Slashdot Mirror
Domain Resale for Fun and Profit (?)
Ant wrote in to
send us an amusing piece running over at wired about
domain name hogs
selling their domains on eBay and the likes. Not a bad
little piece, but its pretty amusing the read some of the
domain names that people seem to think will be worth money.
Yes, you can't just check it out by seeing if there's a Web site at www.infosys.com...
--
Wage Slave Journal
I surely hope the Net will not be based on ldap, ldap although it has it's place is only a subset of X.500 a REAL directory standard which unfortunatly for many reasons never took off like it should have. You can check out this article on X.500 and LDAP for more detailed info. But basically IMHO everyone working on LDAP is just recreating X.500 with no real added innovations to it.
Well, we've already received some large offers over the last couple of years. So, I'm setting the auction a month away, and then trying to get the word out on it. I'm going to make sure that everyone who was interested knows and then some, which should be enough for my needs. This is a one shot deal anyways... If for some reason nobody buys, then I wouln't be offering again...
Rob didn't create the Bill of Borg image, actually. It was by some other guy who was selling t-shirts with the image on it, and I guess Microsoft was breathing down his neck over it, so he disbanded (I think).
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Correct. Amazon.com has limited intrinsic value as a domain... maybe you could use it for a travel agency site selling eco-tours to the rain forest. Its present value derives from the fact that it's been built into a superpower brand name (at huge expense).
Flowers.com, on the other hand, has intrinsic value because it's a word that everyone is familiar with.
You have to spend millions and millions to get people to associate the word "Amazon" with books ... but you don't have to spend a penny to get them to associate the word "Flowers" with flowers... the English language has already done that for you.
Million-dollar domains like porn.com are long gone, but any domain that can pay for itself within six months or less is still worth getting... and you can still find them, but it takes work and perseverance and creativity.
as the "king" inferred, "selling" .coms IS a misnomer.
.comming would be MOSTLY about developing a VARIETY of COMMERCIAL web endeavors.
.coms, .orgs etc... that we have, we cannot ethically, or morally, "sell", to just anybody (although we've certainly been tempted). and MANY of our .coms, ARE NOT available for "sale". it is a huge responsibility.
.com space to MANY so called promoters of the EXTREMELY valid concepts of open-source, and/or the miracle to modern technology that linux is, only to be shunned and disdained, as some bearer of subterfuge. the 1's who have have expressed interest, i find to be honest, open, and insightful (as advertised). we have also been approached/punished by some who are interested in only the greedmonger aspects of the web. it's scary.
.coms/orgs with relevant content, and to promote my non-profit site, kombucha.org. he did not see fit to respond until i called him on taking MSmoney, by allowing MSBS banner ads on his site. that's 1 thing I will NEVER do. he NEVER addressed my efforts to volunteer, months ago, ONLY my dissention last week. by the by, my efforts to illuminate/increase awareness re: the crimewave that IS MSBlight, has caused my non-profit, good4all website, to be deleted from about 1/2 of the major search engines. not very funny to me.
.coms do you think pudbillygates has? does it matter? yes!! 1 word can say A LOT. 1 of my favorites is msbs.org, not that i'll ever use it. HA HA HA.
obviously,
however, the reasons to do so are just as varied.
what MOST of y'all are missing, i suspect through pre-commercial web etiquette, or something, is that you're GIVING away the farm.
which is not to say that that's a bad thing, except, there's gottis out here (you didn't know) who would take the farm.
MANY MANY of the
MANY of the domains we have registered/paid for, are intended to promote/protect, things far beyond the value system of the currently burgeoning IPO generation. which is not to say getting money is bad.
I have offered FREE
i wrote to mr. malda several times regarding helping to stock a few of my open-source/linux related
get real. pay attention. you can down a few servers, flame all you want. you NEED to promote/protect on a LARGE scale, as your naysayers/"leaders" do. you just need to be able to do it for less money. how many
contact us, we want to help, we need help.
harryjo@imcnet.net (and @300 other places)
>>If they don't put a domain name to use they should lose it.
>Bullshit. Let's apply your logic elsewhere and see how much sense it makes:
>
>If they don't put a house to use they should lose it.
>
>If they don't put a car to use they should lose it.
>
>Well, there go real estate investing, car lots, >and banking. You must be some >kind of pinko >Marxist opposed to private ownership of anything >to actually >believe such nonsense. If you buy it, >it's yours to do with as you fscking >please.
That isn't exactly true. Take the case of real estate. If you own land you are required to pay a property tax based on the market value. If you fail to pay the tax then you lose the land even though the land is worth many times more than the tax.
Therefore if you have a vacant lot in a big city you can't just leave it vacant you have to use it or develope it. If you don't then you won't have enough money to pay the tax and the government gets the land and sells it to someone who will use it. Idea is to make sure that land is always put to its most productive use.
This is a long standing principle. In fact it dates to English common law. Most historians agree that this was an important for the economic development of the US. The crown gave Lord Balitimore all of what is now the state of Maryland. But because of this tax rule the land had to be put to use. Lord Balitimore could farm it all so he had to selling pieces of land to people who would put them to productive use. Contrast this with the Spanish colonies. When a Spanish lord was given land, he didn't have to pay taxes so he didn't need to use the land. He was perfectly free to let it sit vacant.
