - oh yes, I have those on my site.

axod's comment[1] confirms that the linked page is incorrect (twitvid.com was not bought after launch) and so there doesn't seem much else to go on.

People have been building competitor sites to other services for years. If you can't do it bigger/better/faster... tough?

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=638751

Seems a lot of people commenting are concerned about why they didn't buy the .com and how easy the app was to copy.

That's fine, but don't leave it as analysis done. twitvid.com is blatantly copying twitvid.io and that's wrong, end of story.

It looks like the .com (http://twitvid.com) belongs to someone else, does anyone else see this as a pretty big hurdle to adoption?

Someone doing this was my first thought when I saw they weren't using the .com when they launched. (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=621435)

From a twitvid perspective, a knockoff certainly hurts. As long as twitvid gets better initial users, it can iterate faster and deliver a better product, that should certainly help.

This also poses a much larger question: Once a YC company launches, and clones pop up, how well does the YC company fare wrt these clones? What are the short term & long term consequences?

I can see some of them ("the easiest way to share videos") -- others seem to just be based on common Web 2.0 elements. I can see a lot of Digg in the color schemes, and there's an obvious rip-off of the Twitter layout as well. My biggest problem with it is the name; I think the sites are sufficiently different to avoid confusion besides.

On the flip side, the .com version has a far better design. Usually "ripoffs" look worse or the same, but they've actually improved upon it. Not saying that's right - just an observation.

The copycats must have made the calculation that if twitvid.io couldn't afford to buy twitvid.com, they wouldn't be able to afford lawyers either.

I hope twitvid.com finds out they are wrong.

If the .io guys send out attack lawyers, it will be the biggest waste of time and money ever for a startup.

Neither of these services have any traction, and TwitVid is a mediocre name anyway (it's way too derivative of TwitPic). So what prize would they be fighting over?

And while they're busy consulting with lawyers, someone somewhere will launch TwitTube / YouTwit / Twideo and kick their asses.

Was the .com just parked when they bought the .io? I hate that... Finding a good name is either a) nearly impossible or b) expensive.

People say that, but it's really not. There's still reasonable 4 letter top level domains untaken, and plenty of good names. It just takes some thought, and a fair bit of time.

Off the top of my head, untaken domains: tweevio.com viotwit.com vitwit.com vittler.com twiveo.com tweeveo.com twoovi.com twoovy.com twitvy.com vidatweet.com vidtwid.com

I'm sure there's tons of better names out there, but I think a few of the above names are 'good enough' to be successful, and best of all, they're all free.

Great, now we're going to have 30 twitvid clones.

Are there still four letter .coms available?

Last time I looked yes a few, Also tons of <4 letter>.net available if you don't mind who has the .com version.

No, the LLLL.coms have been bought up by domainers. They had some crazy bubble (which has now burst) for them as well. There are plenty of okish 5 letter .coms available.

I found a couple a year back when I was looking in to this. But.. they sucked. Things like xjqx.com and so forth.

That's damn good for off the top of your head, axod. Mind if I mibitt you for some names concerning my area?

thx, and sure. I'm on #startups :)

I am not an IP lawyer, but seems like copyright infringement to me. Starting with the name. I don't think it matters if twitvid.io is not a .com - if they are providing services under the twitvid mark, they own it. The design elements might be web 2.0/twitterish, but the placement on the screen and wording screams knock-off. It is twitvid.com who should change the name, if .io guys were indeed to market first. It will be interesting to see if the .io guys take this to court.

Having said that, I agree with the comments about making sure to grab a .com. If anything, to avoid a situation like this. Does anyone know, did del.icio.us buy delicious.com right away, or after they became popular and got some cash in their pockets?

TwitVid.io has to sue, or they might as well change their service name.

If they adequately established a trademark in 'TwitVid' via use or registration before TwitVid.com began offering a similar service, they'd have some chance of success.

It might not be cost-effective, though -- it could take a long time, and any similar use by the TwitVid.com owners/operators before TwitVid.io started might foul their claim. Even if they win they might not be able to collect much money/damages... though perhaps they could be awarded the TwitVid.com domain name.

Ignoring this or fighting TwitVid.com only in the 'court' of public opinion could lose any trademark rights TwitVid.io has -- by failure to enforce against a notorious and substantial infringement.

This is to be epxected when you don't own .com name. Just ignore them and concentrate on building/seo'ing your brand so that you can rank 1st on google.

PS: maybe a domain hack like twitv.id makes sense ?

I don't understand why Twitvid.io didn't buy the .com version first?

FTA: (The Twitvids couldn't afford the price the owner was asking for twitvid.com, so they had used twitvid.io.)

Okay it makes sense now. I was reading it wrong.

They couldn't afford twitvid.com so they launched with twitvid.io. Then someone else bought it and launched the clone.

Which would lead us to the obvious question, why didn't they change their name in the first place?

Twitvid.io was already launched when Twitvid.com came out.

twidvid.com was already registered when twitvid.io launched :/

That's true, but it wasn't owned by the current owners. Not long after we launched, they started poking around twitvid.io and testing out features, as they've continued to do. A few days later, they bought the domain.

We are all for competition. However, it becomes an unfair competitive environment when your competitor's sole strategy is to confuse and deceive users rather than innovate.

In a few cases in the past couple weeks they have been @ replying people who had used us, telling them to use the "real" TwitVid.

I feel for you, but in the minds of users, the .com is the 'real' one.

daniel,

Those .com people are really shady. I would never give my password to them. Once the big Tech blogs write up about this, the credibility of the owners are definitely gone. Who would want to work with them?

Nevertheless, why didn't you guys just change the name?

By sticking with twitvid, you opened the door for people to take advantage of you.

Similarly, if you have a domain name, buy both the singular and plural versions. You should even buy the misspellings as well. A good example is RealityPicks.com which redirects to RealityPick.com.

Regarding the credibility of the twitvid.com people:

"It’s backed with money from venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson and a group of angel investors, including Stanford’s Rajeev Motwani (early advisor to Google), Amidzad, former Google employees Georges Harik and Aydin Senkut, as well as XG Ventures, another group of former Googlers."

(From http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/23/twitvidcom-lets-you-tweet-...)

That's a pretty credible group, if you ask me...

In fairness, that's not their sole strategy. They already have an existing video sharing site, eatlime.com, with 500k global monthlies (per quantcast), and they've been leveraging that technology to offer more speed. This was already covered in http://venturebeat.com/tag/cotwitvidcom/

I don't mean to be an ass, but if you couldn't meet the asking price for twitvid.com that ought to have thrown up a red flag. Did you have market research/business intelligence on your competitors in the video sharing space before launch?

Daniel,

Did you guys have the name twitvid registered as a trademark?

related threads to this discussion

picked up by venturebeat: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=638769

I started a separate thread for discussing barriers to entry here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=638892

Reply on news.ycombinator.com