Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Squatting vs. Legitimate Domain Brokering?
Silverhammer asks: "I just started my new job for a small Michigan company, and one of my first duties is to sell off what could be a VERY high-priced, high-profile domain name. The company registered it years ago for legitimate reasons -- before the whole *.com rush and "cyber-squatting" hysteria -- but after a corporate reorganization it fell into disuse. Now, the inevitable dilemma of "renew or sell" has finally reared its ugly head." Like it or not, domain names are marketable. Big time. But is this fair? What do you all think should
be the proper way to handle a domain name that has fallen into disuse? More in the article body...
"My question to Slashdot is a two-parter. First, the general: what is the real difference between cyber-squatting and legitimate domain brokering? Squatting for its own sake is a Bad Thing, of course, but domain names are the real estate of the 'Net and real estate is a legitimate business. Second, the specific: what's the best way for me to proceed with selling this domain? I want to keep it clean and sane, but it's still my responsibility to get the best price I can for the company. "
I'd say to Auction it off of course. That's fair, honnest and open.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
I think that you should definately keep the name. If you have use for it. No one can attack you for selling something that you bought out of good faith. God help us all if lawsuits are the prefered way to get a good domain name.
Well, I'll leave the moral question alone for the moment. I'd sell it on ebay, as well as running a small web server on the domain with a static page saying that it's for sale, and giving an e-mail address for offers.
Chris.
its a practice too difficult to govern and defeats the original purpose.
To understand my motivations, you have to look at the history of the domain name registration systems.
registering a domain used to be free.
2 reasons why we now pay to egister domains.
1. charging for domain registrations and limiting them to 2 yer terms was intended to prevent people from abusing the system and squatting.
2. Internic decided they werent making enough money as a not-for-profit institution and instituted a per/register policy.
its even a poorer idea to give people discounts on multiple registrations.
again, there is no easy way to govern this and abuse hasnt stopped just because of the price tag. its just that now tha abusers have a much larger pocketbook.
LW
If they want to buy it, ask how much
Wait about 30 days from the initial offer, and go with the highest one.
Would get the best price, in a somewhat timely manner, without being terribly evil.
Need a Catering Connection
I think the source of the problem comes from an old system trying to cope with the new influx of business. Most would argue that squatting is a Bad Thing, but there are many who say its just like land. I own it by virtue of being here first and buying it.
I think the rules of how domain names are assigned need to be carefully reexamined to reflect the needs of the corporation *and* the individual.
Like how I didn't actually say anything?
I think that any generic domain name is auctionable to the highest bidder, per-say. For example, loans.com, business.com, buy.com. No one in their right mind would name a company by that name, so pretty much the domain would just point to an already existing business domain.
However, where it comes down to someone selling a domain name that is already the name of an established business, is where the line should be drawn. If a company would want to sell, they should sell to the company that has it as a rightful name, rather than some other company that'd just exploit it.
Just IMO
I'd say it is your company's to sell. I mean, this isn't one of 500 domain names scooped up to block a legitimate organization from registering it. If it was bought (or better yet, actually used) in good faith, then I say sell it.
IANAL, but I do think that the law is geared towards allowing your name to be your property if there is a good faith intent to use it, rather than speculating or ransoming good names.
I think that if the company isn't going to use it, they should just sell it off. If you can get lots of $ for it, then more power to ya. Personally, I don't see a problem with it.
-BEGIN BORING SIG- Fear my l33t skillz... or not.
Hi, this is actually my first message posted to Slashdot. I've read a lot so I know I'll prolly get mod'd down and never read, oh well.
I think this issue is tricky because it seems that people should have the right to buy a domain name whether they use it or not, but then again we don't great domain names just sitting around doing nothing. Of course, big corporations will always be able to bully people out of names, but what does the small businessman do when someone is cybersquatting?? It's just too confusing for me.
standing on the shoulders of giants, leaves me cold... if you haven't been to www.opendvd.org, GO NOW!!!
"Use it or lose it" .us domain hierarchy. But since that's not profitable so f*ck the rest of us, right? "Use it or lose it" is a call for conservation - we only have a limited number of names so don't hoard them. This means you should give it up as quickly as possible (highest bidder is your option).
The namespace is very limited. There fewer words than there are companies.. and even people. We really need to link the namespace to geographical distribution - like the
"I got here first."
This is the second camp. Basically InterNIC has far too much power, and this is the solution - take the power back. Make it so if you get here first, you keep it, end of story. It's remarkably simple and effective but it skirts the issue of the size of the namespace and trademarking issues which, like it or not, have become center-stage since the "dot com" blight. For this, I'd say you got it... so either keep it or resell it depending on what your company's bean counters say - if you can make more money selling it, great. If not, hold on to it (think of it as an investment). Either way, companies are dollar-oriented so make a case to the bean counters one way or the other and go with the best option.
Hope that helps.
sell it
Domains are and should always be a first come first serve entity. I mean if you have the brains to come up with a register a good domain name all the more power to you.
Some of our clients legitametly register over 100 domain names at a time. I see nothing wrong with this. A domain broker is as legal as profession or job description as any other broker.
Probably the best way to sell a domain name is to ask a price and see if anyone will offer higher, then take it. Auctions work to.
Lots of people get irked with these people that grab up their "trademarked" name. I'm sorry but the internet is a whole new ballgame and just because your name is copyrighted doesn't mean your domain name is. If you didn't have the foresight and vision to register your name then its your own darn fault it was grabbed up by someone else.
I think a free market model is the best for this. The government and lawyers already control enough of America without destroying the internet as well.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
All I can say is if you use eBay, fer chrissakes don't start the bidding at $20,000,000 unless the name in question is microsoft.com, or something similar. If I have to read through one more stupid auction describing the "next big this-or-that" domain name for sale I'll have to beat somebody with a stick. Makes it a real pain in the ass to serach for old NeXT hardware, I can tell you.
Of course, maybe I'm bitter because some loser picked "simple2use.com" (simple2use@earthlink.net being my old email address for over a year) before I got a chance to do so, then posted it for $1.5M *and* he had the nerve to post a note on the "site" saying nothing more than "I'm a squatter, buy my domain and make me rich cuz I'm a lam3r". Squatter bad. Squatter go away. Servo kill squatter.
Anyway, if you're going to do the auction thing, I would suggest 1) setting a reserve and prominently mentioning it in the posting, 2) make clear your requirements for authorizing the transfer, and 3) document why this is such a great name, rather than just saying "it's the next Yahoo!".
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
I face a similar dilemma. I bought a domain a couple of years ago that I had intended to use for a personal site with a particular theme, and actually did have a partial deployment on it for a while; I've subsequently abandoned that project, and have little other use of my own for the name. The registration is up in a couple of months, and I've considered just letting it lapse, but for one thing: because of the awarding of a particular new sports franchise, the domain name has some serious potential as a fansite, etc.
My current take on it is this: it's a domain name investment, I have every right to try and sell it; like the poster said, it's real estate. I've bought domain names purely speculatively before, nothing has come of them (yet), but it seems to me that the critical distinction between legitimate domain name speculation and cybersquatting is that legitimate speculation doesn't impinge upon the rights of a current trademark holder. If someone had the foresight to buy oven.com when it was still available, who's to argue with their right to make a (potentially substantial) profit on it when they sell the name to GE?
Anyone have a good argument as to why someone should NOT profit from a legitimate domain name investment?
This is my opinion and my opinion only. Incidentally, IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
Comapnies should have copyright on thier own names, but still, why punish the little guys for having the foresight to take a name and use it online. I wish I had a multimillion dollar domain name for sale!
F**k 'em all, who cares about "cyber-squatting"? Charge all the market can bear!!!
If it is a trademark of your company, it's probably a good idea to hold on to it. Set up a web page under it to redirect to your company's "real" web page, but keep it maintained and paid for. Trademark law in the USA has this nasty little "use it or lose it" provision that you have to enforce your trademark or you lose all rights it.
If it's a name unrelated to any name your company uses or plans to use, I suppose it would be a good idea to sell it. Set up a web page under it indicating it is for sale, and leave that up for a couple of months before auctioning it. Give it an absurd price like a million dollars or so at first (depending on how good a name it is), just in case there's a sucker out there with more money than sense, but remember to remove mention of the price if you put it up for auction!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Cyber-Squatting:
- Registering many domain names, and selling them to the highest bidder, regardless of what they want to do with the domain name
- Usually is done purely to make money
- Domain names registered are often names that most people wouldn't think of or register for any reason other than to sell them (i.e. drunkchicks.net)
Domain Brokering:- Buying a few domain names
- Usually sold to people/businesses who would like to use the domain for purposes other than porn or to re-sell at a higher price
- The names registered are more likely to be those which a reputable business would consider registering (i.e. not like drunkchicks.net)
I don't know how closely my ideas of the two fit with other peoples', but I imagine they're not too far off.The way I figure it is, if you've got a domain name that isn't too racy, you didn't buy it just to sell it later to make a killing, and it could actually be used by a reputable business or individual, it's Domain Brokering, and not Cyber-Squatting.
Eruantalon
The Annals of Middle-earth
When you think about it domain names are like mining claims. In the Voisy's Bay "gold rush" (they were actually mining nickel) one company spent a few million on buying up the mining rights to huge amounts of land. This cost them a fortune. (I believe around 3 million) OTOH it gave them the *chance* to make a fortune. In the case of domain names it's not really that cheap to buy up large numbers of them. But if you strike it big you're in luck and you might be able to pay off your investment.
First off, your firm bought the domains fair and square (I assume), so they are yours. Quit worrying about cyber-squatting issues, that was an issue when NSI did not bother to actually collect money from people grabbing domain names by the fistfull. Now that you have to pay in a reasonable time for any public domain name it is no longer squatting, it is more like hoarding.
As for the second portion of your question, what should you do with the names? That is in essance a financial question.
If your web site generates large amounts of revinue by web contact, i.e., you have ads all over like ZDNET, or you sell stuff direct over the web like FreeBSD.org, etc. then keeping popular names and redirecting the traffic to your main site is the way to go. The name of the game is eyeballs there, with a direct link between eyeballs and sales. Similar to what C|Net has done with news.com (and it's others).
However, if it is more of an informative site, none or few direct sales generated from the web, then taking the domains to one of the auction sites will probably be the best way to go.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I say that we let Asuka settle all these things.
The Domain Name you have reached is available For Sale at DomainCollection.com Prices start at $1,500 - Find Out More!
Is this legit? They'using this site to point to their business, however the business appears to be selling domain names that they've squatted on. What are the chances of me being able to get the domain registrar to force these guys to relinquish this domain name, based on the fact that they're squatting.
The difference is in how many names you are sitting on. Just a couple gotten with the intent of using them is not cyber-squatting, and you will not burn in digital hell for your sins.
The real cybersquatters have dozens or even hundreds of domains, then point them all to "under construction" or "for sale" web pages. May they bit rot in hell.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
i think as long as you have been using this domain in the past for a legitmate purpose, i see nothing wrong in selling the domain for any amount. if someone out there is willing to pay the money for it, sell it. there is nothing wrong with that because you did not purchase the domain with the purpose of making some sort of profit out of it.
roche
Bah Humbug!
Perhaps worse than cybersquatting would be setting up another regulatory agency responsible for overseeing domain redistribution. I would rather see someone make some big $$ than have my taxpayers $$ spent in congress debating the issue. If the domain is of a high demand than let someone make money.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
You can get a domain name for 30DM (about $15USD) at joker.com for one year. I got zombierevenge.com from them just yesterday :) It hasn't shown up in the root dns servers yet though (!!!) It's through corenic.net, which is almost as hard to make changes with as nsi on a bad day.
Our company just bought a domain name we'd wanted for quite a while. Like your situation, it had fallen into disuse by its owners, and was auctioned on eBay. We're happy with the results, as the the company that auctioned it off.
To my mind, the biggest difference between cyber-squatting and legit domain selling is one of intent. The cyber-squatter acquires the domain name simply to make a buck - they have no intent to use the domain, and no other reason to hold the domain name. Someone who has had a legitimate need/use for a domain but no longer does is not in the same league as a cyber-squatter. Business needs and practices change, and what once might have been a central part of your business can become completely useless. It's good practice to get rid of the useless part, and if you can make a buck doing it, so much the better.