There are many other examples of this principle.
What do the 2 have to do with one another? You can tell truth without having many domain names, and you can have many domain names and lie your ass off. If you want to HAVE domains, that's fine. I personally think it's ridiculous to buy up a bunch of domain names and then whine and bitch when everyone else doesn't scoop them up (because, in all reality, a domain name in and of itself is pretty damn worthless).
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
A friend of mine registered a Linux related .com domain name. Very shortly the .net name, as well as both .com and .net of a slight spelling variation had been registered. This is no coincidence. He expects that when he gets his trademark he can just force them to drop the names.
I find it pretty irritating that this goes on. There has to be a better system. Not that I have any suggestions...
I work for three stooges in montreal, and the three guys all have the e-mail addresses
firstname@lastname.qc.ca
Personally I find it mildly 31337ish of them - I mean what's the point of that.
Then again, the opposite extreme has compuserve's old addresses,
102103.104@compuserve.com for example
If we were all reduced to serial numbers and IP addresses would that get rid of this odd means of using domains?
I'm an admin (one of several) at geecs.org...if we wanted to, I bet there are several hackers that would put up cash for a name like that - but that's lame.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
If I were looking for a new car of whatever brand name (try getting a new citroën from france and type it right 5 times over) the first thing I would do is go to one of the 11 dealerships in my home town (oddly, of a mere 5000 people) and test drive a couple of cars. When I liked one, then I would go on the internet - knowing how the car handles - and look for a cheaper one of the same.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Domain name hogging, like spamming, lying,
or selling broken software, shouldn't even need
to be illegal. The population should just
notice that someone who does these things has
no class.
People and businesses that conduct themselves
with honour should be rewarded. Those that
just don't get it should be ignored, boycotted,
censured, just like these domain hogs are right
now.
Ha!
--
Wage Slave Journal
Posted by Mary CW:
At present, domain names serve multiple purposes as locations, directional signage, and brands, which is confusing people as to their inherent value.
A domain name is ultimately just a location. The exact name itself is unimportant if: people know who you are (brand) and can find you (signage).
Brands are created, they don't happen because you have a certain word as your url.
As search tools become more sophisticated, knowing the exact url/location becomes moot. I don't need to know a company's corporate HQ street address to do business with them -- soon the url address won't matter either. Having to know the url is actually a defect, from the customer's point of view.
Most (all?) of the cool, easy to remember domain names were taken long ago.
However, what kind of ching would an e-mail address such as god@heaven.org or satan@hell.org fetch?
I'll bet people would pay bucks for it. Granted, most of the cool e-mail addresses are taken as well, but I wonder if people realize their potential value.
I secured evil@hell.org along with a few other unique addresses to find out.
The admins of some of the popular domain sites may have never given thought to the revenue stream something like this could generate. All they would need to do is setup a mail server and sell user accounts at inflated prices.
You'd find people willing to pay $20.00 per month for penguin@linux.com, I'd bet.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
Hmm, well, I know that Network Associates has been selling my name far and wise since I bought a domain name... perhaps these guys are on their mailing list. It'd be in NA's best interest to sell this info... if bozos are willing to buy up "neighboring properties" in cyberspace, NA's going to make that much more profit.
More likely, they somehow watch the DNS service to see when new domain names come online. After all, your domain name has to make it into the DNS databases.
With the andover buyout and all, what about slashdot.com? It seems some other co is using it to redirect into their site. Don't have time to do a whois so I'll leave that to someone else.
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
I find it interesting that this guy has spent $1 million on 3,000 domains. ($333.33/domain). Of course some of these domains have short names (I hope, otherwise he just through $1 mil. away) and others are descriptive for companies making fortune through the web.
.WEB and .SHOP are the BEST tld's for companies interested in doing on-line business. Don't you think that a company would rather buy them, than waste money on .COM?
However, I find i funny that in a few month (hopefully, anyway) a few new top level domains are going to be introduced. From those
No, it wasn't.
I thought someone (ICANN?) was cracking down on this? Or is this considered to be something different than grabbing coke.com and selling it?
Try Yahoo!'s auctions too, there's a separate category with domain names, offering over 3000 domains at this time. Some with a minimum bid of $10 mil. (yes, that's right).
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
The question is, why on earth did you initially register the .NET when the .COM was still available at the time?
(s)he was prolly trying to use naming how it was supposed to be from the start. '.com' for companies, '.org' for organizations, etc etc.
The REAL question is, why are you promoting otherwise??
I had bought networkedcomputing.com having planned on using it but didn't get around to it so I posted it to eBay the otherday. Being a common term, it should be worth something to somebody in the computing industry.
:)
Oh well
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
This Rick Schwartz guy "owns" a domain which happens to be the name of a company that I work for. That company uses a different address, but if people go to the name .com they get a porn site, which as far as I can tell, Schwartz is in no way associated with that porn company. He holds the domain for ransom by pointing our name to a porn site. Not good PR.
The guy claims that he NEVER sells domains and that he will make "arrangements". It's a real mess.
Some might say, "tough luck", since we didn't register it in time. Well, our company didn't exist a year ago and we are more commonly known by our short name rather than our full long name.
What would you do if someone pointed your company name at a porn site?
I find it hard to believe that no one has
infosys.com seems like that would be a no
brainer... Think I'll go register it....
