Facebook blocks Lamebook

Facebook has today escalated a stoush with parody site Lamebook, blocking all access to the site.

A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to TechCrunch that all outgoing links to Lamebook.com had been blocked and the site's fan page shut down. A message on the Lamebook front page confirms the move.

‘‘Well, Facebook didn't like us sticking up for ourselves, so they shut down our Fan Page, are preventing any users from "liking" us, and won't even let you share URLs with your friends if they point to Lamebook,’’ the site reads.

Lamebook operates in a similar style to the popular FailBlog site and allows users to submit screen grabs of funny Facebook conversations, status updates and pictures. Other users can then ''like'' posts and leave comments.

Facebook and it's similarly named rival are already embroiled in a legal battle after Lamebook launched a preemptive legal strike on Facebook claiming trademark infringement. Lamebook has claimed it is a parody site and as such is protected under the US First Amendment. Facebook has filed its own suit against the two-man operation, also claiming trademark infringement.

The Facebook spokesman could not say whether the blocking of Lamebook content was related to the ongoing legal action and repeated an earlier statement regarding the situation.

We’re disappointed that after months of working with Lamebook they turned to litigation. We believe their website is an improper attempt to trade off of Facebook’s popularity and fame and we will continue to protect our brand and trademark. Our terms prohibit posting of material or other activities on Facebook that infringe the rights of others. We reserve the right to pull down any content we believe is infringing. That includes linking to material we believe to be infringing. We also specifically prohibit use of any Facebook or confusingly similar marks (See SRR Sec. 5.1, 5.2 & 5.6 http://www.facebook.com/terms.php).

Update: Some users are reporting that sharing of Lamebook links is still possible. A Lamebook fan page is still accessible as of 9PM ET.

Thanks to +/- Razorfold for the tip.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Opera 11 beta released

Next Story

Kinect hack brings a galaxy far, far away a little closer to home

38 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

so
Facebook now owns both Face and Book word plus Lame ?

i don't see other way how they ever came over the idea of copyright infrig from LameBook ...

i mean when i set up CookBook i get hunted as well ?

How on earth can lamebook claim trademark infringment? Surely Facebook are in the right here. The blocking of links etc is debatable, but I don't think anyone can question that Lambook is using the similarity to Facebook's name to get traffic.

WelshBluebird said,
How on earth can lamebook claim trademark infringment? Surely Facebook are in the right here. The blocking of links etc is debatable, but I don't think anyone can question that Lambook is using the similarity to Facebook's name to get traffic.

They obviously tried to take advantage of the bad publicity it would get them.

Facebook is useless! At least lamebook has funny stuff on it. If you haven't already, delete your facebook account since facebook is the new LinkedIn/friendster. Do you really want a ton of people you don't care to talk to in real life be able to poke you on facebook? Lamebook FTW! :-P

DATmafia said,
Facebook is useless! At least lamebook has funny stuff on it. If you haven't already, delete your facebook account since facebook is the new LinkedIn/friendster. Do you really want a ton of people you don't care to talk to in real life be able to poke you on facebook? Lamebook FTW! :-P

I'm sorry but I do have people I care and talk to in real life. It's called keeping in touch and Facebook makes it easier for me.

How about I go to a forum you own and make a dedicated thread insulting everything about your site, providing links to outside competitors? I'm sure you'd be perfectly alright with that.

DeathsyctheHe11 said,

Facebook only hates Lamebook ><

That's probably there next victim. The sites are virtually the same. Although I doubt they will win that suit.

Tidus4eva said,
Whats the difference between Lamebook and Failbook? http://failbook.failblog.org/

Its the name. FailBook.failblog.org is a subdomain of failblog. Its not a real domain so nothing infringing legally about it. Lamebook however is the actual domain and Facebook is just crying over the resemblance of the domains and files suit saying it confuses people.

Morphine-X said,

Its the name. FailBook.failblog.org is a subdomain of failblog. Its not a real domain so nothing infringing legally about it. Lamebook however is the actual domain and Facebook is just crying over the resemblance of the domains and files suit saying it confuses people.

go to http://www.failbook.com - sure it's a redirect, but it's still effectively the same deal

/- Razorfold said,
I just went to my facebook profile, and shared a lamebook link just to test it. And it worked...

And http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lamebook/133519566667064 , you can also like it.

So how exactly is Facebook blocking Lamebook?

They removed Lamebook's official page (the one you linked to is not their official one) and I can't link to Lamebook. The thumbnail preview just says "(no title)" and when I click 'Share' it tells me I'm trying to post blocked content.

Hmm I feel as if this should be illegal blocking users from linking to perfectly acceptable sites because of a little crybaby dispute you have?

Edrick Smith said,
Hmm I feel as if this should be illegal blocking users from linking to perfectly acceptable sites because of a little crybaby dispute you have?

Its Facebook's site, they can block whatever the heck they want to.

The_DINGUS said,

Its Facebook's site, they can block whatever the heck they want to.

So it'd be perfectly ok for Google to start censoring things off their search results?