I don't think there's any problem at all with auctioning or selling off a domain name like this.
But if I try to register asktim.com, and find it for sale for $1,500+ by a COMPANY called domaincollection.net beat me to it, that does cybersquatting, it's called brokering?
I say, if your only intent it to sell it, you shouldn't have it in the first place.
Example: I have registered the name http://linuxtampa.com. I give Linus proper credit for his TM on every page (per his recent instructions), and I'm using it to market my consulting operation. Nobody can accuse me of trying to profit from the domain name itself. Any reasonable person can see that I'm actually USING it legitimately.
Tim
Fraud is a different story. Buying ibm.com(not that you could have) and putting up a website claiming to be International Business Machines, Inc. is fraud and IBM would have good legal recourse to make you stop defrauding the public. Buying ibm.com and turning to IBM and saying "Would you like to buy this?" is just simple real estate speculation. You could also offer ibm.com to Investment Banking Management Corporation or other companies that have the acronym IBM.
Involving the law/government is usually a mistake. In the above example, where someone impersonated IBM in order to damage them, the more reasonable course of action is to 1)try to buy the domain name, 2)put out press releases etc. stating that this attacker is impersonating IBM., 3)ask DNS servers to drop the entry., 4)start doing business under another domain (ibmcorp.com, etc). It is better for corporations to have free market responses to these attacks rather than relying on big daddy government(remember as a US corporation you can't always get foreign government cooperation(unless you are the MPAA and the foreign government is in Norway)).
As for selling the domain, you can use various domain brokering services. I found some the other day at register.com that may be of use. You can also try an auction at Ebay. I would however, recommend using a market site geared towards the buying and selling of domains as it is likely you will find a larger more desirable(i.e. has real money) market. You can advertise the sale as well through website ads. You know this is basically just like buying and selling real estate.
Stuart Eichert
Stuart Eichert
I ran into an interesting situation this summer after developing a web related product for a small midwest company. Now when it came to naming the product I decided on a name that ran with their product line and accurately described the product. But when we went to look at the .com domain, it had already been registered 4 years ago. The page on the site is an underconstruction page, with copyright date 96-98. The company can not even be contacted. Our main dilemma is whether or not we can name a product when we know we can't get the corresponding .com domain.
i think if a company or athelete or whatever wasnt far thinking enough to reserve the domain name they wanted while it was availible they deserve to be screwed by socalled cybersquatters either that or take the 30 seconds to think up a simalar name and use it. if people and companys didnt start paying so much for taken domains they wanted this would never be a problem, for example say back in the day i bought buy.com before anyone else and just sat on it waiting for some company dumb enough to pay me for it but instead they just get buystuff.com or buycrap.com or buyanything.com and then all they have to do is wait for me to stop renewing it and they would win because inless the socalled squatter is making money with the sit it is really worthless.
lose != loose
You're asking Slashdot to help you decide upon a moral course of action? For you first duty in a new job? I don't know whether to feel honored that you think so highly of us, or appalled that you consider Slashdot a fount of moral wisdom.
Ask a technical question, fine, go for it. Ask us our opinions on philosophy, morality or politics, okay. But this is hardly to place to ask for a moral advice for a real world problem.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I think that domain registration should be handled by a country with slightly more SANE IP laws than the US.
Perfect example is this, Nina Hartley (yes, the porn chick) registered nina.com for use as her personal website and some off the wall purse maker who makes nina handbags tried to legally wrestle the domain name from her. It's her FUCKING NAME and she actually had to spend money to fight in court to use it.
Look at the fight between amazon.com and that amazon lesbian book store.
I say, first come. First served. If I had the insight to host a website about small soft breasts and registered microsoft.com, first M$ would be SOL. However we should limit the number of domains that any 1 person or company can own.
Someone registered kano.com before I did, that doesn't mean that I should sue does it?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
There's nothing wrong with turning a profit on a resource that became valuable through no fault of your own.
If your company had purchased land and it became valuable because Disney planned a park there later on, no one would have any qualms about selling the land for a high price. (Do you hear a lot of complaints about "house-squatters" in Silicon Valley selling Brady Bunch-sized houses for ridiculous sums of money?)
The ethics of buying and selling virtual real estate are no different -- anti-cybersquatting claptrap to the contrary.
It sounds like your company did not acquire the domain in bad faith. My advice would be to sit on it and let interested buyers make offers until one is so high you can't bear to refuse it. Trying to actively sell the domain is going to be interpreted as a sign that someone can buy it below value -- deals like the Loans.Com auction notwithstanding.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
i think if a company or athelete or whatever wasnt far thinking enough to reserve the domain name they wanted while it was availible they deserve to be screwed by socalled cybersquatters either that or take the 30 seconds to think up a simalar name and use it. if people and companys didnt start paying so much for taken domains they wanted this would never be a problem, for example say back in the day i got buy.com before anyone else and just sat on it waiting for some company dumb enough to pay me for it, but instead they just get buystuff.com or buycrap.com or buyanything.com. then all they have to do is wait for me to stop renewing it and they would win because unless the socalled squatter is making money with the site it is really worthless.
lose != loose
I've several domain names registered years ago, before the dot-com craze, for developing projects, some are online now, but some never go above the prototype stage, funding ran out, etc.
I might sell a couple of them as well. They're all very easy to remember and to promote names.
- My name is Bond. James Bone.
stO//%///3(6%7s/^/#S~^//// ^/t6KRB@R@@@BBBRSQB/Q(s%~//(tCO(///~//////C###BBB@ @@RGKOOQ##@^33%66 ~(s~^^^((((tCs63%CQQ(^^//// /~7((t66QSR@@@@@@@@@@R#Q(O@C3(~/(%sO3ttt///^/~G##R BRR@@@@R#QR@~RR#/(t7t( ~~3%^^/~t(((6%773CQ#6^////t(~(3CC6OeSR#@@@@@@@@@@@ B##CQ6%(^/~(t%%6Ct////~GK##R##@@@@@e/#7R ~7~# ~t%t( ((7O/^^/~((76O%%7(6#S/////(6OC7s666K####R@B@@@@R@@ @@K#C@C~////((/(37((~~~#R#RR@B@@@@B 7eK#R6%#Q/~t7% (~7G/ ^^/(%%C%((~~(#Q~^///~t(~sGCO#QSGKQRB@@@BB@@@@#SSeS 6(//~(((~(%t(//~QQ#R@@BRRRBR@/O^#B6^##R/ t(~/ (~/6(^^/~//(~(((//~S#%^////%(~3COCG6#6#R##@#R@@@@@ BKB#SeG6(~////~((7C///##B@B##Q#R@BB#KQGB /RQR/~// (/(%C/^^//~((((((/(CS6/^///((%%C6CC%QSQQQQ##Q@@@@@ RBS#SRGSst~///~((%t~/O#@@BR@R#RR#R@R@KQ# @QR(# /^^ ((%3e/^//7(7%t(%OOGO6G~^/^/~(373%sSOOOQSOOeORRR#BR @RR@@RQQQs7~~((%%(/~(Q@@@@RB###RRRR#Q/R# @R#/QO// ^ (CC%G( //(t%%%O#R###KK7//^//t7736GOC6C6sQC#6QBS#BRR#R@@@R SQSO(~~(7(~/~~QR@@RRR##RR#@@B%GR#RG#RRB/ /^~ t(t3OC^^~t7%%C6e#R##QQs^///~t%636%3COs#6eRQS@BKB#Q #@@@@BReSQQs((7t((~~OR@@@R@#RRBR@@BK(SO R~G#SR///( (tt7CG/^/((7%%%%OQQQSSO(///((C(67OC66OCQSQQS@R@QOO #@@@@#Q6GQKQ6t((7%((KB@@@B@RBRBRR##QRRB6 R3Q#7S(/~( t(tt3e~^/(7%C7(73%%GeGG6//~(7(t%O%sQQQSGeO63BQRG(C RR@@@R#BOSQ#S6(73CCsRBRBB@B@@@@BRQSSQKsR #@RSBS/~(( 7t%3CG7^/(7%6%6%6G%t7CsO(7/CttC%76##SQeC(((%C63(/( OS@@R@Q@sGSQ#QO%7((GR@@B@@@@@@BB#QSQQBO# 6@SRBQR~7% 77%%C6G^^~7t%CG%(6e%t(((((~%CCOCOQR#BS%t(~(t%66~// %s@@@ReRC6OSQ##eOOCGRB@@@@@@@@RR#QSSe/ @@@#C@C@/(s (7C6%te/^/(76sG%((GQ6ttt((t%OS%O#@R@@R%((~((%6%%(( 6@@R#@@@CCsOeQ#####KR@B@B@@@@@BB#QQQ#CSR (B#(S~#//% 7%%3C7s(^/(7%sOOOeQ#QQGO((ts6QRs##@@@@Q%((((t%%3C6 C@BR@@BR%36sGSQ###QQ#R#@@@@@@@@@RKQSQ@RR ~R BQQQ^/6 t(7%7C%^/(%%36e#RR#QQS#C%(36sRSQB@@@@GSR6GsG6C##e@ @##@@@@#%36sOeSQSOeQB#R@@@@@@@@@@@@B#@R# G@K~B6R/( ^((((t6/^/(~(((sSQGC%%3%6G6CsGGGG%(~((((77%%%3CO@B R@R@B@#@7%%C6s6OsCsGQ###RRB@BBB@BQQQQBS@ R@SQ@%e/( //~~(t/^/(((/(3S#e%%7%(7SeOCO((~~//~~((((((((%337@ @B@@@G#%((73C%3%%6sOQ#RR##RRRR#QQQQQK7B% @SQ@(S/~ /(~~(%(//~~(~(%3Ss%%7(///~(C~~////~~~~~((((((73C%( @@@@@@@7((((777t73CeK#K###R###KQQQSS/e## @(@e%GG( (~~(Cs//~t(((t%Oe6%(~/////////////~~~~~(((tt%CC%(R e@@@@@~((~((7t(7%CSQ#########KQQQSeO@#s# /~t#KR( ^((~(OC/~(((/(~teGO~~/////////////~~~~~(((t7%C637O @#e@@RO((~(73((t7OSQQQKKKKKKQQQQSeSRRRR# @/t@@@t /t(~C7(~((((/^~QQ~~////////////~~~~~((((t77%CsCt~R R@#@@@7(((((7((7GSQQKKKQ#QQQQQSeeeQ@s@GB %B/Rt /(OC6C/((sGO376OO~//////////////~~~~~(((t7%3Cs67^R B@@@O@C((((~(((3SQQQ#QQQQQQQQSeGGeSG/@3# /@#%6O 3(/(%e//~(OO%%%((/////////////~~/~~~~~((t%3C6ss3(R RB@@@#O7((~~(t(GSQK#KKQQQQQQSSeOOeSCS#6@ ^7#G@S tG(6ss(/~%OQGsO6C~///////////~~~~~(7//~((%%CsOs3(( KB#@@@s%((((t7%SQK#####QQSSQSeGOOGS#BG%B O eR(K /COO6377(~~/(O3((~////////////~~~(3~/~((736sO63~~@ R@@SRB7t((((7OSQ######KQQQQSGOOOOGR@R@@@ 76R(B (7tt(((((////(t%(~////////////~~((%~//~(7%6s6C3t~B B@B@@@C%t((((GQK#######QQQSeOsssOOG@/RR@ e@#eB (77(7(((((/////((~~//////////////((%~~/~(7%6OO633( Q@@B@###G%~(tCeQ#########QQSGOOsssOO@6@7 @C6/RR ^/(%%(t77(((~/(t%%7(~//////////////~(7(//~(%CsOGOC C3#@#@@@@SG%((6KSQ#########QQQSQSeOsGGGR #6@6(R@Q ^^^^^ (t7((t7777t((t(~~//////////////~(73~/~(%CsOGO6C3CB KQ@@B637(%RKQ##########QQQQK#QSGeSsB#6@% (/BS ^^ tt(t((((~~((C((~//////////////((7%//~(7C6OGO663%3O @@@#GCsC6sKKQ########K#SQQ###QSSQR@RRB@~ @@7 (((%t((~~~~t(t(~//~//////////~((73~//((%6OGG6O6C33 GB@@@6OSSS#CSSQK########QQQQQSQQQ@@%R@@% S%B ~((%7((~(~((~~(~/////////////~((t%~//~(%COGGsGGsOS @@@@@SSOCCSQs6GSQQKQQ######QQQK##R@6@B@e GO@ /(((((((~~~~/((~////////////~((t%~//~(tCOGGseeGsR@ @@@@SOOsSSQs~//3eSQQQ##KK###KK####@@G@#s BR ^^ /(~////////////~((t7~//~(tCOGGOSSs(R@@@@@seG37763~ /~(%GSSQQ#KQQQQQQQQK7@@G@s%@@ ^~~///////////~((t7%7//~(7COGGOSC%3R@@@@C#SeGOOQ6( //73COeQQK#QQQQSSQQQKR@B@O^ K ///~~~~~///~(((7%%C~/~(7CGGO6(66SQ@@@@@#B#SGeGt((( ((t7%6GQQQQQQSQQQQRR@@R@//Q /////~~/~/~(((t7%3C~~~(%6GeG6~~7((B@@@Q@#Q((((~~(~ ~~((73OGQQQQSSQQQQB@@BRR/^e ///~~~////~(((t7%37~~~(%OeeG3 ^#@@BQ%((~~~~~~((((((73sOeQQQSSQQQQS#BRRB Q ///~~///~~~(((t%3C~~~~t3sGeG6~//~~G((((~~////~~~(( (((7736OOQ#Q#RR###@B@## Q ///^/~~~//~~~~~/~((((7%%C~~~((%CGSGs// (((~~////////~~~((((7%%36ssRQRR#KRR#@@ORG e ^^(((~t((~~/((7~/~~~~~~~(((((t%%C(/~(((76OGO^(~~~~ /////////~~~(((7%%%3CsOs@@@@BB@@@/QKO QK ^/736%C(~t((((((~~//(3~/~~~((~(((t(t7%C6O//(((7%6% (~~/////////~~~~~~((77%C666sOOs#KR##K#QR RQ7 GeS ##t#OGO6t/t7((((~~/ /~/~~~~~((tt77%%C6Ge//~((t(((~~//////////~~~~~(t%% %C6OOGGO6s /ssGGO @@e#S6%%C~/(((((((/ ^/~~~~~/(~((( ~6C6OQ(//(((~~~///////////~~~((73O(t3sssOGGGGBRR#K K#KS###GGG/ R@O(RO((67/t77777(~^ / ~(// /%sOOGOeSSSS~/#((~~~/////////////~~((t3O6(t%6sssGG GGORRB@@@@R#@@K 3@R(QQ6(t%~(777(t~/ ~~ 3GOOGOeeSQQQQ#QR(~~~~///////////~~~~((76e(((7Cssss GeGOSSeeeGSQSQQSSQ%6~ (@@(7#O(/6/^ ~6sOsOs6OGQeGGQKQ((~~/////////////~~~((t%6Q%((736O ssOGGO% CC3 %@@3 7QQ~C~ ~~/^ /OO667~ 77%%CCO ((~////////////~~((((((73OS7(((%CsOssOGGO7 GO/ ^(S~ ^%~/%(~////(tt77 3%67 ~((t7%CC67((~/////////~~~~~(((((t73sSC(((t36OOsOOG Os CG /(~/(~//~((((77((((7%% /~~(((736O((~~/////////~~(((((((77%CseR7(((%6OGGss OGO3 /G /~((~~/~~~~/ 3C3///~~((t7%7(~~//////////~~~(((((t7%3COSQ%(((t36 OGGssOOs% s /^~/^~^ (%7/ 76(/////~~(((((~///////////~~(((((t7%3C6OeQR%((7%C 6OGO66OO6 S ~/ ^^ %7/////////~~~///////////~~~((((t7%%3CsGSSQe377%%C 6Os666OOC Q (~ ^ ^^^^^/^^ ^//%% //////////////////////~~((((t7%%36sOGSSQG@3777%3C6 CC6sOs~ G ((~^//^^^^^^^ 3O7/////////////////////~~((((77%%CC6OGeSQQS#@37t7 %%3C3C6sO6 O t(~/ (Os //////////////////~~~(((t7%%%CC6OOGeSSSSS(Bttt77%3 3%CsGSeGeO66s6s%s6/ 3OQ ((~^ ^3OG /////////////~/~~~((((t77%3CC6sOOGeSSSQQQs@Ott77%% %36OGS@@@@@@R##QQQ###SSSSK#RBB CC3C ////////~~~~~~~((((((77%33C66OOGGeSSSQQQSe# ((t7%7%36OGOKe##R#QeOGeQSQSQ###@B@@# 33C6///////~~~~((((((((t77%%3CC6sOOGeeeOeSQQQKB (((t77%CsOs^ (Q#GeSSSQeQ#Q 6%66%/~/~~~~(((((((((t77%%%CC66OOOGeG%7GR#KQS3 Q(tttt7%COGOQ 6GQ %6OC/~~~~~(((((((ttt7%%3CC66OOGGGe#CC#QQQQeR @OS%(ttt7%6OGsQ eO /73OG6~~(((((((((tt77%%3C66OOsOGG /%6eSSSSQ@ #RQ ((((7736Ge33% sS /%%C66~(((((tt7777%%CCsO#B@@@BR6GOGQeee@#@@#Q /(((7%36GS@Q7QQs Oe / %3O66((tt777%%%3C6(O#SOOOOeOOSSGeBR#B KS ^(((7%36GG7K3/KQ/ eG /~ C6OOO(t77%%3C6GSQ6O6sOGeGGGeS Se@@#s ((((%%36Os S#(O#s Oe ~~/ C6sOeQs%33CS(OeGOQeOsC S@ R#@RSQ 7%S((t%%3sOC SQG#O ^6OO ((((/ / tKSGGOSK#K#C O@@KR##Q ~(tC3s(t7%3OG7 eS# %COO /((t3C6Q#Q###QKQ C#G@@@R## ~~((((%(sCC6GOC #es^ KGOs 7sSGeSKQQO ttGe @RR#S# /C7^ ~~(((((COsQSSSs^// OQ G%S6 /(t3sOGGSSSQOeK Q#@@#G 3seO ~~(((((7CSQ##G~// G6GO ^/~(3sOOOOOO^ /O#~SS( 3CeQQS ((((((t3sQ#Q% SOse ^((t%CsssOG#^ OQ@@Se C6sK#Q#t(6OSeeQQSO OCCG (36eSK#666GQG ^GR#S#S %sOO%%GOeSOOtt6GeO 6S^s (6GS#Q##QKQO6SQBRRK COGesOKO6(t7%36OGs sGOs tGSK##KROOss3COe# 7sGt(6ORCt7%%3COGs G6S3O %GQ#####K#QQGCt^ /~~(OG/ /Cs#((%3COGe/ ^OO KC 6QKK####KKQQOt ^^^^~~~~(t6% 3s3(%36SSGS ^/OGCQG (eQSK####K##Q( /^~/(~~///^(6~ ^^6s@7%3OSS#G7(^ ^^ GGSOQ6 ^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^/OQeQ#######Q~//(((~~ ^ Cs^^^^^/COGeSKQ#KC#/% ^ ^ ^^/O#6e#3 ^ CS/eQ######S(~~// / %6 6GeSQQQQKQeS6G ^^/^///^/ 7G6Q#O O 6eSeQSQ^/// t~ tseSQQQSK#QQ6#OO//// /^ Cs(QS(
Consider it this way: there is no difference between brokering and squatting on a domain name. That said, I don't see anything wrong with either.
Intent is frequently cited as being the defining point, and I really have to take issue with this. A company can say anything was its intent, and trying to second-guess a corporation is just that, guessing. If we're serious about calling one thing by its proper name, we should call it exactly what it is: abandonment, of an unused domain name or unmaintained site is on it, or exchange, if a maintained site is located there.
Now for the kicker: I think that domain name costs should be much higher, not lower, than they are now, and the revenue should be fed back into infrastructure or into a trust fund. Consider this: there is a limited number of valid domain names, in the absence of alternate TLD's. Domain names are valuable. Everyone who buys one today (costing as little as about 15$US) is getting it at a fire-sale price. And who should rightfully own unassigned domain names? I think that net users should, collectively, just like the state owns unsold land. The revenue should go somewhere which benefits the net community rather than lining pockets at NSI.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Wait until it is up, renew it under your name with your 100 bucks then post it on e-bay and buy a beach house!
"Dooh" Homer J. Simpson
I say keep the domain name if possible. The longer you have it the more likely someone is going to want it and be willing to pay bug bucks for it. I'm saying it's ok for these people to be scooping up tons of names and making a nice profit from it, but if you legitimately own it, sell it later when it's worth more.
Lets stop praying for someone to save us and save ourselves. ~KMFDM
- Think for yourself, question authority.-
It's insane to say that domain names are like real estate, and real estate is a legitimate business, so selling domain names is OK. Domain names are not like real estate. They're like license plates or phone numbers. And, like either of those, they should be put back into the pool of available domains when someone (or some company) no longer has a use for it.
Registering domains is cheap. Dirt cheap. Why should they be treated like mansions instead of like license plates?
I believe that simply posting these questions to Slashdot is an indirect sales technique. Silverhammer has gotten some free publicity me-thinks. Anyone else think so?
42!
no, really,.. there is no inherent value in any domain name. any value assigned to one is an entirely perceived one. a domain name is only worth what one is willing to pay for it.
end of story
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I personally think cyber squatting shouldn't be illegal in the first place. First come first serve. Ofcourse that's beside the point. I agree that the best way would be to contact some legit companies you think may be interested (explaining the situation ofcourse so they know you're not a cyber squatter). And if all else fails, ebay.
When setting a fair value for a domain name that you want to sell, perhaps the question to ask is "how much value have I added to the domain name since I acquired it?" This will typically be about $0.
.ca domains, I must admit it does have at least some advantages over the open registry of the generic TLDs. Here, in order to qualify for a .ca domain, you have to be a federally incorporated organization, and the domain name must be your corporation's name or an abbreviation thereof. That makes it pretty hard to squat, and it also reduces the value of domains to others since the domain names you're allowed to have are limited.
The main problem I have with profiting from the sale of domain names, regardless of how they were acquired, is that the seller is essentially benefitting from confiscating a publically available resource and selling it on the market once its scarcity has caused its value to jump. It's like bottling air or encrypting DVD movies; one earns profits not by helping but by hindering society at large.
I don't think that domain names should be viewed as privately ownable commodities that can be traded. I also don't think it's correct to refer to them as Internet real estate; they're more akin to civic addresses: attached to real property but not real property in and of themselves. Having an address isn't the same as having a parcel of land. Real estate on the Internet is measured in bytes.
As much as I don't like the domain registration system we have in Canada for
Both systems suck, but maybe there's a compromise between the two that can be found. I like the idea that anyone can have a domain name who wants one, but I also like the idea that domain names are treated as a common resource and that steps are taken to make sure that profiteers don't try to commandeer a public resource for their private benefit at the expense of other members of the public.
My take on the whole squatting thing:
:) Much akin to ticket scalpers who just go and get as many tickets as they can so they can double/triple/google the price for their own personal gain.
:)
If you register a domain, with the plans of using it, and end up selling it off (for whatever price), then you registered it in "good faith" and that's fine by me.
If you register a domain with the sole purpose of turning around and auctioning it off for the highest price... then you're a scumbag.
Reminds me of "Heavy Metal"...
"Hangin's too GOOD for'em! BURNIN'S too GOOD for'em! He should be TORN into ITSY-BITSY PIECES and BURIED ALIIIIIIIVE!!!"
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
Why should we have domain name brokering at all? I've been told that in Canada companies are allowed only one domain name each and the name must be related to their company's name. Hmm ... sane domain name policies, divorce laws, and health care ... I might just have to move north.
Brokering, on the other hand, typically refers to buying more generic names, like business.com, monkeys.com, giantdildo.com, and so on, and then selling them to whoever wants them.