Kintanon
'I am he who does what one does when one is he.'
Jacob Wentworth
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Sorry to burst your bubble about my demise. But you just don't understand about type ins. More than 95% of the folks put in the .com webmasters and techies don't......but consumers do.
;-))
Everyone has told me this stuff for years.....my hits just keep growing and at nearly 6 figures of daily uniques to my index pages, I hope I keep getting broker.
This one used to piss me off a lot; I was going to register my last name (which is also my consulting firm's name) and found it registered by one of these companies. On further reflection, however, I don't really think this is a bad thing.
If I registered it, it would have ended up costing me $15/month, and nobody else with my name would have been able to use it. As it is now, anyone has the capacity to use it, and it costs each of them less. While it still frustrates me (and I didn't sign up), I believe it to be a fair business rather than a shameless squatter.
slashdot.org would have gone for if someone had snapped it up as an investment and the Taco boy would have buy it on ebay? A million? Two? Three!
It'd be worth every nickle!
You talk like somebody who registered a bunch of .com names and is trying to hock them on ebay ;P :P so nyaaah! :)
I grabbed airwindows.com a long time ago to guard against just such people as you
And it doesn't have anything to do with Windows(tm), it's just an interesting juxtaposition originally meant as a metaphor for high end audio equipment, years ago
Oh come on! domain names, like anything else, are worth what people are willing to pay for them. Diamonds are valuable because deBeers keeps the supply line clogged, not because they're really scarce, and if people weren't willing to accept the stupid idea that an engagement ring should be a) bought at all and b) cost you at least two months salary (!!), diamonds wouldn't be worth much (apart from their industrial applications).
If nobody's willing to pay for them, they're worthless. These people have gotten the idea that the 'net and anything related to it is just a gold mine waiting to be tapped, and can't believe that you could do something related to it and not make a quick few million.
Man, the capacity for self-deception in some people is to be marvelled at.
My capacity for going on rants today is too ...
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
I have a 4-letter name as well, which is a very common name in any Portuguese speaking country. Needless to say, the .com.net.org versions of the domain were taken by the time I thought about registering it. Since the names were registered, but not being used, I decided to ask if the owners wouldn't mind selling it. The prices they were asking were more than my computer plus my car combined! Geez.
Through my search for a good domain name, just about 2/3rds of the good names I tried were being held by cybersquatters.
Eventually, I registered some silly name, and like you was immediately contacted by people offering to develop my site, including the site's name on their message. So yes, they do have some way to trace any new registrations coming in.
Later.
well, I don't own a trademark on ANYTHING, so it's wrong for me to get a domain name, according to your reasoning. I am a squatting fool for registering nanoxxxxxxxxx.com, because I hold no trademark -- never mind that my personal research is well described by that domain name. so if some company comes along (and nanotech is achieved :) and names some product nanoxxxxxx, then I am in the wrong, and should give my domain to them.
hmm. well. I guess Rob should never have registered slashdot.org. it didn't start out as a trademark, one would suppose, and so he has no claim on it.
interesting reasoning. personally, I think I'm going to go register a domain name, so when I move around, my domain can move with me, and people who might happen to be interested can find my work. yes, my untrademarked work. and yes, maybe I'll have pictures of my dog there.
Lea
Domain names can be useful if they are used in conjunction with other mediums, such as print, radio, or TV ads. Since there's currently no direct way to go from one of those mediums to the web, you have to nab a memorable domain name, so it will stick in people's minds until they sit down by their PC...
.com" ad compaign becomes public, they've probably nabbed the dotin.com (and variations thereof, I bet) for themselves already. It's easy to either come up with a new "catch URL" or find a minor alteration of the URL to use.
But... trying to figure out just *what* memorable URL that would make sense for an ad compaign that also doesn't infringe on a company's trademark is difficult to impossible, I think. By the time that, say, Sun's "we're the dot in
I sorta doubt any major company is going to use "Suck my pole" as a catch phrase anytime soon...
The way the NSI works right now all you have to do to save yourself some money is make what ever your domain name the name of your company. Trademark it. Then complain to the NSI that that should be your name. Then they take the name from the person wishing to sell it. Whamo! You get your domain name for only $70.
--
?
I can buy Babe Ruth rookie cards and use 'em to soak up grease spots under the car. I can buy US flags and burn them in the fireplace. I can buy classic cars and crush them into cubes.
I understand that, very shortly, a constitutional amendment will ban the use of Babe Ruth rookie cards for soaking up grease spots.
Seriously though, a lot of our "rights" have been going down the dumper lately. I'd like to see a law passed that outlawed any campaign contributions from any corporation. After all, corporations can't vote. I think, if passed, the power in Washington DC might stand a chance of reverting back to We The People.
Certified Microsoft Notworking Specialist
funny... I was just browsin through the ebay domain listings and saw febuary.com hehe (febuary should be february). I don't know who the poor sap is here... the dude that is trying to sell the domain or the dude that buys it.
i think this is one of the sillies things that i have ever heard of, (other than people selling their ultima online acct's) now how often do you type in a url randomly? come on lets be real, when i want a new car i dont go and type in www.ford.com i go to a search engine and type in ("used" and "cars" and "red" and "DMC" or "Delorian") People dont usually go randomly surfing unless they are really bored and have nothing to do. it is ludicrous to think that people would spend thousands of dollars on a domain name like suckmypole.com????? what is up with that. i could maybe understand a company like Pepsi wanting to buy pepsi.com, but for real some of this is just ludicrous. after all isnt this what search engines were made for?
