Okay, I'm really quite ticked off. After reading around these forums I've come to this conclusion. Squatting is a form of scum. Similar to that of that green slime that clings to the sides of a fish tank. Seriously though, I've read here that people actually own upwards of thousands or hundeds of domain names. Huh?

Who's right is it to own a domain name simply for the purposes of trafficking? As in who are you to say I have no use for this but if you want it, then you can pay me for it?

My blood boils thinking of those individuals who create a business on this principle. Ethical? Well if I have a trademark name and you have a domain name for it guess what? There is a law that says fvck you, it's illegal to hold a domain name only in hopes of forcing an auction/bid. Yep, so there is an apparent loophole in the legislation that allows for the existence of predators who want that feeling of holding a gun to somebodys head. Hmm, business you say? Laws state the practice is garbage, but not exactly in your case I suppose.

Get a life I say.

Must read for newbies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

I feel for you. I am eyeing some apartments along the waterfront, but that real estate guy says each of them will cost me at least half a million. And many of them have actually been left vacant for more than a year. Damn it.

I don't want to go so far as to call them scum but it ticks me off that folks sit on domain names forever and want to charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for them.

Two things bug me about it:

1. They tie up names that people could use for useful sites.

2. The domains are not really that valuable. A domain name is never a golden ticket to internet profits. Gone are the days when people just type in www.whatimlookingfor.com. Amazon.com does better than bookstore.com or buy.com. Having a good domain name can't hurt but it's not where the money and focus should be at. I think these brokers prey on people who do not understand this who overprice the actual value of a domain name.

It is tempting to "lust" after the must have domain and I think they prey on that irrational exuberance.

Comparing a domain name to something tangible, such as property is a joke. Perhaps some lame justification for the pathetic practice of squatting on a domain name to have someone grovel to you asking for it. Pathetic really isn't it?

The solution is quite simple. It should be implemented at some point by a ruling body of some sort. I make a case for a domain name, in writing, that is taken by a squatter/trafficker. The trafficker can counter making a case for having the name. A case you and I know is pathetic and would be something like, "I have this domain name tied up so that I can force someone to pay for it".

If my reasoning is more "legit" such as I want to actually use the fvcking domain name for a site related to the fricken words or phrase then the domain name should be given up TO ME. Simple. Afterall, isn't this a similar practice already with the so called "trademark" squatters? True the laws need to be expanded.

I think any proposal based on best use is doomed to fail. All a 'squatter' has to do is make a simple 2 page content website to legitimize his claim to the name.

The best way to deter speculators would be to jack the registration fee back up to $60/year . At $7/domain the speculator has little downside or risk. It's like getting an option on real estate with little or no money down. It's low cost, low risk and no barriers to entry that drives speculation.

Sorry to disagree but a generic splash search page hardly to me seems more "legit" than someone such as a business person who has a slogan that would make better use of the domain name.

I go back to my "worst case" example. One company, say Microsoft money buys every single possible phrase or word out there. They own them all, except of course the trademarks ones right? But they own them all. Now currently this is legit right since that is what squatting/trafficking is all about. So it is feasible for one person/company to own the internet. What does your gut say, is that what the internet is about? Please don't bother comparing a domain name to property. A domain name is what? It is like air, it is nothing. No substance right. Its not made of soil, wood or anything else. It isn't property!

So we could have one company owning all of the internet names or at least lets say the .coms and .nets. Under this example the public would be comfortable? The courts wouldn't somehow actually get with the times and bankrupt these types? I'm sure that's the bigger issue here. Poor squatter, you went bankrupt because of a law that was passed? I'm sure that's slowing up the process but it should come some day.

Honestly, you believe that a case of holding say, 100 domain name or 1000 domain names against poor me who makes a claim that I have a more legit reason for getting the name from you wouldn't win in the eyes of a court? A splash search page is the purpose for having that particular domain name? What does a search page have to do with, say, www.thisismybusinessslogan.com? Sure let's read your submission to the courts.

I was about to ignore this thread (for obvious reason), but this talk about price hike is really interesting.

The truth is: domain speculation WAS way more heated when registration fee was much higher. And to be frank, most of the best domains were grabbed back then.

Moreover, the cost of speculation these days lies mostly on bidding expired domains which you could guess usually starts at some 10 times the registration fee for even some modest names, not to mention that half decent ones are getting well into high hundreds and thousands or even 5 figures.

And with higher cost, the speculators are usually not willing to sell it for less, thus creating more angry latecomers.

Originally posted by ge master
Sorry to disagree but a generic splash search page hardly to me seems more "legit" than someone such as a business person who has a slogan that would make better use of the domain name.

I go back to my "worst case" example. One company, say Microsoft money buys every single possible phrase or word out there. They own them all, except of course the trademarks ones right? But they own them all. Now currently this is legit right since that is what squatting/trafficking is all about. So it is feasible for one person/company to own the internet. What does your gut say, is that what the internet is about? Please don't bother comparing a domain name to property. A domain name is what? It is like air, it is nothing. No substance right. Its not made of soil, wood or anything else. It isn't property!