There's a distinct difference here; and I think as long as your company doesn't own something like paramountpictures.com (in which case they might try to extort money from Paramount Pictures), but rather owns something like agrobusiness.com, then it's no big deal. The easiest way to get rid of it is, as others have already said, an auction. Start the bidding at what you paid for it, plus the cost of the time it takes to do the auction, so that at least you're not losing money on the deal. But don't try to extort people; it may not be illegal but I at least consider it immoral.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
"what is the real difference between cyber-squatting and legitimate domain brokering?"
For me: Squattering is using what is clearly someone else's name. eg www.ford.com or www.billclinton.com Note: www.investing.com or www.television.com is not in this category as they are way too general.
Domain brokering: selling a domain name which you own. Its like selling furniture. If some one will buy it and you can transfer ownership the go ahead.
"what's the best way for me to proceed with selling this domain?"
I want to keep it clean and sane, but it's still my responsibility to get the best price I can for the company. "
Auction it. Put up ads for it. Its all respectable, its just the way you go about doing it.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
The trouble with returning the name, is that very likely a domain speculator will grab it first and then auction it off to the highest bidder. Nothing is changed except someone less deserving gets the money.
If you really wanted to score maximum karma points, I suggest selling the name, at a fair price, to the one who you think will make best use of the name.
Set the price just high enough to make the process worthwhile (Don't donante your time and effort to the process. The purchaser should pay you.) and cover the risk that your company may, in fact, need the name later on.
First, since the name was purchased for legitimate use, I don't think this falls under the category of domain squatting (which takes names others want for that specific purpose - preventing them from getting unused names.)
Second, I think it's wrong to sell the name for a lot of money. Though your company may not have origionated with the idea of squatting, auctioning the name for a high price will only give validation and incentive to future domain squatters.
Lastly, that being said, I would still sell it.
As mentioned here, domains on ebay often go for very high prices, and that would be the most logical place to sell it. I do think there are some moral issues to selling domain names, but personally, I wouldn't be naive enough to suggest selling the name for $35, and not expect whoever bought it to turn around in a year and sell it for the big bucks anyway. It's not your job to take the moral high ground, even though it would be the preferred path. Until there are laws or rules regulating the sale of domains, do as so many others have and go for the $$$ by putting it up on ebay.
"If you don't do it, somebody else will" applies here. It's not a solid justification, and all the caveats and moral issues still apply. But I think that sums up the driving force behind what will happen in this case. You'll come out richer, but your hands will be dirtied in the process.
I agree with your last paragraph - and I think that makes the case for the Powers That Be to get off their duff and come up with a "personal" TLD of some sort. ".per" is goofy sounding to me, IMHO. But set things up wither Joe Average can get a domain in this TLD, to do with as he/she/it pleases, much like we do with .com's now (I have one)... and make the .com TLD cost a HELL of a lot more. That's where all the hoopla is - over .coms (and .nets, to a lesser degree). When's the last time you saw a .org being auctioned off for a huge amount?
.com being required to justify (to a reasonable degree) their registering a particular domain name. It'd save a heck of a lot of litigation/hair-pulling, and would prevent bozos from grabbing random .coms just hoping that ONE of'em gets bid on, when the rest could be legitimately used by some business that isn't looking to fork over $50k to a greedy scumbag.
I'd have no problem with companies trying to register a
As far as the personal TLD, leave it open, much like now. Businesses depend much more on that name recognition of a domain name than you or I.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
"indians who actually owned the land before your ilk was on it." -- hehe
If you're not going to use the domain yourself, you have no moral right to sell it on for private profit.
Try and remember that the net succeeded largely thanks to the principle of co-operation.
What have you got to lose by just releasing it?
Alternatively, if you feel you must flog it, be sure to give at least a sizeable proportion the cash to the EFF or some similarly worthy online cause... the legal costs of that poor DVD-hacking kid in Norway(?) spring to mind.
-- R.
It is not often that we get such self-descriptive domain names. Cybersquatting.com just redirects people to domain4lease.com.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I will insist there is no such thing as legitimate brokering.
Given teh current state of affaris of the NSI trio of domains... do whatever you want.. it's a lost cause anyway.
It used to be you couldn't transfer ownership anyway..
I think the best way to go is an auction where you not only get $$ offers but also evaluate what the prospective buyer want to do with it... Sell to the guy with the best offer and whose plan you like..
All these posts about companies not having the "foresight" to register their domain names, and being out of luck have no real touch with reality. Think of the internet not in the instance of where it exists today, but over time since it's creation.
... Shouldn't they get whitehouse.com over what's already on it?
...
Companies are created from scratch everyday, everyone didn't start at exactly the same time, and raced to get to domain names when the gun shot.
Let's say I just thought of a great, easy-to-remember name for a company I just started, and went to register the domain, and found out that some squatter is using it, or a porn site, though the name has nothing to do with porn. Who's fault is that? I wasn't around 2 years ago to register it, and this company is only using it because it's easy to remember, and people will type it in, thinking it's not a porn site.
Is this fair? We know it's not ethical (as if such a thing exists these days), but I should be able to fight for it. What does whitehouse.com have to do with the whitehouse? Or the hundred of other domain names like it. And say White House Systems is created one day, selling custom Linux boxes, and goes IPO, tripling it's initial price
The rambling of a sick-of-society man
It's yours, you paid for it, someone is willing to give you loads of money for it. Just sell it.
It doesn't matter if it was bought in hopes that it would be worth something someday. That ethical decision has to be made when its bought, not when you sell it.
Some time ago, I gave the whole squatting thing some thought and came up with this distinction: squatters are the people who register and let the name lapse for nonpayment (repeat as necessary) and investors pay the registration and hope to make a profit. Note that more 'sophisticated' squatters would have several people in the scam to try to hold a domain name longer (when the domain is about to lapse, the next person in line would hammer the server with a registration attempt until they get it). Plus a few other ill-defined criteria such as registering someone elses name in the hope of cashing in.
The new NSI payment policies make that much more difficult. I don't know if there are other registrars who are still vulnerable to that scam.
The part about registering someone else's name (knowingly) still applies IMHO.
In the case of Silverhammer's question, sell the name! It was registered fair and square and was even used appropriatly for a time.
I agree with your call on this one.
There's nothing wrong with investing in some online real-estate.
However targeting a certain business, person (several people have started doing it with NFL football player's names), or organization, then your moving into a gray area.
You bought it. It's yours. You can sell it. It doesn't even matter why you bought it. A domain name is only what people will pay for it. Even if you have a name like redhats.com (haven't checked to see if that one's registered) you can auction it to the highest bidder with no qualms. The only way the buyer could make money with redhats.com would be to sell a linux distro, that would be illegal (the infringing on red hat, not the selling of linux), but if you use it legally, say for setting up a shoeboy fan page (hint hint) that would be moral, but wouldn't justify a high price.
So if you find a sucker who wants to pay a lot for a domain, bill em for all they're worth and laugh as they either a) get sued by the company they're infringing on or b) spend 5 million on a domain that isn't worth more than the registration fee.
--Shoeboy
What the heck are you saying? What kinds of questions about morality _are_ ok to ask?
Land speculation increases demand for land without increasing utility obtained from the land.
Cost of living/doing business goes up. Everyone gets a little poorer in order to pay for the speculators profits.
People don't complain so much about land speculations because:
1) It's more constrained. As others have mentioned, land is more interchangeable. You can's squeese as hard as for unique objects, like domains.
2) It's accepted. Land speculation is old business. Humans have an amazing ability to accept rather henius acts providing it's "always been done that way".
3) There hasn't been any free or nearly free land to resell for a long time. Thus, the obvious unearned windfalls just there.
Ahh, I see. The soon-to-be unused domain is really "slashdot.org". Guess those rumors of VA interfering with /. are true after all.