I guess the only solution to stop "cybersquatting" or however you call "rip-offs selling domain names" is that Internic puts a limit on unpaid domains.
... they are paid and they are mine .. unless somebody pays a million for it :) ok ... though still those brokers SHOULD buy them all then instead of like reserving those domains never using them.
... it is now already a half year later and it is still standing there - open - UNPAID ! ...
... even 70 bucks is too much for a domain name ... what would 200k be ..
If not paid within the month the domain goes open again.
I already had about 30 spammails for people wanting darkblood and the xsrv domain serie
An example has occured to me several months ago, our company's domainname was "taken" for a joke
As long Internic does their business like that the domains will be rip-offs
Freaker / TuC
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
You talk like somebody who registered a bunch of .com names and is trying to hock them on ebay ;P :P so nyaaah! :) ) And it doesn't have anything to do with Windows(tm), it's just an interesting juxtaposition originally meant as a metaphor for high end audio equipment, years ago :)
I grabbed airwindows.com a long time ago to guard against just such people as you
(no, I did not homestead a directory on slashdot. oops
I can't wait until .web annd other extensions are released by ICANN, then we can deal with these same lOOzers all over again. Maybe they can reform the rules a little to prevent cybersquatting, such as a limit to the number of unused domains you can have. Starting out at even 1000 would get rid of most of them. They are the few, the dumb, the pigs.
>That isn't exactly true. Take the case of real >estate. If you own land you are required to pay >a property tax based on the market value. If you >fail to pay the tax then you lose the land even >though the land is worth many times more than >the tax.
And domains are no different. You have to pay the fee every year or you lose it.
I agree that the system is screwed up, but I guess my point is that corporations are the people, essentially. I think that I agree with you that the only real way to end all of this nonsense is to simply either cap or do away with altogether the whole system of contributions. I mean, let's face it - they're really just legalized bribes. But to me it's an all-or-nothing proposition; either limit it for everyone (i.e. public & corps) or for noone.
Here I thought I was going overboard since I had registered 13 domain names (all of which have projects attached, though I really considered keeping them under one umbrella domain and probably could have if I'd not fallen into the vanity trap). Two of those I'm going to retire and let their registrations expire and I really doubt anyone will snap them up.
The only one I'd ever even consider selling would be cashregister.net, but only if I fail to make a go of it myself.
In a few years, domain names will be of secondary importance when searching the web, I suspect. Host/domain names are great for naming machines, but seem somewhat limited, ultimately, in naming an online presence.
Alot of money seems to be circulating these days for completely useless things.
That most certainly is your opinion. A free market society determines the usefulness of a good/service by the amount that is paid for it. Sure for you (and me and lots of other people) it isn't worth 600 big ones, but to that persion/corporeation it was.
Just because you think something's worthless doesn't mean that someone else does.
Besides they have to shell out the annual fee just like everyone else.
Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
Check out http://www.cybersquatting.com
This idiot is trying to LEASE domains...
-Lx?
DeBeers merely helps regulate the price of diamonds. DeBeers does not control and will never control the diamond market. Not every diamond purchased goes through debeers hands, in fact, I dont even think debeers handles diamonds themselves. Diamonds are not rare, this is true. Gem quality diamonds are however very rare. Colorless diamonds are rarer than yellow diamonds. Flawless diamonds are rarer than included ones. Larger gem quality stones are rarer than small ones. Mining and the craftsmans time cutting diamonds are what drives market price up.
..
talking windows users is where I draw the line
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
Thanks...I think that's the funniest thing I've seen all day.
This is like ticket scalping. Those prices can get out of hand as well, but there is a law in most states were you can only charge a small percent as a service charge (like ticketmaster charges).
There should be a similar law on domain names.
newton62 (56617) Karma: Bad
Did you look at the source for their 'look up a domain' page? It points to a local perl script. How much do you want to bet that they log every looked up domain name, and register the available ones before the person who used the tool has a chance? Sheesh. Bloodsuckers.
-awc
that would be
Registrant:
Chris Richardson (SLASHDOT-DOM)
806 Arnold Way
Menlo Park, CA 94025
US
Record last updated on 30-Mar-98.
Record created on 17-Nov-96.
Database last updated on 8-Jul-99 08:59:10 EDT.
No, having a lisence plate that says FORD is not the same as having FORD.com. One is a useless personal id, the other is a common destination that would cause confusion. The point of trademarking is to avoid "first come first serve" type tactics, and brand name confusion. Nobody can start a car company named Ford because that would cause harm to thier reputation. If you have a legal trademark (which is not just registering it, but using it), you should be entitled to some protection, and domain names should be protected in this manner.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
... with porn sites.
;-)]
More or less, how to get to a porn site quickly:
Take a popular site, yahoo, amazon.com, slashdot, gamefaqs, etc.
Make a common misspelling. Eg. If the domain ends in an 's', drop the s. If the domain makes sense with an 's' (but doesn't have one), add it. (book.com -> books.com). If the domain is really a subdomain (as was altavista before digital/compaq bought altavista.com), drop the in-between '.'. Or just do a plain misspelling.
