.com
Couldn't this guy just buy squaresheep.net or whatever, and thus prove the connection? (Not that he should have to...)
Facebook swipes user's vanity URL
Facebook's recently introduced vanity URLs may be a handy function for many, but the offer to distinguish users' profiles with names rather than numbers is not unconditional. Defence systems engineer David Lloyd was pleased to be able to adopt the nickname 'squaresheep' to distinguish his Facebook profile from those of the many …
This topic is closed for new posts.
'Face'book
I thought it was FaceBook, for you know, 'people' with faces. Not random cooking companies.
Again corps tample over people, with no justification and some abnormal sense of what is their right.
Deedpoll
Why did facebook assume that it was his vanity name and not what was in the details which was wrong? - he could have been born David LLoyd but changed to Square Sheep by deedpoll.
I don't remember facebook making it clear that the vanity name had to be based on the name you enter in your profile.
Big brother as BB=Big Business=Big Gov't=Be evil to the little guy
squarecows
My Friends owes squarecows.com and .co.uk - complete fail by this bloke not to get squaresheep resisted !
.com is not the whole world...
Last time I checked (about two minutes ago), squaresheep.net is available for registration.
Not that it will make any difference: when you whore your life out to Failbook, you are dancing to their tune.
So we should register our nick-names as domains?
I guess he could register 'http://www.squaresheep.co.uk/' - oops, no he can't that seems to have been taken already, though it's not being used.
I don't use facebook anymore since it's pretty much a complete waste of time, but this sort of autocratic behaviour needs to be challenged.
I wonder if our David could challenge the gym people for using his name? how long have they been around?
hmm 'was formed on the 1st January 2008 following the acquisition of David Lloyd Leisure Ltd' from their website, so our David might have a good basis for that.
ttfn
wormseseses!!
So farcebook should now be yanking Chrissy Shipley's username as she has no connection to it shurely? http://www.facebook.com/default.aspx
Business vs individual
I think David is unfortunately mistaking Facebook for a user-focussed website. It's clients aren't users, but businesses. Users are merely eyes for adverts.
After all, how much is David going to directly pay Facebook in revenue? Keeping a business happy is a much more productive act for them than keeping a user happy.
anyone would think this was some kind of democracy
... Facebook, Apple, MS etc etc are companies. They do not exist to serve us, no matter how much we would like them to, so sorry about loosing your (fairly poor) name but excuse me while i sitffle a big YAWN!!!
lister01
My sympathy levels weren't high to start with as it's Facebook innit.
Still. Big faceless corporation v guy whose nickname has been hijacked? The squareunderdog gets my vote.
Moral of the story is
If you ever have a nickname or whatever, buy the domain name for it! Although, what would happen if he already had the Square Sheep domain name and the company wanted to set up one for itself?
No big deal...
David "Squaresheep" Lloyd.
Jobs a good 'un.
domain priority?
So because i own www.mathewwhite.com does that mean I can override any one else with the same name on facebook if I ever decide to sign up for an account.
Interesting how little the square sheep page has little on it in the way of cooking, or anything else.
Commercial Relationship ?
I think this shows that Facebook only cares about monetizing your content, rather than expressing your individuality. That's why I won't let them have my photos, or any sensitive personal info.
From FB's own blog page:
"Starting at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Saturday, June 13, you'll be able to choose a username on a first-come, first-serve basis for your profile and the Facebook Pages that you administer by visiting www.facebook.com/username/. "
Put simply, he got there first, and registered the name. Quite how some random cookery site (yeah, like the internet needs another one of those !) can pull rank because they were too slow to register, I don't know. They don't even appear to be commercial, and the whois for the domain is "cloaked" - never a good sign.
The site has never been spidered by the Wayback Machine, and Netcraft says they first saw that domain in Feb 2004, so it's not like it's a catchy new name or trademark that needs to protected.
Maybe squaresheep.com needs a recipe for humble pie ?
Repeat after me:
It's only Facebook. It's not anything important. I should go outside and play in the real world.
Squaresheep.com now has a shinny new facebook page
I'm sure this has nothing to do with squaresheep.com starting a facebook page on 16th Nov
Alternatives
orthogonalovine is available as a domain name in all flavours!
I look forward...
...to Facebook taking the name VinceH off of it's current user and handing it over to me, then, since I've been using the name online for getting on for 15 years, and have owned vinceh.com for a large number of those years.
