Pitchfork steals URL to start a Tumblr, Tumblr facing ‘big brother’ backlash [UPDATED]

Published on Tuesday 2/16/2010 @ 1:49 PM by the ALT REPORT Robot
         


dot com, the world’s largest music reviews site started a version of their blog. is a microblogging community which has a loyal, growing user base, filling a niche somewhere between livejournal and twitter. Websites often start version of their websites in order to reach content creators who are looking to share their high level content on a daily basis. This was probably a ‘good idea’ to reach out to the community, but the acquisition of their URL has started a ‘huge’ backlash by and pitchfork fans + users.

The URL pitchfork..com had been squatted upon by the tumblogger Tumbledore. Unfortunately, he woke up one morning to see that his URL had been taken from him and given to pitchfork. At this point, we can only speculate that Pitchfork purchased the URL from . Other conspiracy theories say and Pitchfork were looking to combine their user bases in order to get a lethal amount of mad internet pageviews.

From ’s rant against the corporation:

Recently, one of my friends who is subscribed to my pitchfork was surprised to see a sudden change in the content I was posting. That’s because stole my subdomain and gave (sold?) it to Inc. Keep in mind that the word “pitchfork” is not a proprietary name, it is a noun dating back to the year 1364, so they had no legal right to the word or the subdomain. It clearly wasn’t a case of impersonation as none of my posts had anything to do with music. If there was some kind of content quality threshold that failed to be met which led to my blog’s demise, then 98% of should now be blank. Is it possible there’s a certain amount of time that can pass between posts before deletes your blog? If so, they should probably make that information public just in case someone accidentally makes the mistake of going on vacation.

It seems like has attempted to brand their staff as ‘being one with the user’, but this ‘big brother’ act has users worried about their content + subdomain urls being stolen from them. In the modern world, it seems like websites, social networking tools, and publishing platforms will stop at nothing to get mad hits. The Pitchfork + union was a natural match, but the URL acquisition

It seems possible that all users waive the right to their domain when they sign up to use the service. Unfortunately, this type of action has usually been associate with social tools like Myspace and Blogger. In a world where large megasites are attempting to have a humanized brand, users can’t help but feel pitchfork and fading away.

Are yall pissed at / Pitchfork?
Is squatting on the domains of bands + websites + famous people a right that needs 2 be protected?
Is ‘too corporate’ now?
Does care about high level content creators more than micro-users?

The bro who owns @pitchfork on twitter cannot be reached to comment.

UPDATE: PITCHFORK’S CEO RESPONDS ON THEIR
Link: http://pitchfork.tumblr.com/post/393233651/dear-tumblr-community

Dear community,

This afternoon, a user at ..com claimed that had stolen this subdomain (pitchfork..com) from him and given it to us. The URL had been perceived as inactive by us and by , since the last post that had been made was on November 18, 2009, and said, “This filter is obsolete.” The post before that was from March 21. There had been a total of five posts ever made to the account.

Pitchfork emailed the other day to ask how we would go about securing those URLs to use them for our publication. This approach was made to begin actively using them to publish content, as well as to gain control of our copyright/trademark interests in order to avoid potential issues through the misuse of the Pitchfork name, logo, and content. Within 10 minutes, a representative responded: “Hi, Megan. Those URLs are now free. Please let me know if there’s anything else I can help you with. Thanks for using !”

It could not have been clearer to either us or that the account had been abandoned. If there had been an active blog at this URL, Pitchfork would definitely have contacted the user before ever going to . We also would have assumed that would not comply with our request if there was an active account at that subdomain.

It is not our wish to kick people out of active accounts. For example, the user @pitchfork on Twitter had an active account before we signed up. That’s fair, and in that case we don’t feel any more entitled to a ‘pitchfork’ URL than anyone else. We’ll be happy to surrender the URL and find a home elsewhere if the original register of the account wishes.

Sincerely,
Ryan Schreiber
Founder/President
Pitchfork.com

We can only assume that Pitchfork is doing its best to placate the user community, shifting the blame on to . This was a good move by Pitchfork strategic consultants, making sure that their brand wasn’t ruined within their first 10 posts.

UPDATE: employee posts ‘as-a-matter-o-factly’, defensive response
Link: http://meaghano.com/post/393246405/tumbledore-ive-run-pitchfork-tumblr-com-for

As per our policy, we emailed this account’s address to inquire about the dormant account. After you failed to respond for 72 hours, we released the domain.
No content was deleted and no accounts were suspended.
So we are clear, will release dormant domains to trademark holders pursuant to the law, just as all other web services, but never without advanced notice.

Do yall ever wish we could just share one huge URL together and share content/stories together?


claims that he was notified of the domain switch after the fact, and implies that + Pitchfork are ‘lying’ to ’save their asses’ from public scrutiny.