So we could have one company owning all of the internet names or at least lets say the .coms and .nets. Under this example the public would be comfortable? The courts wouldn't somehow actually get with the times and bankrupt these types? I'm sure that's the bigger issue here. Poor squatter, you went bankrupt because of a law that was passed? I'm sure that's slowing up the process but it should come some day.

Honestly, you believe that a case of holding say, 100 domain name or 1000 domain names against poor me who makes a claim that I have a more legit reason for getting the name from you wouldn't win in the eyes of a court? A splash search page is the purpose for having that particular domain name? What does a search page have to do with, say, www.thisismybusinessslogan.com? Sure let's read your submission to the courts.

I think you are confussed about what the internet really is.

Do you think internet is an information service? or an non profit making organisation?
Think of the internet as a 25,000 sq feet shoping center with 100,000 shops each shop is $8/year to rent.
say a business man rents 200 of those shops, and leaves them empty for what ever reason. why do you think someone off the street should have any claim on the business mans property?

ok so you are saying that there should be a organisation that should deal with claim about fair use of a domain name. So you are willing to pay court fees to fight the domain off the companies holding them?
it will cost you a minimum of few hundred $ to sort it all out(but obviously in your opinion someone else should pay that few for you right?)

so don't you think you are better off just paying the asking price (average of $200+) the company wants for the domain?

you confuse me a bit. one minute you say a "A domain name is what? It is like air, it is nothing. No substance right. Its not made of soil, wood or anything else. It isn't property!
".
then next minute you want to create a organisation to deal with domain names(nothing)

you really need to understand business on internet and then you will understand the value of a domain!

I'm sorry to reply to such a thread, but people are pushing my buttons.

> Think of the internet as a 25,000 sq feet shoping center with 100,000 shops each shop is $8/year to rent. say a business man rents 200 of those shops, and leaves them empty for what ever reason. why do you think someone off the street should have any claim on the business mans property?

You need to understand the real estate business :)
A shopping center would never give a shop for $8/year. They would have had to make an investment to build the center, and would rent at a reasonable price to make good on that investment.
The hypothetical business man would have to pay a decent price and have the foresight to know that his investment is a good one. He would risk loosing significant amounts of money (if they were wrong). For his foresight, risk management, timing, etc. he would gain a marginal profit (unless he made a long-term investment and made a REALLY good call). There would be a lot of hassle and work involved. And he would be running a true business.
The internet WAS setup by non-profit organizations and a significant portion of it is still ran by them (take a networking class if you don't believe me). That is why you are able to register a domain for $8/year. Everyone knows the value of a good domain name. The reason why the creators of the net don't charge insane amounts for them is because they are not a-holes :)

> so don't you think you are better off just paying the asking price (average of $200+) the company wants for the domain?
Don't call such groups companies. It brings the rest of us down.
And no. It's called doing the right thing, and not letting the mentioned a-holes get away with BS. I’d rather pay the court and see scum go down. But I guess the people who do these things don't get that.

> you confuse me a bit. one minute you say . . .
The man/woman is trying to make a point. One that anyone who's been around long enough gets. Don't try to "win" the argument by focusing on stupid things (I’m sure you’ll do the same thing to this post, btw)

> you really need to understand business on internet and then you will understand the value of a domain!
Everyone understands the value of a domain. YOU need to understand the value of the internet. I've only been around for ten years, but I've seen what it was originally, and what it could have (and still could) become before scum started using every dirty little trick to make money off it. The internet has great potential as a place for free ideas, etc. (I won't bore you with cliches you all know) and it also has room for people to make an honest buck. But people should stop abusing the freedom it offers to do things that would get them shot in the real world.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree!

I'm not saying i agree with people who do that. but there is not much point in ranting about something u can't do anything about.

Sell a few of your domain names and you will be set :) I wish the land where we left wasn't 1-4 million for a 1800 Sq Ft house on the water.
Originally posted by nameslave

I am eyeing some apartments along the waterfront, but that real estate guy says each of them will cost me at least half a million. And many of them have actually been left vacant for more than a year. Damn it.

Originally posted by ge master
Sorry to disagree but a generic splash search page hardly to me seems more "legit" than someone such as a business person who has a slogan that would make better use of the domain name.

I go back to my "worst case" example. One company, say Microsoft money buys every single possible phrase or word out there. They own them all, except of course the trademarks ones right? But they own them all. Now currently this is legit right since that is what squatting/trafficking is all about. So it is feasible for one person/company to own the internet. What does your gut say, is that what the internet is about? Please don't bother comparing a domain name to property. A domain name is what? It is like air, it is nothing. No substance right. Its not made of soil, wood or anything else. It isn't property!

So we could have one company owning all of the internet names or at least lets say the .coms and .nets. Under this example the public would be comfortable? The courts wouldn't somehow actually get with the times and bankrupt these types? I'm sure that's the bigger issue here. Poor squatter, you went bankrupt because of a law that was passed? I'm sure that's slowing up the process but it should come some day.