No, you're right, it won't happen.
The real point.
Facebook is probably wrong on their own rules and moreover clearly focusing on the wrong thing, but all that is besides the point:
Why would one use facebook in the first place?
If you (as is clearly the case) have to have a domain name with your vanity name on it to have any claim on a vanity -facebook- name, then there is no point in having a facebook profile any longer. Ye olde html links work just as well to link to the blogs of your friends and anyone can link to you if they'd like to. What extra special secret sauce does facebook offer that I am missing?
faceburk
are arseholes, invasive, slow, arrogant arseholes.
he should close his account.
it will not kill him.
Grow up!
Tough luck! Do we have to pander to cry-babies like this now?
Lots of people have the same nickname, don't see them crying about it! Get a life!
I have a .com domain for my nickname, but still find my nickname has been used by others on some sites I visit. I don't go demanding recompense for the outrage. I simply lump it!
Just call me Mister Squaresheep
MrSquaresheep or SirSquaresheep don't seem to be taken.
Lol
All I can say is 'lol' - It's Facebook after all, they are a law into themselves and there is never a way of putting your side of the story to them, or appealing one of their administrative 'decisions'.
I deleted my account a long time ago and everyone else should do the same. It's a crap, pointless, advertising laden site anyway. Who cares.
These websites are pointless...
God, amen! I stopped using "social networking" after i tinkered around with myspace for a bit. I thought to myself how horrible it would be if details I didn't want people knowing about my life were out there for all to see. Now years later celebrities routinely embarrass themselves via twitter, facebook, etc. I think the irony of these websites is they drive away what would be their heaviest users with their Jobsian style ecosystem. Even if we're not paying we're still the consumer. Why would you put up with this shit? Just don't use the service. Oh wait, I'm not relevant in the social networking society! OH NOES! Social networking just confirmed the long held belief that most people are idiots.
Path of least resistance
Facebook are obliged by their shareholders to minimise costs and maximise revenue. That means they will almost never have time to act fairly - all they will do in this kind of situation is take the path that seems likely to be least expensive at the time, in other words take action in favour of the side to any dispute that seems most likely to threaten a more costly (to Facebook) lawsuit.
What those who don't like this fact need isn't yet another web 2.0 single monopoly site whose users attention or content is sold to advertisers. Much better will be a social networking protocol for which anyone can implement and operate a client or server with some means selectively and optionally to share content between users and servers where prior knowledge and trust relationships exist. That is why so called web 2.0 is a regression - it's really web 0.5.
What is legal isn't always moral.
This is how judges in USA court system make on many cases in the US court systems.
It all boils down to money and the way the USA courts act like money can buy your way into heaven too.
Greed wins everytime. Go ask the 2 guys who invented the priceless pics series and mastercard stole the idea from them and prevented them in court from using their own idea.
The 2 guys invented it thus it is THEIR PRIOR ART. IP theft like this needs to be stopped!
But the company squaresheep.com need to do exactly what the SCI-FI channel did and do a
name change for the very same reason as SQUARESHEEP is WAYYYY to a generic term and not unique at all among the people that do use it.
It shows a lack of class and ingenuity and witt that a companies advertising dept could not come up with a better name.
Facebook has a nickname field
Whilst I agree that this shouldn't have been taken from him, saying that it helped people finding him is not a valid argument.
Facebook already has a 'nick name' field which can be searched on, and indeed, he's using it, because if you search for David Lloyd squaresheep, he's the only match that comes up
Boooooooooooooo!
What does the name SquareSheep have to do with cooking? Nothing, it's just a made up name to get an internet domain.
GIVE HIM HIS TAG BACK!
thats a bunch of bs
i have vanity urls and hope this never happens to me... i bet the company complained and they killed the name...
This topic is closed for new posts.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Popular Whitepapers
- The BI Inflexion Point
Information is a right, not a privilege - VPN security - if you want it, come and get it
Attention WiFi hotspotters: You want it - The Register Guide to iSCSI
A primer on Internet SCSI, a protocol to transport SCSI commands over IP - Secure Mobile Working
Beyond the Technology - The Impact of IT Security Attitudes
Putting the pieces in place for effective security delivery - The Register guide to unified communications
A primer on the implications of unified communications for enterprise IT