Boom. instant porn site that probably gets lots of traffic easily (I've made my fair share of typos). Of course, *maintaining* those visitors is another thing.
Quick! Buy all the domains! I'm about to get a domain! [not telling which
Someone wrote: "I for one don't think people should be allowed to soak up domain names for profit. If they don't put a domain name to use they should lose it."
Hmm. That seems to have a few difficulties -- one of which is that it would be easy to use the domain name for something. Just set up some email aliases.
I think a better idea is to simply make it so that domain names cannot be resold. The only money that should be paid for a domain name is the registration fee. Anything else should be considered extortion.
If people cannot (legally) profit from holding domain names, then they'll give them up and let the system work the way it was meant to.
Good point. I thought about this, and figured that if there were enough restrictions on the money, not many people would run unless they were really serious. I do agree that it would be wise to have a total cap though. I'm sure we'd eventually run into problems without it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I don't think the whole "direct democracy" thing would work. We've had this discussion here too many times. With that many people involved, there's no way to have a real discussion of the topic with every voter, so you end up with people voting on something they don't have all (or even most of) the facts about. That would lead to some really bad decisions. I don't like politicians much at all, but I think direct democracy would be much worse.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I see your point, but my point is that the corporations are some of the people. Those people already get a vote and are already allowed to contribute to campaigns. Why then should a corporation be allowed to contribute? It seems to just put more power and influence in the hands of those businesses who do it, while it detracts from the influence of individuals.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But only those domains, the ones that are a reasonably straightforward word or phrase followed by .com (or less often .net or .org) are so important that they're valuable in and of themselves. Even suckmypole.com (which is presumably aimed at someone hoping to start yet another porn site) is a rather low probability for a random type-in. As many posters have pointed out, amazon.com didn't have any reasonable chance of relying on type-ins; instead they built a brand.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
I agree with you entirely. It is very hard to get a trademark, never mind win a lawsuit when you use a common word for something. Apple isn't trademarked, but Apple Computer is. You may notice that most sites are trademarking thier dot com. Amazon is not trademarked, but Amazon.com is since its basically a different word (though to most net-types .com is only a qualifier).
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
Now that's a domain that we can all agree has value. At least, VA Research thought so. :)
:)
Mind you, they also are doing a reasonably good job so far (IMHO) at respecting what the Linux Community (tm) feels should be on a linux.com website. At least, I haven't heard anyone saying "linux.com sucks!" yet -- from Slashdotters, that's high praise indeed.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
To tell the truth, I feel really ambivalent about it - I love owning it and really don't want to sell. What i say on my web page is that if you want to offer an "absurd" amount of money for it, I'll consider it. But I'm not terribly eager to face the question.
In all honesty, I think most people trying to buy domain names are pretty much bottom feeding - unless it's something desperately needed like altavista.com (which was Digital's mistake in the first place for building up the brand without selling the name), people aren't buying.
D
----
IIRC, there's now a process to make artificial rubies to such a degree of quality that to tell the difference between them and 'real' rubies, you look at the stuff under a microscope to look for *imperfections* (and ... oh yeah, if you UV light them they glow yellow -- purposely added impurity to the man-made stuff).
the artificial stuff costs 1/10 as much as the stuff mined out of the ground, even though the average person wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
but still the market for rubies hasn't died.
how much longer until a process for building good diamonds that cost 1/100 as much comes about?
heh, this guy mentions the Wired article in his auction; apparently he was interviewed.
:)
I suspect fraud though... note the number of bidders with a 'zero' bid history score
All those things you listed are material wealth or legal tender. A domain name is simply a registration. In essence the government owns all names and lisences the registration to NSI, who in turn passes that right to the consumer. It is similar in someways to a phone number, versus the phone.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
aaaah porn, the only Real way to makemoneyfast on the internet...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Isn't Network Associates what became of McAfee?? What do they have to do with domains??
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Anonymous Coward asks:
;-p
ebay.com is another example. WTF does "ebay" mean?
It means "be" in pig latin
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Funny, after reading the article, I looked up "slashdot.com" and saw that it was taken. I was too late to post a comment about it since someone beat me to it. So I thought I would be smart and see if "slashdotdot.com" is taken. AND IT IS!!!
:)
Billing Contact:
Kotrotsos, Marco.
Record created on 10-Apr-99.
Boy this guy must think he's one up from "slashdot.com"
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
So after this, he said something to the extent of "Fine! You people don't know what this costs me, you're all ungrateful, and I'm selling the domains on Amazon, via auction!" I checked into it, and it turns out that this guy didn't even own the domain names to start with! I sent a message to the abuse department at the auctions service at Amazon, and posted a message to the newsgroup saying that he didn't even own this domains, and explained that anyone could buy these without going through his auction.
Nobody did buy them, although I believed he registered them midway through the auction. Turns out he did the same thing with another female singer (Who mostly has fans not old enough to use a credit card...), and I would assume that if I kept following his progress he does the same thing fairly frequently.
Unloading a domain name you don't use is fine. Gobbling up domains and auctioning them off is lame. Trying to sell things that you don't even own - or don't have a guarantee of owning - is criminal.