Honestly, you believe that a case of holding say, 100 domain name or 1000 domain names against poor me who makes a claim that I have a more legit reason for getting the name from you wouldn't win in the eyes of a court? A splash search page is the purpose for having that particular domain name? What does a search page have to do with, say, www.thisismybusinessslogan.com? Sure let's read your submission to the courts.

Total and utter Bollox
Every business is run on supply and demand why must the internet be any different just cause it is full of little kiddies playing a CEO's with no money.

I have just built a "micro"wave with a "soft" cover - wow I wonder how I can get the domains as my product has more to do with the name than "windows"

maybe just maybe I dont run web on a site but use it for dns or email or any other use i may think of and want to point the http to a ppc engine why shouldn't I unless you want to define my rights.

Grow up, stop whining and if you don't like the heat get out the freakin kitchen.

Originally posted by Goldwing
Total and utter Bollox
Every business is run on supply and demand why must the internet be any different just cause it is full of little kiddies playing a CEO's with no money.


I must say you have said it in your first paragraph and that is no BS!!!

Originally posted by Goldwing
Total and utter Bollox
Every business is run on supply and demand why must the internet be any different just cause it is full of little kiddies playing a CEO's with no money.

Refer to my last paragraph for your answer.
This is that absolute last post I will be making to this thread.

OK emotion aside here is why it is bollox
Sorry to disagree but a generic splash search page hardly to me seems more "legit" than someone such as a business person who has a slogan that would make better use of the domain name.

A web site does not make a domain, a domain may have any of a multitude of uses, a splash page is inconsequential, usage is not easily defined. Say I use a domain for dns hosting but no web site and you have company with the same slogan as my domain name who in your opinion should have it? Say I have a domain that I use for email but dont have a web site and point the the web to a PPC engine to generate revenue and you have a wish for the domain because it fits your business who should get it?

I go back to my "worst case" example. One company, say Microsoft money buys every single possible phrase or word out there. They own them all, except of course the trademarks ones right? But they own them all. Now currently this is legit right since that is what squatting/trafficking is all about. So it is feasible for one person/company to own the internet. What does your gut say, is that what the internet is about? Please don't bother comparing a domain name to property. A domain name is what? It is like air, it is nothing. No substance right. Its not made of soil, wood or anything else. It isn't property!


Actually a domain can be classed as "property" it is a tangible assett, it has value and can be traded and sold. MS would not be able to buy every domain even if it wanted to as there are trademark restrictions in place, your suggestion is therefore ludicrous. In principle ICANNN "owns" every .com name and happens to rent it out to a registrar who in turns leases it to the user for a set amount of time, perhaps your argument should be with ICANN the organisation that does actually control the dispersion of domains. Cybersquatting though is technically different from domain speculation, squatting to me is the deliberate attempt to obtain cash from a company by manipulating the domain registrations, cybersquatters are on the very edge of legallity where speculators operate a legitimate business. Remeber now that .com is an international domain and therefore party to laws of almost every country in the world, jsut how would you tie this all together?

So we could have one company owning all of the internet names or at least lets say the .coms and .nets. Under this example the public would be comfortable? The courts wouldn't somehow actually get with the times and bankrupt these types? I'm sure that's the bigger issue here. Poor squatter, you went bankrupt because of a law that was passed? I'm sure that's slowing up the process but it should come some day.

No they wouldn't and you understand very little about the law, laws cannot be applied retrospectively ( certainly not without massive legal challenge)
Bankrupt someone for running a perfectly legal business because you don't like it? - you have to be on something

Honestly, you believe that a case of holding say, 100 domain name or 1000 domain names against poor me who makes a claim that I have a more legit reason for getting the name from you wouldn't win in the eyes of a court? A splash search page is the purpose for having that particular domain name? What does a search page have to do with, say, www.thisismybusinessslogan.com? Sure let's read your submission to the courts.

You have no right to a domain unless protected by other laws and courts have no right to say otherwise
What happens when 10 people have the same slogan there is no law against that, trademark laws protect the actual domain trademarks in all else it is first come first served.

Refer to my last paragraph for your answer.
This is that absolute last post I will be making to this thread.

When you have exhausted your argument and cannot find support that is often the best way.

I hate the domain system, and the squatters embody exactly what's wrong with it. I don't understand why ticket scalping is illegal and cybersquatting is perfectly ok.

Maybe if the squatter's were somewhat reasonable it would annoy me less. Most just bulk register every domain they can get their hands on and put the same ridiculous price on all of them. The one I dealt with was trying to sell gibberish names and names of places like elementary schools along with the decent names, all priced at $5000! I can't believe this is a valid business model! Even if he sells a couple of domains at that price, he still has to pay to renew thousands of useless names.

As I explained to this particular guy, most domains have no inherent value, the value comes from the popularity of the site it represents. A gibberish domain that's never had a website located there is worthless, but a gibberish name that used to host a popular site could be worth something.