You completely missed the point of my post.  It is a simple call to ethical
analysis of the situation.  Deeming different situations with similar
outcomes (mass following or unwanted solicitation) I asked for simple
justification of the community at large.  In fact had I left out Deans name
it could have been any generic email to the group.

As for your TOS statement, I never said a company could not do so, in fact I
said they could.  But, the only legal recourse to a violation of this type
is suspension of accounts at this level.  If after account suspension Dean
(or anyone else) created new accounts and utilized those to perform the same
action then Twitter (or any entity) could then prove malice.

For naming, go back to your law books (I know I did), his name implies the
service that his product provides (IE: it answers the door when an
interesting party comes by).  In fact, twitter is doing further damage to
this argument by not going after those "good guys" on their list (a
trademark must be enforced in ALL cases or it shall be revoked).  Twitter
did not pursue revocation of the name in proper fashion with accordance to
the law (they told him to hand it over and didn't offer compensation).  They
also did not provide the proper statue of 30 days prior written notice (note
that in the US email communication is not considered valid notice and thus
is why if you win a contest they have to send you a written notice you have
to send back as well).

Now, can we get back to my 4 points/questions with your answers?  What of
the 4 do you feel would be ethical and why, I'm simply curious as to the
community reaction?

 - Jeremy

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:30 PM, David Fisher <tib...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Jeremy,
>
> The problem with your logic is that you don't feel that a company can
> set a ToS for how they want users to use their service. They can.
>
> There are legitimate and non-legitimate uses of Twitter. This guy
> screwed up, and overreacted. Case closed. Twitter's got him on the
> naming issue and the ToS issue (which they can change any time they
> like).

Reply via email to