Adam J
TSS Productions
I have to disagree with you there. Why shouldn't a corporation be allowed to make political contributions? They pay taxes, do they not? Now, if you want to stop forcing them to contribute to the gov't's coffers, then maybe I'll support you depriving them of their voice, but until then, no.
Why is it that people are largely of the opinion that corporations are these big faceless entities? A corporation is nothing more than a group of people.
Now what I *would* support is a cap on spending in political races, as well as getting rid of "warchests".
restricting webspace based on narrow opinions implanted by "old" thinking, would be similar to restricting each author to writing just 1 book.
"well ernest, if you can't make a go of it with that fishing book, you may as well forget this whole author thing"
Maybe I'm just stating the obvious here, but there just isn't a huge intrinsic value to a single domain. Anything that is likely to attract traffic from its name alone (as opposed to a huge marketing effort) has long been registered. Sure, a lot of people probably go to see what's at www.porn.com every day, but you think there are a lot of names like that left? You think people are randomly going to check out nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.com when looking for Three Stooges information?
Amazon.com is a great example. It has a market cap of more than $20 billion, but do you think that's because of the name? Do you think that it would be a good idea to go back in time and snap it up cheap? Jeff Bezos would have picked something else equally euphonous, and we'd be buying our books from Mississippi.com instead.
--
Wage Slave Journal
Which, IMHO, goes to show another ungovernment-related item of "our world today" that the government controls. My theory of why the government controls it is that we're all assuming that by putting the government in control of the domains, we're ensuring that the process of selling/distributing domain names is carried out in a fair manner (ha!).
Well, what I find amusing is that, if the domains are supposed to be worth so much money now, why are the owners of them selling them now? Why not sell the domains when they're worth the most? Otherwise, they're not getting all the great money out of it. Some people make me wonder.....
Insert mind here.
I know the guy who registered x.com in 1995 (I think it was). It was during a small window in time (I am told) when Internic was allowing one-letter domain names.
He sold it a few months ago for $600,000. No kidding.
What is this world coming to? I certainly don't know. In my mind the aggregate wealth of our society only grows when money is exchanged for useful services. Alot of money seems to be circulating these days for completely useless things. The result is that some random person who happened to have done something of no value, or questionable value (such as registering x.com) winds up with a windfall. Someone else who would have done something useful that would have benefitted our economy for that 600 grand never got the chance.
I think it's a big lose for everyone.
Try, sometime, doing up a whois on "The Linux Group" - I just wish I knew how to get WHOIS to not abort the search after a certain number of entries get found. I also wonder where they get the cash to hold onto all these names, since I don't see them marketing these domains to sell them.
.NET)
Anyone in the NYC area want to go pay them a house call and find out who they really are?
Among the things they're sitting on:
ENTERPRISELINUX.COM
LINUXDNS.ORG
DEBIANLINUX.COM
LINUXADMIN.COM
FREELINUX.COM
and, apparently just for fun:
ANTISTATICCARPET.ORG (and
True enough as far as it goes,and not really in opposition to what I said. 'Course there ain't perfect information, but I think I gots pretty good information that these domain names (not the ones listed, anyhow) are really worth much (nyuk-nyuk-nyuk? I prefer IP addresses, thank you very much).
I don't think much of your example as an analogy to the case of domain names. The lottery ticket has a measurable worth that's well agreed-upon prior to the bidding. But for a commodity like a domain name, if it ain't something that already has a brand name or well-known idea behind it, AND no one's willing to pay you for it then it ain't worth squat, except (as other examples here have shown) maybe sentimental value. Most domain names that have recognition value other than the "instant" ones (barnes and noble's, e.g.) got that value through hard work (almost Lockean, when you think about it -- my plug for erudition).
As was pointed out in other posts, people don't find your site by typing in the name unless they're bored as stink. If it's the name of an existing company, NIS won't let you hold it for an extortionate price, and so it ain't worth nuffin' to no one, economic idealizations or not.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Did you contact his or her web host and file a complaint? Most reputable hosts have an agreement not to spam in their TOS and will warn or simply evict anyone who breaks that rule. I would nail the spammer to the wall.
Then again, I'm pretty vindictive.
oh my, Thank you for the hilarious subject-line. I laughed out loud.
According to ebay's rule ,you, the seller have to pay 2.5% of the highest bid even if the bid hasn't meet the reserve. I don't know the rate at 2000+, but it's at or lower than 2.5%. So 2550 * 2.5% =56.25. That's for 7 days auction. I guess that sucker can't keep up with this rate very long huh?
I believe he meant Network Solutions, rather than Network Associates, who are indeed what became of McAfee
dotin.com was registerd june 25th of this year.... :(
just a few weeks ago
Registrant:
ANDREWS & BIGNELL CONSULTING (DOTIN2-DOM)
315-85 Henry Lane Terrace
Toronto, ON M5A 4B8
CANADA
Domain Name: DOTIN.COM
Administrative Contact:
Bignell, Graham (GB1954) lorax@EGATE.NET
416 532 0384 (FAX) 416 341 5725
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Andrews, Pamela (PA357) clarity@ULTRATECH.NET
+1 416 969 8596
Billing Contact:
Bignell, Graham (GB1954) lorax@EGATE.NET
416 532 0384 (FAX) 416 341 5725
Record last updated on 25-Jun-99.
