
A brazen ripoff of Twitvid - pg
http://www.archub.org/twitvid.html
======
jawngee
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.

~~~
sounddust
_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.

~~~
dschobel
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.

~~~
dhouston
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.

------
axod
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.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
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?

~~~
pg
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.

~~~
zimbabwe
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.

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

------
ccarpenterg
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!

~~~
axod
...and <productname>hq.com <productname>now.com get<productname>.com do _not_
qualify.

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

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

------
absconditus
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

------
ryanb
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.

~~~
dbul
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.

~~~
garply
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.

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

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

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

------
ryanwaggoner
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...](http://img.skitch.com/20090602-jyfihr2g3x4rnhgeui63s7nikk.png)

------
Jem
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>

------
anc2020
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.

------
mrduncan
_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>)

------
prakash
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?

------
whughes
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.

------
petercooper
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.

------
jgilliam
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.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
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.

------
bdmac97
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.

~~~
axod
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.

~~~
staunch
Are there still four letter .coms available?

~~~
asb
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.

------
abl
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?

------
gojomo
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.

------
lamnk
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 ?

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
danielrhodes
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.

~~~
dannyr
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.

~~~
jimboyoungblood
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-...](http://venturebeat.com/2009/05/23/twitvidcom-lets-you-tweet-videos-
astonishingly-quick-in-real-time/))

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

------
abl
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>

