YouTube Algorithm Can Decide Your Channel URL Now Belongs To Someone Else

An anonymous reader writes: In 2005, blogger Matthew Lush registered "Lush" as his account on the then-nascent YouTube service, receiving www.youtube.com/lush as the URL for his channel. He went on to use this address on his marketing materials and merchandise. Now, YouTube has taken the URL and reassigned it to the Lush cosmetics brand. Google states that an algorithm determined the URL should belong to the cosmetics firm rather than its current owner, and insists that it is not possible to reverse the unrequested change. Although Lush cosmetics has the option of changing away from their newly-received URL and thereby freeing it up for Mr. Lush's use, they state that they have not decided whether they will. Google has offered to pay for some of Mr. Lush's marketing expenses as compensation.

Comments

Never belonged to you

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube Algorithm Can Decide Your Channel URL Now Belongs To Someone Else

Never belonged to you in the first place.

Re:Never belonged to you

[swb]

But it's naive in the extreme to believe that some kind of informal system of first come, first served meets squatter's rights would prevail when the players in question are large commercial entities.

The Internet as we knew it 15 years ago (or more..) is dead, as is the benevolent giant of Google. It's not run by geeks for geeks under some informal geek code of honor anymore. It's a commercial marketplace run by corporations for a profit.

And anyone with a clue and any exposure to Google would have to understand that their services and systems change as they see fit. If you rely on Google for anything, you'd better be, as the MBAs say, nimble and able to pivot when they change their minds. Their services come and go. Beta, labs, products, whatever, if it's not making ad revenue it's on life support and will disappear whenever they feel like it.

URLs

[squiggleslash]

It's a shame Google has nobody working for them who knows what a URL does and what it's meant to do.

Maybe they can employ someone to tell them, and explain why changing URLs at random (or "algorithmically" if you'd prefer) to go to entirely different things is a problem.

Perhaps that same person can then tell them what a search engine is...

Re:URLs

[cdrudge]

In a recent Ask Slashdot, the person asking the question was ridiculed by many for relying on his free ISP email account instead of his own domain hosted with a 3rd party provider to allow for portability. I think a similar argument applies here.

Why doesn't Mr. Lush have his own domain/website instead of relying on Google/YouTube to be his direct URL? Just like your ISP provided email account, it may be your account to use, but you don't own it. It's property of the ISP and is subject to their whim in use.

Yeah it sucks that something that was "his" was taken away what appears to be arbitrarily due to some algorithm. But if he is reliant on that URL perhaps he should use something that he has better control and full ownership of.

Re:URLs

[gstoddart]

But there is no justifiable reason why Google should do crap like this.

Lush isn't a sufficiently unique or trademarked term that there could only be one entity using the word Lush. It's not like it was "Lush Cosmetics" and he was stepping on their trademark.

And since trademarks are only valid in your area of business, there is NO legal justification for saying it's not his anymore.

He's been using it for a decade by the looks of it, so there is no way you can claim he's a late comer or cybersquatting.

Basically this is a bullshit policy, badly implemented by Google/YouTube, which basically says "we're going to arbitrarily decide that the branding you have worked on for years is no longer your own because we say so".

So, take your pick, evil, incompetent, or just plain old assholes -- possibly all three. But Google is the ones doing stupid things here.

This is kind of like Slashdot saying "we've decided the account name cdrudge should belong to someone else now" -- because it makes no sense whatsoever to take it away from someone who has been using it for so long.

This is just random garbage by random algorithms which isn't based on a damned thing than the arbitrary code Google has decided is the arbiter of these things.

Re:URLs

[gstoddart]

Actually it is dumb of him to establish his brand based on an URL which he has no control of.

Well, this was his username on YouTube, and even if YouTube changed their URL structure, the channel registered in his name got taken away, assigned to an entity who didn't ask for it, and marked as now being the property of someone else.

This isn't like making a reference to something which should be changing ... this is saying "my channel on YouTube is Lush, and even if YouTube changes its URL, my channel is still Lush".

When YouTube basically exists to make money from showing the content other people have created, suddenly deciding after ten freaking years that the channel should be arbitrarily given to someone else is basically bullshit.

This is entirely about Google being assholes, who are preemptively trying to maximize the branding for people who didn't ask for it, and suddenly deciding that the 10 years he used that account and placed content on YouTube doesn't matter.

Sorry, but this is stupidity on behalf of Google, and has nothing to do with URLs which change. They took away his frigging account name for NO other reason than some algorithm said so.

Basically they picked the entity who they felt deserved the name, instead of the one who had been using it and had a legitimate claim to us.

It's just another example of how Google is full of shit and no longer following their "do no evil" thing -- because this is an asshole move.

