A brazen ripoff of Twitvid

http://www.archub.org/twitvid.html

by pg • 17 years ago

109 85 17 years ago

axod13• 17 years ago

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.

fallentimes3• 17 years ago

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.

axod13• 17 years ago

>> " 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

jimboyoungblood4• 17 years ago

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?

pg5• 17 years ago

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.

pg5• 17 years ago

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.

axod13• 17 years ago

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.

tortilla2• 17 years ago

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

imp• 17 years ago

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

tortilla2• 17 years ago

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.

marcusbooster• 17 years ago

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

bdmac97• 17 years ago

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.

axod13• 17 years ago

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.

mikeyur• 17 years ago

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

staunch• 17 years ago

Are there still four letter .coms available?

aswanson• 17 years ago

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

whughes• 17 years ago

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.

prakash• 17 years ago

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?

lamnk• 17 years ago

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 ?

adw• 17 years ago

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

dschobel3• 17 years ago

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

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

zimbabwe3• 17 years ago

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

jawngee• 17 years ago

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.

dschobel3• 17 years ago

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

evdawg• 17 years ago

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 ;)

sounddust• 17 years ago

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.

dschobel3• 17 years ago

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.

abl5• 17 years ago

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

pj2• 17 years ago

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?

ccarpenterg• 17 years ago

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!

axod13• 17 years ago

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

ctingom• 17 years ago

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

gojomo• 17 years ago

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.

ryanwaggoner4• 17 years ago

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...

anc2020• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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)

jgilliam• 17 years ago

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.

jimboyoungblood4• 17 years ago

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.

abl5• 17 years ago

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?

abl5• 17 years ago

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

absconditus• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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• 17 years ago

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.

Jem• 17 years ago

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

petercooper2• 17 years ago

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.

A brazen ripoff of Twitvid

Related Stories