If you want to maximize your return, don't put it on ebay -- instead put together a list of companies that might want to acquire the name and then give them an opportunity to purchase it privately. Sometimes domains sell well on ebay, sometimes they flop. There are definately more poor quality names on there than good ones, and you don't want yours to get lost in the noise. Or if the domain name is more of an innovative concept than a name alone consider creating a site to flesh out the idea in full and then find a buyer for the *site* rather than just the domain name. On the ethical issues, the registration system is what it is -- sure it's flawed, yes it sucks, but it's not going to change any time soon. People make money in domains not just from registering the obvious first, but from registering the innovative. It's insane that people can make money from a word and an idea -- but it's not so crazy when you're the one doing it. I say make your money and then lament on the ethical issues. bzerkster mail bzerkster
the heart of the question is wether you 'BUY and OWN' and domain name or 'LEASE and USE'. I am of the opinion tht you actually only LEASE and USE a domain name..which would make any sale of it unethical and wrong. Obviously there are some issues with this in the area of trademarked names, but it is just a personal opinion.
stO//%///3(6%7s/^/#S~^//// ^/t6KRB@R@@@BBBRSQB/Q(s%~//(tCO(///~//////C###BBB@ @@RGKOOQ##@^33%66 /~7((t66QSR@@@@@@@@@@R#Q(O@C3(~/(%sO3ttt///^/~G##R BRR@@@@R#QR@~RR#/(t7t(@ B##CQ6%(^/~(t%%6Ct////~GK##R##@@@@@e/#7R ~7~# ~t%t(@ @@K#C@C~////((/(37((~~~#R#RR@B@@@@B 7eK#R6%#Q/~t7%S 6(//~(((~(%t(//~QQ#R@@BRRRBR@/O^#B6^##R/ t(~/@ BKB#SeG6(~////~((7C///##B@B##Q#R@BB#KQGB /RQR/~// @ RBS#SRGSst~///~((%t~/O#@@BR@R#RR#R@R@KQ# @QR(# /^^ R @RR@@RQQQs7~~((%%(/~(Q@@@@RB###RRRR#Q/R# @R#/QO// ^ //(t%%%O#R###KK7//^//t7736GOC6C6sQC#6QBS#BRR#R@@@R SQSO(~~(7(~/~~QR@@RRR##RR#@@B%GR#RG#RRB/ /^~Q #@@@@BReSQQs((7t((~~OR@@@R@#RRBR@@BK(SO R~G#SR///(O #@@@@#Q6GQKQ6t((7%((KB@@@B@RBRBRR##QRRB6 R3Q#7S(/~(C RR@@@R#BOSQ#S6(73CCsRBRBB@B@@@@BRQSSQKsR #@RSBS/~((( OS@@R@Q@sGSQ#QO%7((GR@@B@@@@@@BB#QSQQBO# 6@SRBQR~7%/ %s@@@ReRC6OSQ##eOOCGRB@@@@@@@@RR#QSSe/ @@@#C@C@/(s( 6@@R#@@@CCsOeQ#####KR@B@B@@@@@BB#QQQ#CSR (B#(S~#//%6 C@BR@@BR%36sGSQ###QQ#R#@@@@@@@@@RKQSQ@RR ~R BQQQ^/6@ @##@@@@#%36sOeSQSOeQB#R@@@@@@@@@@@@B#@R# G@K~B6R/(B R@R@B@#@7%%C6s6OsCsGQ###RRB@BBB@BQQQQBS@ R@SQ@%e/(
//~~(t/^/(((/(3S#e%%7%(7SeOCO((~~//~~((((((((%337@ @B@@@G#%((73C%3%%6sOQ#RR##RRRR#QQQQQK7B% @SQ@(S/~
/(~~(%(//~~(~(%3Ss%%7(///~(C~~////~~~~~((((((73C%( @@@@@@@7((((777t73CeK#K###R###KQQQSS/e## @(@e%GG(R e@@@@@~((~((7t(7%CSQ#########KQQQSeO@#s# /~t#KR(O @#e@@RO((~(73((t7OSQQQKKKKKKQQQQSeSRRRR# @/t@@@t
/t(~C7(~((((/^~QQ~~////////////~~~~~((((t77%CsCt~R R@#@@@7(((((7((7GSQQKKKQ#QQQQQSeeeQ@s@GB %B/Rt
/(OC6C/((sGO376OO~//////////////~~~~~(((t7%3Cs67^R B@@@O@C((((~(((3SQQQ#QQQQQQQQSeGGeSG/@3# /@#%6OR RB@@@#O7((~~(t(GSQK#KKQQQQQQSSeOOeSCS#6@ ^7#G@S( KB#@@@s%((((t7%SQK#####QQSSQSeGOOGS#BG%B O eR(K
/COO6377(~~/(O3((~////////////~~~(3~/~((736sO63~~@ R@@SRB7t((((7OSQ######KQQQQSGOOOOGR@R@@@ 76R(BB B@B@@@C%t((((GQK#######QQQSeOsssOOG@/RR@ e@#eB( Q@@B@###G%~(tCeQ#########QQSGOOsssOO@6@7 @C6/RRC C3#@#@@@@SG%((6KSQ#########QQQSQSeOsGGGR #6@6(R@QB KQ@@B637(%RKQ##########QQQQK#QSGeSsB#6@% (/BSO @@@#GCsC6sKKQ########K#SQQ###QSSQR@RRB@~ @@73 GB@@@6OSSS#CSSQK########QQQQQSQQQ@@%R@@% S%BS @@@@@SSOCCSQs6GSQQKQQ######QQQK##R@6@B@e GO@
/(((((((~~~~/((~////////////~((t%~//~(tCOGGseeGsR@ @@@@SOOsSSQs~//3eSQQQ##KK###KK####@@G@#s BR /(~////////////~((t7~//~(tCOGGOSSs(R@@@@@seG37763~ /~(%GSSQQ#KQQQQQQQQK7@@G@s%@@( //73COeQQK#QQQQSSQQQKR@B@O^ K
///~~~~~///~(((7%%C~/~(7CGGO6(66SQ@@@@@#B#SGeGt((( ((t7%6GQQQQQQSQQQQRR@@R@//Q
/////~~/~/~(((t7%3C~~~(%6GeG6~~7((B@@@Q@#Q((((~~(~ ~~((73OGQQQQSSQQQQB@@BRR/^e
///~~~////~(((t7%37~~~(%OeeG3 ^#@@BQ%((~~~~~~((((((73sOeQQQSSQQQQS#BRRB Q
///~~///~~~(((t%3C~~~~t3sGeG6~//~~G((((~~////~~~(( (((7736OOQ#Q#RR###@B@## Q
///^/~~~//~~~~~/~((((7%%C~~~((%CGSGs// (((~~////////~~~((((7%%36ssRQRR#KRR#@@ORG e~ /////////~~~(((7%%%3CsOs@@@@BB@@@/QKO QK% (~~/////////~~~~~~((77%C666sOOs#KR##K#QR RQ7 GeS /~/~~~~~((tt77%%C6Ge//~((t(((~~//////////~~~~~(t%% %C6OOGGO6s /ssGGO K K#KS###GGG/ /%sOOGOeSSSS~/#((~~~/////////////~~((t3O6(t%6sssGG GGORRB@@@@R#@@K s GeGOSSeeeGSQSQQSSQ%6~ O ssOGGO% CC3 /OO667~ 77%%CCO ((~////////////~~((((((73OS7(((%CsOssOGGO7 GO/G Os CG
/(~/(~//~((((77((((7%% /~~(((736O((~~/////////~~(((((((77%CseR7(((%6OGGss OGO3 /G
/~((~~/~~~~/ 3C3///~~((t7%7(~~//////////~~~(((((t7%3COSQ%(((t36 OGGssOOs% s
/^~/^~^ (%7/ 76(/////~~(((((~///////////~~(((((t7%3C6OeQR%((7%C 6OGO66OO6 SC 6Os666OOC Q //////////////////////~~((((t7%%36sOGSSQG@3777%3C6 CC6sOs~ G7 %%3C3C6sO6 O //////////////////~~~(((t7%%%CC6OOGeSSSSS(Bttt77%3 3%CsGSeGeO66s6s%s6/ 3OQ /////////////~/~~~((((t77%3CC6sOOGeSSSQQQs@Ott77%% %36OGS@@@@@@R##QQQ###SSSSK#RBB ////////~~~~~~~((((((77%33C66OOGGeSSSQQQSe# ((t7%7%36OGOKe##R#QeOGeQSQSQ###@B@@#
/73OG6~~(((((((((tt77%%3C66OOsOGG /%6eSSSSQ@ #RQ ((((7736Ge33% sS
/%%C66~(((((tt7777%%CCsO#B@@@BR6GOGQeee@#@@#Q /(((7%36GS@Q7QQs Oe
/~ C6OOO(t77%%3C6GSQ6O6sOGeGGGeS Se@@#s ((((%%36Os S#(O#s Oe
/((t3C6Q#Q###QKQ C#G@@@R## ~~((((%(sCC6GOC #es^ KGOs /C7^ ~~(((((COsQSSSs^// OQ G%S6
/(t3sOGGSSSQOeK Q#@@#G 3seO ~~(((((7CSQ##G~// G6GO /O#~SS( 3CeQQS ((((((t3sQ#Q% SOse /~~(OG/ /Cs#((%3COGe/ ^OO KC /^~/(~~///^(6~ ^^6s@7%3OSS#G7(^ ^^ GGSOQ6 /^ Cs(QS(
~(s~^^^((((tCs63%CQQ(^^////
~~3%^^/~t(((6%773CQ#6^////t(~(3CC6OeSR#@@@@@@@@@@
((7O/^^/~((76O%%7(6#S/////(6OC7s666K####R@B@@@@R@
(~7G/ ^^/(%%C%((~~(#Q~^///~t(~sGCO#QSGKQRB@@@BB@@@@#SSe
(~/6(^^/~//(~(((//~S#%^////%(~3COCG6#6#R##@#R@@@@
(/(%C/^^//~((((((/(CS6/^///((%%C6CC%QSQQQQ##Q@@@@
((%3e/^//7(7%t(%OOGO6G~^/^/~(373%sSOOOQSOOeORRR#B
(CC%G(
t(t3OC^^~t7%%C6e#R##QQs^///~t%636%3COs#6eRQS@BKB#
(tt7CG/^/((7%%%%OQQQSSO(///((C(67OC66OCQSQQS@R@QO
t(tt3e~^/(7%C7(73%%GeGG6//~(7(t%O%sQQQSGeO63BQRG(
7t%3CG7^/(7%6%6%6G%t7CsO(7/CttC%76##SQeC(((%C63(/
77%%C6G^^~7t%CG%(6e%t(((((~%CCOCOQR#BS%t(~(t%66~/
(7C6%te/^/(76sG%((GQ6ttt((t%OS%O#@R@@R%((~((%6%%(
7%%3C7s(^/(7%sOOOeQ#QQGO((ts6QRs##@@@@Q%((((t%%3C
t(7%7C%^/(%%36e#RR#QQS#C%(36sRSQB@@@@GSR6GsG6C##e
^((((t6/^/(~(((sSQGC%%3%6G6CsGGGG%(~((((77%%%3CO@
(~~(Cs//~t(((t%Oe6%(~/////////////~~~~~(((tt%CC%(
^((~(OC/~(((/(~teGO~~/////////////~~~~~(((t7%C637
3(/(%e//~(OO%%%((/////////////~~/~~~~~((t%3C6ss3(
tG(6ss(/~%OQGsO6C~///////////~~~~~(7//~((%%CsOs3(
(7tt(((((////(t%(~////////////~~((%~//~(7%6s6C3t~
(77(7(((((/////((~~//////////////((%~~/~(7%6OO633
^/(%%(t77(((~/(t%%7(~//////////////~(7(//~(%CsOGO
^^^^^ (t7((t7777t((t(~~//////////////~(73~/~(%CsOGO6C3C
^^ tt(t((((~~((C((~//////////////((7%//~(7C6OGO663%3
(((%t((~~~~t(t(~//~//////////~((73~//((%6OGG6O6C3
~((%7((~(~((~~(~/////////////~((t%~//~(%COGGsGGsO
^^
^~~///////////~((t7%7//~(7COGGOSC%3R@@@@C#SeGOOQ6
^^(((~t((~~/((7~/~~~~~~~(((((t%%C(/~(((76OGO^(~~~
^/736%C(~t((((((~~//(3~/~~~((~(((t(t7%C6O//(((7%6
##t#OGO6t/t7((((~~/
@@e#S6%%C~/(((((((/ ^/~~~~~/(~((( ~6C6OQ(//(((~~~///////////~~~((73O(t3sssOGGGGBRR#
R@O(RO((67/t77777(~^ / ~(//
3@R(QQ6(t%~(777(t~/ ~~ 3GOOGOeeSQQQQ#QR(~~~~///////////~~~~((76e(((7Csss
(@@(7#O(/6/^ ~6sOsOs6OGQeGGQKQ((~~/////////////~~~((t%6Q%((736
%@@3 7QQ~C~ ~~/^
^(S~ ^%~/%(~////(tt77 3%67 ~((t7%CC67((~/////////~~~~~(((((t73sSC(((t36OOsOO
~/ ^^ %7/////////~~~///////////~~~((((t7%%3CsGSSQe377%%
(~ ^ ^^^^^/^^ ^//%%
((~^//^^^^^^^ 3O7/////////////////////~~((((77%%CC6OGeSQQS#@37t
t(~/ (Os
((~^ ^3OG
CC3C
33C6///////~~~~((((((((t77%%3CC6sOOGeeeOeSQQQKB (((t77%CsOs^ (Q#GeSSSQeQ#Q
6%66%/~/~~~~(((((((((t77%%%CC66OOOGeG%7GR#KQS3 Q(tttt7%COGOQ 6GQ
%6OC/~~~~~(((((((ttt7%%3CC66OOGGGe#CC#QQQQeR @OS%(ttt7%6OGsQ eO
/ %3O66((tt777%%%3C6(O#SOOOOeOOSSGeBR#B KS ^(((7%36GG7K3/KQ/ eG
~~/ C6sOeQs%33CS(OeGOQeOsC S@ R#@RSQ 7%S((t%%3sOC SQG#O ^6OO
((((/ / tKSGGOSK#K#C O@@KR##Q ~(tC3s(t7%3OG7 eS# %COO
7sSGeSKQQO ttGe @RR#S#
^/~(3sOOOOOO^
^((t%CsssOG#^ OQ@@Se C6sK#Q#t(6OSeeQQSO OCCG
(36eSK#666GQG ^GR#S#S %sOO%%GOeSOOtt6GeO 6S^s
(6GS#Q##QKQO6SQBRRK COGesOKO6(t7%36OGs sGOs
tGSK##KROOss3COe# 7sGt(6ORCt7%%3COGs G6S3O
%GQ#####K#QQGCt^
6QKK####KKQQOt ^^^^~~~~(t6% 3s3(%36SSGS ^/OGCQG
(eQSK####K##Q(
^^^^ ^ ^^^ ^/OQeQ#######Q~//(((~~ ^ Cs^^^^^/COGeSKQ#KC#/% ^ ^ ^^/O#6e#3
^ CS/eQ######S(~~// / %6 6GeSQQQQKQeS6G ^^/^///^/ 7G6Q#O
O 6eSeQSQ^/// t~ tseSQQQSK#QQ6#OO////
enough said, you know there is a right and a wrong in the situation, the wrong way unfortunately leads to making more money. be strong, the power of the masses is in every action by every person.
Currently I own virtualsurreality.com after a long and intensive search to find a decent domain name. What's sad is the number of shorter ones that are squatted on by major companies simply because it's cheap to do so. As much as I hate the people who squat for money, at least they have a goal in mind. I may not find their methods ethical, but they are understandable.
moc.com is held by Marathon Oil, who currently have a much better and cooler domain name. The best I can hope for is that they are holding onto moc.com in order to keep Mobil from getting it. The problem is that moc.com is a really cool, perfectly usable, domain name that will NEVER be used. Marathon might be willing to sell it, but as they seem to have no intention of replying to inquiries (I tried), it's not likely to happen.
And Marathon isn't the only person in that boat. Take a look at think.com. Oracle acquired the name and has no intention of using it.
The main question is, has the domain name been used or unused recently and has anyone approached you in the past year with an offer to buy the domain name? If so, you have an ethical responsibility to contact them and inform them that you are selling it through whatever means you choose to. (Ethics aside, informing potential bidders can't be a bad financial idea.)
-----
No Zen is good zen
Legitimate Domain Brokering
Isn't that an oxymoron?
I think the cybersquatting debate has been blown a bit out of proportion. It seems to me (although I could be wrong) that the courts are beginning to settle down to a sensible precedent: as long as a domain name doesn't infringe on a trademark or copyright, whoever registered it first owns it and can sell it for however much they can get.