Re:URLs

[Fwipp]

They didn't get the channel. They just got the shorthand URL - https://www.youtube.com/user/l... still goes to his channel, he still has all his followers, etc. This is just redirection of the shorthand URL https://www.youtube.com/lush/ to Lush Cosmetic's channel.

Probably their algorithm, like most of Google's stuff, is based on usage - they saw that people frequently visited /lush/; then went to the channel for Lush Cosmetics afterwards.

Re:Makes sense

[squiggleslash]

No, they wouldn't expect that. They'd never go to those links under normal circumstances, unless they saw it written down.

Would you go to slashdot.org/macdonalds and expect a page about hamburgers to come up?

The only people that go to youtube.com/lush are people that have seen it written down or who have bookmarked it, which means, essentially, only people visiting this blogger.

URLs should not change meaning except in extreme circumstances. Google's inability to understand that is baffling given their position as the web's defacto gatekeeper.

Here's my two cents

[rmdingler]

Before this morning, I didn't know either Lush existed (Matthew or the cosmetic company).

Seemingly, Google the omnipotent search engine has a bit of egg on its face,

but both Lush's will benefit largely from this story's exposure.

Are computers taking over?

[jfbilodeau]

Since when did we decide that it's OK for computers to make those type of decisions--and not allow human beings to reverse it?

Re:Are computers taking over?

[QuasiSteve]

Since when did we decide that it's OK for computers to make those type of decisions--and not allow human beings to reverse it?

Nice try, computer! Your font betrays you.

Re:Are computers taking over?

[alexhs]

Since when did we decide that it's OK for computers to make those type of decisions--and not allow human beings to reverse it?

They didn't say "computer" but "algorithm".

In fact, I can give you a sample of the algorithm actually used :

When following conditions are met :
- entity A gives you $$$$$$$ for URL X
- URL X currently belongs to entity B
- entity B gives you nothing for URL X

Then give URL X to entity A.

If entity B complains more than THRESHOLD, give it $ to shut up. (I wanted the cent sign, but even ¢ isn't accepted by slashcode)

No it doesn't

[Viol8]

He registered the channel 10 years ago. Too bad if in the meantime some cosmetics firm with the same name has become successful. Perhaps every word in the english dictionary should be off limits just in case some firm comes along and wants to claim it as their own trademark eh?

Re:No it doesn't

[Viol8]

Thats quite a feat, subtracting 2005 from 2015 and getting 8. Hope you don't do IT for a living.

Re:No it doesn't

[Bongo]

Thats quite a feat, subtracting 2005 from 2015 and getting 8. Hope you don't do IT for a living.

It's an off-by-one error.

Re:No it doesn't

[sconeu]

He's just thinking in base 8. Remember, base 8 is just like base 10... if you're missing two fingers!

Re:No it doesn't

[capntao]

is that the rule of no thumbs?

Re:No it doesn't

[mwvdlee]

It's an off-by-one error.

You're off by one.

Another Name / Company dispute

[cob666]

Here we go again
Nissan v Nissan

Re:Makes sense

[masterofthumbs]

He's still accesible at youtube.com/user/lush just like every other channel is. youtube.com/lush just happened to be a shorter URL that apparently isn't always unique to you.

Huh?

[Gription]

Youtube was started in 2005. Hell Google paid over $1.5 billion for Youtube in 2006 so it was quite well established. Article starts with "In 2005 ...". It is now 2015 which makes that 10 years ago...

What are you talking about?

Re:Makes sense

[Rinisari]

IIRC, there are exceptions in trademark law carved out for peoples' names. That is, someone whose last name is Google could not be prevented from using their name as the name of their company. There are likely some nuances to this, such as that the company couldn't bear the exact same legal name "Google, Inc." or choose the name with intent to cause confusion. Two names that existed in separate industries should be considered safe. This case of naming rights on a privately owned service further complicates the spirit of the law, insomuch as a private entity has control of most of the name and can rightfully choose who uses its service.

ICANN at least honors this sentiment for domains. See the case of Uzi Nissan is Nissan Motors v. Nissan Computer, who registered Nissan.com before Nissan Motors. Similarly in nature, Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft existed, but was settled out of court.

Personally, I'd like to see Google and other services that offer naming of pages to follow similar guidelines: no one can be prevented from claiming their name.

Re:Makes sense

[gnasher719]

"Lush" is a well known brand. If people go to www.youtube.com/lush they would expect to see Lush cosmetics, not some random guy. Similar for www.youtube.com/mcdonalds. Not sure what the issue is here. He doesn't own the site.

People entering www.youtube.com/lush expect to see marketing information from the same guy who registered the name many years ago, not some random company. Not sure what your thought process is here. Lush cosmetics doesn't own the site.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Also his channel has a lot more followers (subscribers) on YouTube than does the cosmetics brand. So he is definitely not squatting. Considering how long he has had his channel, I would not be surprised if he has also been on YouTube for a lot longer than Lush cosmetics.