Record created on 18-Jan-99.
Database last updated on 8-Jul-99 08:59:10 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.UUNET.CA 142.77.1.1
AUTH01.NS.UU.NET 198.6.1.81
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
perhaps y'all are a little opinionated.
.coms, org. etc... may be about money gouging for some.
.rags have sold out to megaslothgreedmongers.
having a bunch of
for others, it's about protecting and extending some freedoms, and maintaining the ability to publish the truth/facts. not to mention seeing that everyman can build a webpire.
like, whose going to have a place to put REAL information, or conduct HONEST commerce, after ALL the "LEGENDARY"
pay attention. if acquiring numerous domain names is outlawed, mostly outlaws will control the medium.
getting the facts out is MUCH MORE important than sucking hit sites to posture for BIG SELLOUT.
I disagree entirely. Even I wouldn't read News for Nerds if it were still called "Chips and Dips." Who would? Let's not be rediculous.
:@ :# :$ :%
/kidding>
Dmn! How did they spell that smileyface again? Oh well.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Well, it doesn't cause consumer confusion if you are the Ford Bread company (I made that one up), the Ford Advertising Agency (I think this is real), or if your name happens to be Ford Prefect :) In the non-Internet world, you can have the same name as long as you aren't in the same market. I don't have any problem with corporations suing over domains that are deliberately intended to cause consumer confusion - for example, if I happened to get ford.com and put up a realistic car sales site which happened to sell my cheap Ford lookalikes. But I don't agree with companies that bring suits against sites which are clearly not causing any consumer confusion - veronica.org, ajax.org, and so on. In that case there is no consumer confusion - you can tell immediately that this isn't the site you wanted, and you retype the name and leave.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
What these domain hoarders haven't realized is that generic brands are not valuable. What's valuable is a business who builds a reputation on a specific name.
How often do people visit bookstore.com, auctions.com or geeknews.com? amazon.com, ebay.com and slashdot.org? The reason is simple: these people have done an excellent job of building their brand name. (do those on the first list even exist?)
To pick an extreme example, JewlersMallOfAmerica.com for two million? Anybody with that kind of money would know enough to spend $70 on (something they like the sound of).com and the rest on a slick ad campain.
I'm not sure what you mean by not really, but I'll take it that you are going against the statement that objects are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them.
:)
I'd just like to point out that your diatribe on imperfect info. markets contradicts that stance. You have three tickets, you know one of them is worth $300, the others, $0. You try to sell them, but because of risk and uncertainty, others are unwilling to pay even $100 for one of them. So to them, the items are worth much less than they are to you. So, items are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them.
Uh, I think that's clear, like mud. Anyway, you see what I mean
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
. . . are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Not really. This statement relies on "perfect information" and "efficient markets" neither of which necessarily exist in this case. For instance I have three lottery tickets, one of which is a big winner and two of which are worthless. I know which is which, you don't. I'll sell you one and only one ticket. Are you really going to pay 1/3 the value of the winner (your expected value)? Probably not. Imperfect information and risk aversion tend to make you offer less than the expected value of the item.
In "markets" for domain names the buyer may be less sophisticated than the seller. After all - the seller was savvy enough to jump on the domain right? The buyer may well be concerned about being taken advantage of (information asymmetry). Without complete information "efficient markets" can't really exist.
IMNSHO
;-)
"I believe the children are our future: nasty, brutish and short."
amazon.com
nile.com
mississippi.com
yangtze.com
ob.com
danube.com
missouri.com
rhine.com
columbia.com
ganges.com
yalu.com
euphrates.com
tigris.com
congo.com
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
if that guy put some effort into making a site, he could have somthing.
but its not the "name" that matters its the name+branding.
although my.com could be used for somthing, the person who wanted that site could put there content anywhere, and if they marked it well...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
ldap isn't a directory, but a means to access one. Sure it should be x.500 based, but that doesn't mean you can't query it with an LDAP client.
I can query NDS with an LDAP client, ya know.
support gun control: take guns from cops
:-) I loved the article. I always peek in ebay now and then - some domains only had bids of $10 or $12 - things like the above. I registered gonzo.org (gonzo.com is a porn site). Couple weeks later I get this spam from some guy trying to push www.gonzojournalism.com on me. It only had two bids and was like, $450, reserve not met. Tsk tsk! Now who's going to look that up? In one of the spams, he cited the same thing about domains being valuable but man, no one's going to go after gonzojournalism. Gonzo is the golden word :-)
Simple.. Cyber-Squatters are on the wrong side of case-law. If any big corporation whats their domain name that corporation only has to:
1. Create a product with that name or catch phrase.
2. Market it.
3. Trademark the phrase
4. Tell NSI to shut-down the offending name
5. Go to court to and nail the cyber-squatter.
I for one don't think people should be allowed to soak up domain names for profit. If they don't put a domain name to use they should lose it.
. * Did aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
BuyThisDomainYouMoron.com
OverPricedDomainName.com
YouMustBeAnIdiotIfYouBuyThis.com
And only $65K per domain. Why hasn't anyone bought these? Any takers?
--Shoeboy
maybe@yes.no is actually the email address of a distinguished Perl programmer.