/. exposure couldn't hurt... I know I'm dying to know what the name is (hint hint).
As for a venue to sell this domain, getting some
The poster was not asking us our opinions, as near as I could figure, but was asking us what to do in a REAL WORLD moral dilema.
It's one thing to discuss issues of "morality" such as GPL verus BSD or whether Bill Joy will go to Hell for the SCSL. It's even a good place to post calls for action, such as against DeCSS hearings. But Slashdot is not Ann Landers or Dr. Laura. That someone considers Slashdot a source of moral guidance is downright creepy.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If slashdot supports domain name ownership and brokering and not being forced to yield it to the big corp with a trademark or "similar" name (whatever that means), they Slashdot must support me. So... who want's my nick? I accept cash, 700MHz or better (working) computer systems or 70mm Star Wars film rolls.
These are not the same thing. Nothing is copyrighted for its own edification. It's done to leverage some economic benefit be it brand recognition or royalties. If a company is willing to sue for the right to take something for 'nothing; then it's also willing to pay something for something. I can't get past the idea that for every squatter who was clever enough to exploit a legal loophole in the process there is a corresponding laggard who now sees it as its due to extract money from that first party. If its legal to buy domain names then until some court decides whether or not all near- variations on a trademark name are actually copyrightable and some clever folks figure out a way to perform due dilligence on the name itself or sell a title to a domain name then that's just the way it is. I'm sick to death of hearing how the poor multibillion dollar company was hurt not by its own ignorance, laziness, stupidity or arrogance but by some individual who saw the potential value in doing something first. The problem is not that domain names are owned by someone other than the firm that wants you to believe that it 'natually' belongs to them. No the problem is that litigation has become a strategic asset of many companies, as much as manufacturing, sales or patents. If these firms could move out of their own way once in a while suddenly one of them would realize that while an individual may be a threat to their precious name a large well organized, highly lawyered company could actually make money going into the business of domain name brokering. And guess what if a large for profit company did it all ther other large for profit companies would think it's a good idea, if only to 'bring order to the market'.
how much for the Slashdot Username "Bruce Perens."??
I'll be you even registered "Bruce Perens," too, you greedy greedy man...
And to the real Bruce Perens, you are spending WAYYYYY to much time addressing this Bruce Perens. character. I never thought I would agree with that punk-ass bitch-slap Roblimo but with regards to you...you are quite the loser.
Go Bruce Perens. go!!!
I'm consistently amazed at the fact that American's haven't ralied to the cause of internet speculators everywhere. I was personally to much of a neophyte to have bought any good urls back in the day, but I totally side with the speculators on this issue and would wholeheartedly encourage you to sell top the highest bidder. Think about it this way: what happens in the real estate market everyday? The entire real estate industry is based upon the free market system, buying property that appears undervalued or that has the capacity to increase in value. My question is what's so different about urls? If a speculator wants to risk some cash (albeit very little) and buy a name in the hope someone wants it later, shouldn't he get a reward for his foresight. Isn't this America?! Listen, I'm not some red flag waving mccarthy boy, but jesus people, how obvious are the ramifications of government stepping in to regulate property ownership? As far as I know eminent domain doesn't extend to property not used for government purposes (i.e, the govt can't take your land to sell it to a developer for a purpose not in the public interest). Does anyone else notice a direct violation of the Bill of Rights in recent court decisions and this argument in general? Of course, Im just an anonymous coward... -Der Prozeb
I know what it's like
A pain familiar to me
Haikuman dot com
--- HAIKU MAN.
The problem is, who exactly decides whether a domain name is being "used"? To what government agency do we want to give that kind of power? Kind of leaves a bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? Would we see "fake usage" pages that appear to contain content, but are really little more than domain brokering companies attempting to appear legitimate while they continue to sell their registered domain names? Will we see small independent netizens evicted from their properly registered and used domains because BigBadCorp complained to BigBadGov't about that person "squatting" on that domain? We're basically seeing this already, with the eToys vs eToy fiasco. This worries me personally. My group has legitimate non-profit content on a domain name which would probably be of interest to a certain package delivery company.
Do we really want some faceless group to have the power to declare your website content "non-legitimate usage"? I don't.
Some alternatives I can think of:
- While it will be legal to offer money for a domain, it will be illegal to attempt to sell it. They creates a lot of gray areas, yeah, but is just a thought.
- Transferring ownership of a domain name is not allowed, so buying or selling domain names is illegal. This would probably lead to the "subletting" of domain names... renting them out to some other interested party while keeping the ownership in your own name.
- Eliminate domain names entirely. What, you can't remember 12 little numbers?
:) I know, not gonna happen. Possibly we can try harder to reduce the dependence on domain names. Search engines have helped do this somewhat.
As with all things, there's no easy answer!"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
Companies who feel that for every product they create, they must have a domain name for!
n g/
h ttp://www.tacobell.com/
Let's say Ford needs to talk about their car, the Mustang. Many companies today do this (I am not saying Ford has done this, I really don't know - but many companies have - movie studios and food distributors come to mind):
http://www.mustang.com/
or
http://www.fordmustang.com/
or something similar. They create domain names based on the product or brand. They should do the following, and it would free up quite a bit of domain space:
http://www.fordmotorcompany.com/ford/auto/musta
Then in their ads on TV and whatnot, just reference the fordmotorcompany.com address - with links to the appropriate sections.
Many movie studios allocate a domain name for each movie they release (I think Sony may be an exception - I could be wrong here), and food distributors/makers tend to have a domain per product, like:
http://www.dorritos.com/
rather than:
http://www.fritolay.com/chips/dorritos/
Certain companies I can see would need to have more than one domain, like chain restaurants:
http://www.pizzahut.com/
http://www.kfc.com/
These are much easier to remember than something like:
http://www.triconglobal.com/kfc/
Mainly because most people have no clue as to who Tricon Global is (though if they mentioned it more in ads and in the restaurants, people would). Chain restaurants tend to have parent companies with names completely different from the chain, for some reason.
However, I would want:
http://www.kfc.com/xtracrispy/wings/
Rather than:
http://www.xtracrispywings.com/
Does anyone else here agree with me?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Are we not confusing cybersquatting with Domain Speculation?
---
Squatting: Dude takes domain name which he has absolutely no use for and expects someone who needs it to pay an insane amount of money.
Legitamit business: Big company takes domain name which it has absolutely no use for and expects someone who needs it to pay an insane amount of money.
You would never get away with that in anything else. Such as. dudeman invents imortallity pill, but one year prior assman gets a patent on it despite the fact that he never created such a thing.
there are tons of examples of why domain squatting is wrong. It doesn't matter who does it it's still wrong.
<i>bring it on teeth</a>
I wouldn't call this brokering or squatting. Your company (supposedly) registered the name with a legitimate business purpose in mind. Now, as time has passed the name has become very valuable, and should be considered an asset to the company.
Squatting (to me) is a company or individual sitting on a name like coca-cola.com that for the most part has only 1 real use. Brokering is buying and then re-selling names like TV.com or drugs.com that are very generic.
If I were you, you might try contacting any companies that you think would be interested in the name privately, and hold a sealed bid auction. This would circumvent some of the hype and whatnot associated with eBay-type auctions, and still get you a fair price for the name. Your company should have only paid $100 for the name, so in all fariness, anything over about $150 is a decent return on investment.
-This sig intentionally left blank
Domain names will either be owned by people with legitimate reasons, cyber-squatters (i.e. "domain brokers"), and/or porn.
A lot of people will have figured out how meaningless domains are when every new company has to work hard to find a name like "www.thenewcompanycalledfoobar.com". New names will be so long it will be easier to remember IP addresses or to simply go through portal sites to get where you want to go. Television ads will be reduced to those few companies that have short and memorable domain names, while the rest will simply advertise online, where a mouse click, not a impressive memory, is all that's necessary to reach the new site.
Super-intelligent monkeys will conquer most of western Canada. At least, that's what the Magic Eight Ball says.
"Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."
If its OpenLinux.com, it wasnt registered in good faith.
Could be wrong thou.....Nah.....
I don't have the answer to the asked question, but I keep hoping that the government is going to look for a meta-solution. My proposed solution:
First, make the USA like every other country. So all US domains will end in USA.
Second, set up a three letter code before the country code, your choice. For example:
amazon.evl.usa
Problem solved, there are now too many (17576) domain names in each country code for one company to try to monopolize or even squat for.
Increase supply an order of magnitude higher than demand.
Just a thought...
I'm surprised that no one's touched on this, so I think I can post without being too redundant...
/. community is at least a little bit capitalistic, we all like to buy new computers don't we?! I'd say that domain squatting is a bad thing, but it's really no different than any real estate speculation that goes on. To whoever put the real estate analogy up in the earlier posts, kudos! Good comparison. Same for the mining claims issue.
An old economics axiom about the value of an object: The value of something is not what it cost to produce, but what someone is willing to pay for it. (I wish I could find out who said this).
I'd say it's pretty fair that most of the
I'd have to say that my opinion on squatting is fairly open. If you happen to get a domain name first, it's yours, but. Well, no but...If some of these huge companies who are bitching about squatters would have gotten to the party a little earlier, we wouldn't be having this problem.
A really good way to solve domain name legal issues might just be to let whoever holds the registration do as they please with it. McDonalds can certainly afford to buy McDonalds.com from whomever may have registered it first...you might even consider these domain name squatters to be visionaries. At least in the sense that they were a hell of a lot more forward looking than the companies that try to sue for copyright infringement.
How about a company that openly claims "ten thousand of our registered domains represent the family surnames of 70% of the population of the United States and Canada" Granted, their stated purpose: "This allows the company to offer over 200 million people a personal presence on the Internet - based solely on their surname." can be viewed as beneficial to the user community at large.
However, fundamentally this company is squatting on 10,000 potential domain names covering not just family surnames but many topics including animals, sports, people, places, etc.
My understanding of the cyber-squatting laws (and please by all means somebody second this and/or correct me if I am wrong) is that it is illegal to "appropriate registered trademarks for use as Internet domain names with an intention
to try to sell them to the trademark owner."
Would it be a bad thing to extend the definition of cyber-squatting to include all domain names that another user has a legitimate claim to? I think this could potentially be a good thing.
I will put forth that there a distinction between purchasing domain names thus forcing people to use your company to "service" that domain name and offering services to domain name holders. The latter is closer to the ideal of an open market model: the user has the choice and (hopefully) chooses the supplier of services that s/he deems best. The former is a model in which the rich get richer and the poor pay all of the bills.
and this could be your home if you aren't careful. They start off so cute and adorable!
...............................................
.........................//((((/^..............
....................(6#@@@@@@@@@BQ3/...........
...............(Q@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@O/......
............%@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@R(...
...........O@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@BBB@@@@@@@@@@%..
.........#@@@@@@@@@GGGGGGGGGGGSKB@@KS@@@@@@@@@O
.......O@@@@@@@@@@SGGGGGGGGGGGGGSRQGGGB@@@@@@@@
......(@@@@@@@@@@BGSBSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGK@@@@@@@@
.....G@@@@@@@@@@@KGGR@@BB#SGGGGGGGGGGGG#@@@@@@@
....G@@@@@@@@@@@@KGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGB@@@@@@
...^@@@@@@B#KKK#@RGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG#@@@@@@
...R@@@@SGGGGGGQ@@@@KGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG@@@@@@
..%@@@@BGGGGGGGGGR@@@@@@@B#KGGGGGGGGGGGGG@##@@@
..O@@@@@SGGGGGGGGGSB@@@@@@@@SGGGGGGGGGGGS@SGGK@
..@@@@@@@BGGGGGGGGGGGGQR@@@@@SGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
..@@@@@@@@BSGGGGGGGGGGGGGKRB@BGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
..@@@@@@@@@@@RSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
..@@@@@@@@@@@@QG#QGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
..R@@@@@@@@@@6%%%BBQGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
..6@@@@@@@@@@3((//%OO@BKGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGK@@
...@Q66666O#@@O/^..^//Q@@@@@BRKKQQQQKK#B@@@@@@@
...G(/((((((6B@6^....^/6#B@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
....^^^^^^^^^^///^......^///(((((((((((R@@@@@@@
.............................3^^//^^^^/@@@@@@@@
.............................RRQB/....(@@@@@@@@
................................^^...%@@@6((((%
....................................#@R(/((////
...................................G@#//////^..