Re:Never heard

[CronoCloud]

They're a prestige high-end brand like MAC, Nars, or Stila. You won't find their products at your local Walgreens. If my memory serves me well they're around the same vintage as those brands. They've been around longer than Youtube, that's for sure.

Avon's mostly crap, the good Avon stuff is in their Mark sub-brand.

Re:Never heard

[fph il quozientatore]

It's quite popular in Europe. Try to get an European girlfriend next time.

GO HOME YOUTUBE, YOU'RE DRUNK

[idbeholda]

Seriously, they could have at least picked a different account name other than "LUSH".

Re:Makes sense

[moronoxyd]

You think there is only one company by the name of "Lush" in the whole wide world? Or even in America?
Who decides which company gets this nice short URL and which doesn't?

This is usually solved on the first come first served basis, and Google should to the same.
And since this guy was the first and has the right to us his name (he didn't go for "lushcosmetics" nor "whitehousegov") he should keep it.

This decision by Google is stupid and sets a bad precedent.
Not counting the fact that their argument that this can not be reversed is certainly an outright lie.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, the canonical URL for a channel is and has always been youtube.com/user/[channel name]. It just so happens that youtube.com/[channel name] defaulted to redirecting to that if there was nothing else of interest there (there will be other subdirectories with specific purposes there that may be valid channel names but would not redirect) - I would be very surprised if this was ever documented as something to be expected, it was just being liberal with accepting URLs. It yields a redirect, so it's immediately clear that your intended destination is elsewhere, and nobody should be copying and pasting a naked URL like that unless they're doing it deliberately.

It seems Google is now inserting more things into that namespace, effectively using it as a shortener, adding aliases for other channels.

This is just a case of relying on an undocumented feature. You should always be prepared for that to bite you in the ass unexpectedly. It sucks for Matthew Lush, but unless he can point at official documentation that stated that the shorter URL was a valid way of referencing a YouTube channel persistently, he really can't blame Google for this one. Nobody took away his actual channel URL, they just changed an undocumented shortcut that he was relying on.

Good old google

[Revek]

Slightly more evil all the time.

Re:Never heard

[Penguinisto]

My wife is addicted to the damned stuff.

Lush is a cosmetics company that positions itself as the uber-hippie, swears itself against animal testing and such, and promotes pretty much every costmetics-related left-leaning cause you can imagine...

...all while charging about the same prices per gram of product as, oh, I dunno... cocaine.

Re:Never heard

[DanJ_UK]

That they are.

They're an upmarket / prestigious cosmetics manufacturer started here in the UK. If you walk past a lush store you can smell it a mile away, they're known for extremely nice / strong smelling, things.

My other half loves them.

Re:Makes sense

[cdrudge]

But in this case, Mr. Lush registered first, and because it's his own name he can't be accused of domain squatting.

Except it's not a domain registration, so there is no chance of domain squatting. It's path/URL within the YouTube.com domain. It's YouTube.com/Google property for them to use as they see fit.

Re:Makes sense

[91degrees]

Who ever said anything about "do no evil"? Google's unofficial policy is "Don't be evil". Different in a subtle but significant way.

Re:Makes sense

[MisterSquid]

How did you reach that conclusion? Genuinely curious.

Google Fight: "Lush band" vs. "Lush Cosmetics"

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to auto-transfer ownership of names based on rights ownership, then they should include a suffix indicating the trademark group they belong to.
e.g. LushCosmetics, McDonaldsHamburgers (or McDonaldsFastFood), AppleRecords (aka the Beatles' record label) which is not to be confused with AppleComputers, etc.

p.s. I've never heard of Lush cosmetics until this article. Maybelline, Revlon, Avon: Yes, I've heard of those. Lush? No, never heard of them. But I'm a guy, so maybe that explains it.

Re:Never heard

[FranTaylor]

Sorry, all my girlfriends are Canadian.

so then you must be well acquainted with the word "lush"

Re:Makes sense

[Frobnicator]

Besides, "Lush" is a standard common usage word that is neither copyrightable, nor trademarkable. IANAL

It is absolutely protected by trademark.

The very fact that he had used it in commerce give it automatic, de facto trademark protections. Even if he did not register the mark, it still has protection; defending an unregistered mark has a higher burden of proof, but by his use in commerce he automatically gained several legal rights relating to trademark. If he had registered his mark, the protections would be even stronger.

But moving on from trademark, there is also the issue of YouTube's ToS agreement.

And that is where it gets REALLY interesting.

It is quite possible that Google/YouTube violated YouTube's published ToS in this. Their termination policy (part 7 of the EULA) is for (A) repeat infringement of the rules which doesn't apply here, or (B) if "YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user'su account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service."

While they do reserve the right to interpret their ToS, that doesn't mean they can make up reasons outside the ToS.