Edrick Smith said,

So it'd be perfectly ok for Google to start censoring things off their search results?

Yes, what right do others have to tell Google what they can and can't do with their own site/servers, especially when these services are FREE OF CHARGE to the public?

Tidus4eva said,

They already do. Porn.

Dunno about you but I don't go searching for childporn on google so it doesn't matter if they censor that. But the fact that they censor a site that they're in a cry baby dispute over just is retarded. There shouldn't be any censorship.

Edrick Smith said,

Dunno about you but I don't go searching for childporn on google so it doesn't matter if they censor that. But the fact that they censor a site that they're in a cry baby dispute over just is retarded. There shouldn't be any censorship.

Agreed there should be no censorship.

Edrick Smith said,

Dunno about you but I don't go searching for childporn on google so it doesn't matter if they censor that. But the fact that they censor a site that they're in a cry baby dispute over just is retarded. There shouldn't be any censorship.

For the record he said porn not child porn. Sorry if the first think you think of when the word porn is mentioned is the thought of children, that's rather scary. Anyways its called SafeSearch Filtering, users have the option to moderate what results they query back. Google offers the feature at your discretion so there's a big difference in forcing the matter and offering it..

Morphine-X said,
For the record he said porn not child porn. Sorry if the first think you think of when the word porn is mentioned is the thought of children, that's rather scary. Anyways its called SafeSearch Filtering, users have the option to moderate what results they query back. Google offers the feature at your discretion so there's a big difference in forcing the matter and offering it..

Hence why I went with childporn because google doesn't remove porn results for ALL searches unless it's child pornography. So no that's not rather scary, but thanks for trying.

The point was that yes they are a company and can choose to ban things based on their liking. However just like Google should offer unbiased search results (they're not about to block URLs for companies having lawsuits against them). FaceBook shouldn't do it either. Being that it's a system used by many users for the purpose of social networking it sets it aside from just being a free service. It's like Hotmail or yahoo blocking out URLs in your e-mail because they feel like it.

Edrick Smith said,
Dunno about you but I don't go searching for childporn on google so it doesn't matter if they censor that.
This is going to sound a bit extreme but you brought up the comparison so...why is it ok if they censor it?

There's people out there that believe theres nothing wrong with it morally and that the human body is the human body regardless of the age. It's not like there arent sexually active children of age 15. In the end of the day it's just one person or groups belief against anothers. Facebook don't feel this content is appropriate just as certain governments or religions feel that sexual images of children are inappropriate. Just because you don't search for child porn doesn't mean others aren't inconvenienced by it's censorship and the stigma attached to it.

In the end of the day, if you disagree with the site or your government you're welcome to go elsewhere. Personally, it's facebooks site and if they don't want people taking content from it all power to them.

Smigit said,
Personally, it's facebooks site and if they don't want people taking content from it all power to them.

I don't want people quoting anything I post. If they do, I should have the power and right to sue them into oblivion for using my content without my express written consent. Better get my lawyer on speed dial.

Afterthought: It's not Facebook's content if it's user-generated. If the person that posted these missives don't care that they're posted elsewhere, then Facebook should just shut up and suck it. Just because they provided the venue for this nonsense to be posted doesn't mean that it becomes theirs.

Acrimonia said,
Afterthought: It's not Facebook's content if it's user-generated. If the person that posted these missives don't care that they're posted elsewhere, then Facebook should just shut up and suck it. Just because they provided the venue for this nonsense to be posted doesn't mean that it becomes theirs.

It is theirs. I bet you didn't read the agreement you clicked through on Facebook.

And Facebook can do that, and Facebook can block whichever sites they want. At least if we're talking of what they're allowed to do rather than what our personal morally correct figment of our imagination should do.

Acrimonia said,

I don't want people quoting anything I post. If they do, I should have the power and right to sue them into oblivion for using my content without my express written consent. Better get my lawyer on speed dial.

Afterthought: It's not Facebook's content if it's user-generated. If the person that posted these missives don't care that they're posted elsewhere, then Facebook should just shut up and suck it. Just because they provided the venue for this nonsense to be posted doesn't mean that it becomes theirs.

There are differences and I'm pretty sure you are twisting this deal just so you can get your point across. You can't avoid someone from quoting you because this is not your site and you are (and agreed) to abide by the rules here. The content you make here may be under your name but in no way belongs to you, it belongs to the community but it can be removed and/or edited by any moderator or super user in this site.

The same rules apply to any site you sign in, which includes Facebook. Facebook is not the US so whatever rules or laws of freedom you may have in your moral and social book don't apply to Internet forums, so they can remove any content on THEIR site without ANY warning or explanation. Deal with it.

Edrick Smith said,

So it'd be perfectly ok for Google to start censoring things off their search results?

Why is it not? They provide a service correct? Free speech only applies to the government, and some select few other instances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

This means the government cannot censor you, it does not mean that no one can. Ever been under an NDA? I have many times, know people fired for disclosure, and heard of others that have been sued and lost.

Unless you really think Facebook is part of the press.