..................................%(.^///^.....
...............................................
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
And maybe I'm a bit naive here, but why dont they just add about 100 or 200 TLD's. I'd like to believe there aren't many domain squatters that have the resources to sit on Thousands up thousands of domains, inital setup costs, plus yearly rent...it gets very costly Quick. I prefer this solution...because it gives us little guys with only a few dollars a chance to grab a domain.
.linux tld, or .fbsd or .gnu
It'd be nice to have a
And maybe I'm a bit naive here, but why dont they just add about 100 or 200 TLD's. I'd like to believe there aren't many domain squatters that have the resources to sit on Thousands upon thousands of domains, inital setup costs, plus yearly rent...it gets very costly Quick. I prefer this solution...because it gives us little guys with only a few dollars a chance to grab a domain.
.linux tld, or .fbsd or .gnu
It'd be nice to have a
Squatting vs. brokering: There is no "legitimate" difference. Property exists in two forms: claimed and unclaimed. Brokers have expensive lawyers. Squatters do not. This is the only difference, whether the company that wants the name has money and a good press agent.
How to get a "clean", high price: Offer it to the company directly. Obtain their price offer. If your company has the lawyers and willpower to back you, you can reject it if too low and put the name up for auction. If your company doesn't, sell it.
What is a good price? Figure out how much it would cost the bastards if they sue you. This is a good price, what they are willing to pay to get the name. Sounds fair to me.
And maybe I'm a bit naive here, but why dont they just add about 100 or 200 TLD's. I'd like to believe there aren't many domain squatters that have the resources to sit on Thousands upon thousands of domains, inital setup costs, plus yearly rent...it gets very costly Quick. I prefer this solution...because it gives us little guys with only a few dollars a chance to grab a domain.
.linux tld, or .fbsd or .gnu
It'd be nice to have a
Personally, I don't see an ethical issue here. Domain names are a scarce resource right now. Auctioning allows the entity who values the domain the most, and who has the most means to do something with it, to obtain it. Now, it might start to be an ethical issue when someone buys up a lot of domains speculatively, and refuses to sell them to people who could use them, in hopes of future profits. But when you've got a single domain to sell off because you're not using it any more, heck, give it your best shot. (Well-placed publicity is my best guess of how to do it, I wouldn't think ebay would do much.)
I think people who purchase domain names for the purpose of hijacking them or holding them ransom are greedy, and should be kicked in the head. On the other hand I don't think its appropriate for any organization to prevent anyone from registering any unused domain name. It will be a glorious day when people a mature enough to register domains based on real legitimacy. It seems like your company purchased this domain name for a purpose, and over the years for what ever reason it has become less useful to you... If that is the case, I don't think there is any real moral dilemma over whether or not you should sell it... Hell, auction it off and give it to the highest bidder.
-Drive Nine
I see it as a simple case of property. At first, you owned the domain name, for legitimate reasons. As you now have no need of it, At first offer it to the highest bidder from those who would have legitimate use of it. For instance, if the domain was xyz.com, offer it to XYZ software, inc, XYZ hardware, inc., and XYZ blenders, Inc. If, for some reason, none of them take it, offer it up for auction. Then if any of those companies try to sue you for cyber squatting, you can say you offered it to them first.
It's fairly clear that selling a domain name can be ethical under at least some circumstances. If, for instance, a richer company comes along and offers you money for a domain name that you are actually using, it's clearly OK to sell it. OTOH, I don't think that it's ethical to keep around a domain name that you're not really interested in using in the hopes that someone will offer buy it. If you're not actually going to use it for something, you should let your rights lapse.
The real problem here, IMO, is that there are conflicting ethical situations. On the one hand, you have an ethical obligation to treat other net users correctly by allowing the rights to lapse. On the other hand, you have an ethical obligation to the investors in your business to maximize the return on their investment, which suggests that you should sell it. I think, though, that the ordinary ethical obligation has to trump the business obligation. AFAIK, business ethics says that you have to do everything to help your business so long as it is otherwise ethical. This is something like the counter to the "carrying out orders" defense of illegal actions by the military; ones obligation to follow orders never superceeds the requirement to follow the law.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
First, I think this is a pretty lame question - I could see it in "Dead Abby" before I could in "Ask Slashdot". The entire point of having morals is to retain your constituition in the face of opposition - not to have Slashdot form them for you. If you have to ask what's right or wrong, then maybe it's not that big of an issue, eh?
Anyways, it really doesn't sound like you have much of a choice. If the domain name could go for millions, what business owner in their right mind is going to turn down the prospect of selling it? You may lose sleep over the underlying philosophical rubbish, but I think you should realize the futility of your position: if everying is as you make it to be, it will be sold. If the owners care about money enough to reorganize the company, then they'll certainly care enough to net a quick couple million at the expense of filing 10 minutes worth of paper work. I guess I fall into the camp of "change what you can, and accept what you can't," so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
forget the personal .per .pid Personal Interest Domain
.com sell it in an auction, since it has a clean history IMHO.
just use
as a backwards salute to Linux and it ancestors.
And as for your megahit
But don't forget to CC: Steven Bezos so he can spend megabucks on it and have Amazon fail to make a profit in 2000.
Reality is just a clever Hack, and the Planck constant is the refresh rate.
using your Ford Mustang® example would be to use the product as the server name like http://mustang.ford.com. This makes way more sense to me than chewing up a domain for every type of product that Ford makes (especially since it fits the same format as an email addy). Like the method you mentioned, they could have an unlimited number of products but only use one domain name.
I understand that companies gobble up all the possible combinations of domains to try and stop others from making sites that either compete with or bash the company but I believe alot of the issues they are worried about are already covered by Trademark and Copyright laws.
LRJ
I registered a domain name recently, one I don't need. Embarassingly, I'd entered in my bid before remembering the old rule, "I before E except after C". Still, any one of you might be interested in the domain "inconcievable.com". Tell ya what: I'm holding an impromptu auction for this domain. No minimum bid; even zero is acceptable. The first one to submit the highest bid by 7pm EST tomorrow (Thu Feb 10th) gets it. Please note -- the $70 domain fee is still due to Network Solutions. Send your mail to misspelled@inconcievable.com
Proceeds from this auction will be donated to the EFF.
Outside the narrow confines of extortion, there is domain name speculation, which is no different than speculation in other markets (real estate, commodities, stocks, beanie babies, etc). It is also interesting to note that it is legal to buy and sell trademarks, patents and copyrights - which branding and advertising companies do all the time. Philosophically and ethically, what is the difference between trademarking a name and licensing or selling the trademark, or registering a domain and doing the same?
So why do some people still have a problem with the domain name aftermarket? Is it because ordinary people can play in a game that has until now been reserved for large companies? Is it because some people are still clinging to a precommercial Internet and ignoring inevitable market realities? Regardless, the domain aftermarket is here, its getting bigger every day, and it's becoming more accepted as just another market in which speculators win and lose.
Afternic.com is the leader of the secondary market for domain names. With 60,000 names on auction we have more domains then all other major auction sites (yahoo, ebay, etc.) combined. If you are looking to buy or sell a domain name I hope that you will seriously consider our site.
i remember in 94 / 95 there were serious big wig type people who were blabbering on and on about whether or not to allow commercial traffic on the internet. well obviously things have just improved by 1000% because of all these companies blubbering on the internet since 1995/1996 ... well actually no, browsers work less often b/c companies are greedy and dont care about standards, the lines are slow and saturated with advertisements, there are people filling lawsuits against each other over a fricking domain name, the domain name 'authority from one small group' thing becamme a god awful tyranny (naturally..) and furthermore there are now patents on web pages like 'one click' ... so as far as i can tell, banning commercial traffic on the internet would have helped a great deal to 1. speed up development of the internet 2. get rid of these idiots who cant play fair and just want to sue everyone 3. open it up for poor people rather than rich people who can afford new comptuers to run every latest microsoft browser with micromedia flash bullshit all over it.
That in mind, the only ethical thing to do is not to renew the domain at all. Relinquish it. As you say it is your responsibility to get the highest price possible, you would probably lose your job. Therefore, while it is impossible to say what I would do as I am not you, but I would recommend that you should explain the situation and try to get out of being responsible for any domain name dealings the company might have.
`Business' and ethics are not always on the best of terms.
To address the second question, how to proceed, it depends a bit on the name. Most people who think they have a valuable domain name do not. eBay is full of domains with seven figure asking prices that I wouldn't register for $70. "Gee, business.com went for $7.5 million, so e-zbizniss4u.com should get at least a mill!" Since you didn't give the name, I don't know whether you and your company are deluded or not. But, let's assume it's a decent name.
Maximizing its sale price takes work. The basic strategy is this: let as many people who'd be interested in buying it know that it's for sale, and convince those people that it's worth as much as possible.
As many have mentioned, auctioning it works best, since by its nature a domain name is a limited resource. (As E-bay domain fantasizers proudly proclaim, "very unique domain name!") But by "auction," I don't mean just throw it up on an auction site. Call the likeliest purchasers directly, and get through to the right people, like the VPs of Marketing. Do not talk to a sysadmin or receptionist and give up. And you have to explain why it's valuable...most people in big companies don't yet understand this, and few will understand it even after you explain the value, but you should try, for the few that may be swayed into researching it further.
Once you agree on a price, have attorneys handle the contract, and have the payment held in escrow until the name is transferred. Be sure to help them consider all the angles, such as that domains do sometimes spontaneously unregister during transfers (races.com made mainstream media a few weeks ago, but it happens more often without press coverage)...you should spell out in the contract who eats losses like this. And that you're not responsible if a trademark suit erupts about the name after the sale.
If you're lazy, talk to the folks at greatdomains.com. Again, this depends entirely on whether you've correctly assessed this as a valuable domain name. But if it is valuable, like an easy $250K domain, they'll do some legwork for you. When they auctioned loans, taxes, and cinema.com a couple weeks ago, they hired actors to dress up as uncle sam and crap, pounding the sidewalks in the bay area to raise publicity for the auction. It's stupid, but it got press. They take a good cut for their work, but if you're no good at marketing and negotiating yourself, you could do worse than handing it off to them.
Just listing it on eBay is *not* a good approach for a prime name. Unless you combine that with other marketing efforts, not enough people who would be interested will even know it's available, resulting in a deflated selling price. It's also difficult to discern serious bidders until after the auction, and a prank bid for $10 million will scare off other bidders who might otherwise be interested. GreatDomains runs a credit check on people or businesses bidding on valuable names. If you're talking to bidders directly yourself, you'll have a good idea of their seriousness as well...a business negotiation team from IBM isn't going to make frivolous offers just to yank your chain.
There are also a lot of other domain brokers who'd help with this. I mention GreatDomains as they're the largest, and unarguably get the most press. But that doesn't mean the smaller brokers won't find you a higher bidder...if you're their best prospect, they might give it more attention than being the fifth-best on GreatDomains.
Good luck!
If calling it "legal domain brokering" makes you feel better, go ahead and call it that. However, I really don't think there is any difference. Either way, you are cashing in.
I personally think that the domain name system is simply inadequate to deal with the future needs of cybercommerce. It was a good system before the WWW explosion, and I'm even a little surprised it managed to last this long. However, I think that current domain names will be rendered useless sometime in the next 5 years. Therefore, I think that paying big bucks for a domain name is a foolish waste of money. If you can find some sucker willing to pay a lot of money for your domain, go ahead and cash in. It's their folly.
Limited supply, governments, regulating bodies should auction to the highest bidders - so that the sole act of distributing the "resource" doesn't make a bunch of middle-men needlessly rich. Any profits go back to the government/regulating body/donated to charity etc.
Moreover, this is not the kind of strategy that can be formulated by ad-hoc consensus on Slashdot.
Please read all the /. responses. Perhaps someone will point out an issue you haven't considered. But before you take any action (and be sure not to let the domain name expire by accident while you are making up your mind and formulating a strategy), you need to talk to a lawyer. Specifically, you need to talk to a lawyer who knows something about the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
I will not prompote my own practice, but if you want a referral to one or more smart lawyers who practice this kind of law, call me right away.
