

This is how vulnerable your Facebook Page can really be - bond
http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2011/07/15/this-is-how-vulnerable-your-facebook-page-can-really-be

======
guelo
Facebook has this policy backwards. Why should facebook enforce trademark
issues at all? If someone registers a Coca Cola page Coca Cola should sue that
person and the courts should force the person to give up the account, Facebook
should not be involved at all.

If someone leases a building and starts a business and puts up a sign that
says Coca Cola, Coca Cola wouldn't contact the landlord about the sign they
would just sue the owner of the business.

~~~
saurik
If what you are saying is that every Page on Facebook should clearly specify
the name and address of the person who created it, then "maybe" (there are
still a ton of reasons why it should be in Facebook's interest to protect
their users from scams); as it stands, Pages on Facebook don't even link to
the profiles (which themselves could be fake) of the people who administrate
it unless it opts in to that; so, the idea that I should start lawsuits with
the four ass-hats who were impersonating me on Facebook last week (one of
which had well over a thousand fans and was answering questions as if he was
me and trying to lead people through his content farms for ad revenue) is
somewhat silly.

------
earbitscom
They really ought to have a different policy based on the significance of the
page on their site. Isn't a page with 40,000 likes worth requiring the
complainant to provide some documentation about their infringed trademark?
Sure, someone complains about a band with 1500 friends, take it down and let
them battle it out. But a company with 40,000 users on your website ought to
be treated with a little discretion. The number of times that companies with
that many fans are the cause of a dispute cannot be so overwhelming that they
can't do a tiny bit more due diligence.

------
MetaMan
I don't understand how facebook DO NOT see the danger to their own long term
success here.

It is clear that being dependent on them for any significant part of your
business model is risky and currently ill-advised.

Why they aren't taking issues like this seriously are a mystery to me. IMO -
its stuff like this which will end up sinking them.

------
MaysonL
Because it isn't _your_ Facebook Page. It's one of Facebook's Pages, which
they let you play with, until they don't.

~~~
tambourine_man
Precisely. I've said that a gazillion times as well.

A quote from Arstechnica:

 _How dare we post our own content to our own Facebook page_

[http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/04/facebook-
shoots...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/04/facebook-shoots-first-
ignores-questions-later-account-lock-out-attack-works.ars)

I've got used to the fact that the average teenager or grandmother is
constantly producing content and giving personal data to Facebook for free. I
guess email is just too hard for the non geeks.

But seeing industry pundits be surprised by such a move is indeed concerning.

------
badmash69
To be fair to Facebook, this is how vulnerable any one's content is if they
host it at a hosting provider that is outside the jurisdiction of their nation
and subject to third party pressures. Very few large and profitable hosting
providers will give you the benefit of doubt and risk costly litigation.

------
felipemnoa
If somebody claimed that some specific domain was infringing their trademark
they would have to go to court to get it. (Am I right?) Why shouldn't Facebook
have the same policy? Right now it seems that their policy of just listening
to anybody's complaints is open to abuse. In fact, they are probably opening
themselves to a lawsuit by shutting down accounts every time somebody makes an
unsubstantiated claim. In this case there were real monetary damages.

------
Shenglong
Forgive my ignorance here - but how did the fake email manage to have been
signed by facebook.com? If anyone knows, I'd love a detailed explanation or a
reference link. Thanks!

~~~
noonat
The article says that the scammer sent a _screenshot_ of the email (so the
email was just photoshopped, and not actually signed by facebook.com).

~~~
Shenglong
My fault - thanks for the clarification.

~~~
sankara
Actually you don't even need photoshop. Firebug would do.

~~~
RyanKearney
So will Chrome's built in developer tools. No bloated browser or third party
tools required.

------
cbs
_Facebook is not in a position to adjudicate disputes between third parties._

 _When we receive an allegation of rights infringement, or a suitable report
of a violation of our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, our procedures
require that we take action_

That they react to allegations rather than receiving a legal order. GG
Facebook, but for future reference, your one-size-fits-all justice process is
not the same as not adjudicating.

------
Confusion
I think the people that are explaining how Facebook has the right to do this,
and should be expected to do this, are missing the point. This is not about
Facebook's legal rights to do stuff: it's about whether it's a smart business
decision to exercise those rights in certain ways.

Facebook wants to be a useful platform for its users, including companies as
users. A platform is not useful if any nitwit can file an infringement claim
and get a page taken down. It's in Facebook's best interest to review such
claims closely enough to notice that, for instance, they have no reason
whatsoever to assume that the 'Mr. Stevens' from the story is actually a
laywer representing anyone. At a bare minimum, infringement claims should come
on good old paper or should be cryptographically signed, in order for them to
be taken seriously.

As such, this shows a serious problem with Facebooks proposition to small
companies. If you use them, and use them successfully, you open yourself up
for extortion. That can not possibly be something they want.