Eric C. Grimm
CyberBrief, PLC
320 South Main Street
P.O. Box 7341
734.332.4900
Fax: 734.332.4901
ericgrimm@CyberBrief.net
In the meantime, DO NOT do anything hasty, and DO NOT screw this up.
Now before you tell me how I don't own the domain names, someone tell what the hell am I paying for? Well, I'll tell you. I'm paying for the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to use the domain. And I can sell that RIGHT to another just as I can lease an apartment (which I also don't own, but have exclusive use rights too) and sell the lease to another or even sublease it. Shitloads of precedent for the latter. Is the former any different?
I think that there is nothing wrong about selling your domain for big bucks. Your company bought it for a legitemate purpose and now that it is no longer of use to the company, you have very right to sell it. If you get oodles of cash for an array of characters, it's not because you're being a sleezy businessman, that's just the way things work in the domain name biz. What I do have a problem with is the domain name selling business itself.
As you demonstrated in your message, many people seem to think of domain names as real estate. Well why is that? Real estate can be of many different shapes, sizes, qualities and locations. These different characteristics are what make real estate valueable. Domain names, on the other hand, are only made valuable by being more recognizable than another. Since real estate is a physical thing, you can do many things with it such as build a building or raise live stock. Domain names can be used for one thing, and one thing only. They simply serve as a means to contact a certain group of people. They are much more like 1-800 phone numbers in this sense. Actually they are like 800 numbers in many ways. For example, as long as you can get one that people will remember, you're good as gold. Of course when it comes to domain names it can be a bit different. Domain names can be of many lengths and so it's much easier to get one that will really stand out in people's mind. Even given that, domain names are still just high tech phone numbers. I don't think any business is going to have significant leverage because they're name is super-memorable.
Now, IANAPC (i am not a phone company), but i don't think that Jenny Craig paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for those spiffy 1-800-9X-JENNY phone numbers.
"Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase." -[I have no clue who said this]
Sell the domain and give the proceeds to some deserving foundation, such as the EFF. Publicize it, and suddenly alot of geeks will really like your company.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does everything have to go on eBay these days? Isn't it easier to just release the domain?
I don't charge people interest on loans. I lend them $10, then a couple weeks later, I collect $10 back. It's simple. No math involved, no accounting, no greediness.
Geez, you'd think that life revolved around little green pieces of paper in this country. There's more to life than little green pieces of paper.
p.s., did you have to pay to register that domain? Probably not.
First, note that domain names were not originally constructed with the intent that they would be proxies for trade name ownership. There is nothing that necessarily says that this has to change. This is very important to understand. For example, I can put "Coca-Cola" on a sign in my property, even if I sell things publicly from that property, and not violate any trademark. Further, Slashdot can forward this comment to you and make money off of advertising without violating Coca-Cola's rights.
Now, if I try to sell you something and I specifically state in the course of this business that I, in some way, represent a holder of a specific trade name or their goods, then by all means the trade name holder should sue my pants off.
There are two key problems with the concept of equating trade name law and internet domain names. The first, and less troublesome to some people, is that there is some implied prior right to the name as an internet resource locator simply by registering the domain. If someone comes along later and trademarks it, the domain registrant should be able to retain all rights to the use of the internet domain if that domain's registration occured before the filing of the trademark. I believe that this is the current wording of, for example, American anti-"squatting" law, but I would go further and propose that even if the trade name registration occured first, the domain registration should be allowed to stand. The owner of the domain name should not, of course, contravene the original restrictions imposed by trade name law. For example, they can't pretend to be the company that sells goods under the auspices of that trade name. But the precise nature of these original restrictions, and a better reason to be leary of allowing trade names to "trump" domain names, is best analysed by discussing the second fundamental problem with such a system.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding of trade name law goes something like this. (Note that I'm sluffing over the difference between trademarks and trade names; if I remember correctly it's not crucial. Also, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/trademark.html ) I can apply for protection of a particular word or term used in the sale of products. I can only make this application if I currently sell products using this name in the jurisdiction of the registering administration, and as long as no one else has already registered the name for this particular purpose in that jurisdiction. The particular purpose part is essential; the legal protections offered me by such registration will only restrict others from using the name if they are selling a similar product to the one that I sell, such that there could be a reasonable customer confusion (in a legal sense) brought about by the conflicting use of the name.
You might doubt that last bit about similar products. But note that there's nothing wrong with trademarking "Yankee Coke" to sell charcoal, despite Coca-Cola's trademark on the word "Coke". (You could even sell "African Cola Coke"; check a good dictionary!) Coca-Cola Inc. (or whatever their official designation) owns the Coke trade name only in relation to soft drinks. (For the third time, I invoke thee: IANAL.)
This is the second key problem with any scheme that equates trade names with domain names on the internet. First, note the dreaded "J" word. If it's only legal for one entity to own the trademark to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in Canada, and only legal for a different entity to sell "PowerTool" auto repair equipment in the US, who gets the ".com" domain name? What if there are legal "PowerTool" registrants for an identical product category in different states? Will it be illegal (or at least fiscally hazardous) for anyone to register a ".com" domain name for business use unless they have international registration for the trade name and sell into multiple countries? If so, we better tell people fast!
You can't even fix the problem by forcing everyone to work off of a nested domain naming system, such as "powertool.orange_county.ca.us". What if someone in Orange County sells specialty lego pieces using the PowerTool name? Who gets the domain now?
This looks like a double death blow to the viability of any scheme that equates trade names with domain names. However, the suggestion of nested domains does point the way to a possible way around this difficulty. This is simply a political difficulty, NOT a problem - it's just an opportunity for current trade name owners to extend their reach. Of course, we'd all like to have some way to find Coca-Cola Inc.'s "Coke" site if we're looking for it, and search engines are not enough to placate the needs of the legally anal around us, since these people reason that the public could still be fooled by accidentally visiting a site with an implied link to Coke. (Whew! IANAL.)
The solution is too sensible to be undertaken by most governments. It also doesn't allow them to scapegoat anyone, it doesn't allow them to stomp all over the previous custom of a minority, it doesn't pander to corporate interests, and of course it requires them to actually get off their duffs and be constructive. Don't expect to see it anytime soon.
However, it would be perfectly simple for any administration that oversees trade names within its jurisdiction to simply set up a web site that references those legal names to the holders' internet addresses. Uh, they're called links. If more than one business type owns the rights to a particular name, list both links under the name and include some identifying information about each owner, such as a brief description of their class of goods. Link to sites that contain higher-level jurisdictional data, such as a state might defer to national registrations - or better yet, put together the technical means to include those registrants directly on your lower-level searches. It's actually fairly straightforward.
So, why do domain names have to equal trade names? Why did we all allow this to slip toward a standard assumption? Why can't I register any domain name that I might please, and expect to have actually done so? Why do those who protect trade names feel that they must convince the public that domain names necessarily connote legal trade name ownership? Why don't they see the obvious problems with that system? Hey, hire some programmers and the "problem" disappears. And there are plenty of coders around, you just have to be prepared to pay them and have a clue!
That our governments are too lazy to hire competent programmers to put together systems that effectively manage their jurisdictions' registration programs is an abrogation of their duty, but it's exactly what we should expect. Who's surprised that they're also blaming domain registrants (aka "squatters") for the "problem"?
Domains as property? Hmm...
>but domain names are the real estate of the 'Net and real estate is a legitimate business
This is a prime example of metaphor becoming fact.
There seen to be a lot of internet-related cases brought forward, especially in the US, where the real nature of the technology is dismissed in favor of vague notions of virtual space, virtual property, virtual trade, etc... e.g.
Consider the following:
Company X sues person Y because a domain name that they have paid for contains part of the company's trademark. Shouldn't the company be filing againt the domain registrar? After all, it's their server that is responding to the look-up requests and directing people to Y's servers, the action that X says is infringing. Can responding to a look up even constitute trademark infringement? After all, the DNS only transmits an IP address - it's the people sending lookup requests, and web servers serving pages with links to the site that are actually transmitting the trademark-containing-domain-name...
In any case, I don't really see how lame microscopic entries in someone else's database can be construed as someone's property. [some-dictionary-word].com doesn't really have the originality necessary for normal intellectual property protection. Some propose special domain name law to protect the alleged finite domain name resources. But such resources aren't limited at all. The worst that you can say is that a severe monopoly is going on.
There really isn't anything stopping a few community-minded individuals from starting an open-access DNS system, perhaps a system where each registrar gets a top level domain, or where companies/individuals/groups can be required to share domains where conflicts arise... Or someone could come up with a new naming system that allows for duplicates... Anyone interested in cooking up such a scheme? You would have one happy user right here. =)
Final Gripe: The expense of registering a domain with the de facto standard DNS regime (which claims to be government-regulated when it suits their purposes; how ironic) is insane. They could at least give the appearance of asking for fees based vaguely in some way to the service they are providing, instead of picking a flat rate dollar value at random... Perhaps they could do this by charging in relation to the number of requests responded to. I have no interest in subsidising the service of aol.com requests with my joeblow.org registration, after all.
Well, more than my $0.02... Food for thought, at least.
-rak
One problem with selling a name is the value of the existing search engine positions and links to your site. In my case, for instance, there are billions and billions of links to various resources on amazing.com. If I sold amazing.com, all those links would suddenly die, and I'd have to write everyone in the known universe asking them to change them. In addition, since my site has been active since circa 1995, it has positions in search engines like Yahoo which would be extremely difficult if not impossible to duplicate today.
The hassle factor alone is a good reason why I'm not eager to sell amazing.com, even though on paper I'm sitting on a massive windfall.
D
----
I know I am looking at it from a nerd perspective, and not that of the general public. Still, I really can't understand why people can't "get" hierarchical structures (after all, that is what this is).
I mean, you would think that if you told someone (who didn't know about directory structures and stored everything at the root level) that what they were doing was akin to piling all of thier papers on a desk, instead of organizing the various papers into folders in a filing cabinet by drawer, that they would get a clue.
But no! They don't! They look at you blankly! Even when whacked up with a clue stick by the likes of Apple and M$ (calling directories and subdirectories, folders and sub-folders, on a desktop), they would understand - still nothing!
Even in everyday life, these same clueless folks use the hierarchical structure of nation, state, county, city, street, house - but as soon as such a structure pops up on a machine, they go stupid!
Maybe they will all eat KFC and die from a coronary (actually, I love KFC - fat and all. I just don't like stupid people).
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Of course, subdomain naming! This could work, too, and still allow for short domain names for ad campaigns.
Still, you would think that they would only want to show the corporate name, allowing you to link down to the product you want. From a marketing perspective, it might get you a sale you wouldn't otherwise get (a person is looking for a new Ford Ranger, for instance, but then, coming through the main page, sees the link to "check out" the Ford Expedition)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
There's no reason why you couldn't make a condition of sale that the current pages are all served, and that only the default html root page is handed over, with a link to the original html root page. Old links are honoured. Thus, the old amazing.com dies over time, while the new owner runs their new site. Or you could grab a new domain name, and have all the existing pages redirect to that, or have a virtual domain siting under amazing, or whatever.
www.think.com takes you to a page with Thinking Machines Corporation as the title (before redirecting to the Oracle page) - didn't Oracle buy them out when they went under? Oracle got all that chatels (as they ought to) when they bought them. And they're not directing the page to the Oracle home page, they're directing it off to the datamining page, which is something I recall thinking machines where into just before they went under. Logical, isn't it?
It seems a bit strange that the overwhelming opinion here is "sell it"..."live long and prosper" while most everyone savaged the idea of Serious Domains auctioning off Linux related domains (not ones that were in use by any real company) a few weeks ago. What's up with that? :-)
I sense a bit of a double-standard here.
I'm not associcated with Serious Domains, but it was interesting to note the concern people had with Linux domains.
Jon Backstrom
I know I am a late comer to this discussion...
I have to vote for give it back.
The DNS system is a shared resource. Neither
you nor anyone else ownes DNS space. You requested
some because you needed it, and were given some.
Now that you no longer need it, you should give
it up.
This is the most fair solution. It gives anyone
equal ability to register it, and use it.
DNS is a shared resource for all net users. It is
up to each of us to use it responsibly and to only
use what we need of it.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"