If someone is willing to buy, why not sell. I've owned my domain name ( bomb.com) since 9/94, and have finally decided to sell it. For one, I've never had the time to do anything cool with it. Sure I'm asking a high price, but what happens if nobody it buys it? Well, I'm out the $2 on e-bay for my trouble, and I've still got my domain ;)
Cheers...
Yeah we can all talk about this and all..
But is there anything.. anything we can do
to convince these people to stop wasting
their time and stop selling domains for
ridiculous prices ?
What can we do to them that is actually legal?
paradox0
It's the branding. Look, if you could time travel back to 19xx and buy up the domain amazon.com would it be worth millions today? No. In fact "amazon" has nothing to do with books that I can tell. It's memorable, and it makes people think of a certain company because they have built the brand. Now books.com is another matter. It's something you'd be likely to try, like how you just type www.[whatever].com and see if what you think comes up. But you don't need to be books.com to sell books. Now if you already have an established name that people will be looking for online (www.coke.com) then it is important to get that name. slashdot.org by any other name would still be news for nerds. If it was named newsfornerds.org then slashdot.org would be a worthless domain name. ebay.com is another example. WTF does "ebay" mean? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Hi, This is my first post here so don't flame me too bad. ;-)
I was intrigued to see all the interest on the domain article yesterday. I was one of the folks they interviewed for the article. (Rick Schwartz)
First I want to say that I am not a "Cybersquatter". I own 3000 domains but have never sold one. We plan to be one of the largest developers on the net in the coming years. imho picking the right domain is the single most important thing you can do when building a new website. So that has been our only focus for the past 4 years as we saw the obtaining of domain names as a unique opportunity in time that could not be put on the back burner. In retrospect that was a good decision cuz the estimate value of our collection is, well lets just say tens of millions. I would list several of them but I don't want to be seen as "Spamming"
Looks like an interesting group here and I hope you don't mind me posting from time to time. Looks like a place I can learn a bit from as I enter this new phase.
Have a GREAT day and thanks for your forum.
I don't really understand why people think they will profit from this. The only time a domain name comes in handy is when it is the name of a corporation that someone is trying to find, or when it is so blatantly simple (read: everything on CNET: news.com, download.com, etc) that it makes sense to type it in. Otherwise, web content is found through links and search engines, in which case the domain isn't important, certainly not worth thousands. Consider, if you will, how many people would randomly enter http://slashdot.org when looking for tech news, if they didn't already know of the existence of the site!?!? (That is not to say that slashdot is a poor name, I actually find it both witty AND catchy...)
;-)
The point is, most of these names just won't do anyone that much good, certainly not thousands. And yes, the cybersquatting thing is being shut down, so you can't even speculate on a company becoming a web presence and grab their name before they do.
And I really doubt that a new company (maybe fencers?) will spring up and call themselves SuckMyPole, so even the best of the names I saw there probably won't be a moneymaker
i think we should get rid of elections and just hand out voting points applicable to any current micro-issue, like here on slashdot. use *that* or lose it, baby! this voting system kicks ass.
hmm, i suppose we'd still need judges (or some independant review body) though, or else majorities could screw over minorities too easily.
this post has nothing to do about taxation.
Assuming -- and this is kind of a big "if" -- the xxxx.com holders were motivated to register the name based on my registration of xxxx.net, does anyone have any idea how they found out about my registering xxxx.net? I didn't put up any content for some time after registering the site, so they clearly didn't find it by accident -- they must have (had?) some systematic way of searching such things out.
Try www.dotbroker.com ... One half Million for yo-quiero.com? You gotta be kidding..........
pronoblem
Whew, they almost had me. I would have hated to have my top-secret grabbed by them because I "checked" to see if it was there. Fortunately, it looks like they are out of commission at the moment. I got this error when trying to search for Microsoft.com:
-BrentFunny how this topic comes up couple days after someone contacted me about my domain name.
:-)
First he emails me telling me he called the phone number listed in the DB (my modem number) and he can't get through. He would "love" to have this domain (it's a three letter.com name, probably a rare find). I ignore it. Next day there's a phone message on the answering machine (he must have found my resume). Since he's being persistent I tell him I don't want to sell it.
He emails me back shortly thereafter and asks if I want to talk it over on the phone. I told him to make me an offer. That was last night. I won't be around for the weekend so I'll see how "serious" he is on Monday.
Anyway, I got the domain back in '94 (like the guy with amazing.com) and it took like 4 weeks! I just do email on it for myself and friends, so it's not like it's sitting there doing nothing, plus I think it's a cool word!
The biggest fear I have is selling it and having this guy with the hotmail account selling it on eBay or putting a porno site up with it -- happened to my friend with nine11.com after he let the registration lapse!
-m
It seems to me that these are people too lazy or unimaginative to make money by actually being productive/innovative/providing useful goods and services.
Think about it this way: cyber-squatting is like trying to own names of businesses that don't even exist yet! This would never be tolerated under trademark law, according to which you can't own a name without having a legitimate product or service associated with it...
A few choice quotes from the leeches:
>"The mainstream hasn't figured out the power of >the domain yet."
So, we're missing out on something? Sounds like desperate words from a desperate salesman...
>Many sellers blame the lack of bidders on the >ignorance of the buyers. "Most people don't know
>what these things are worth,"
Or, just maybe, the lack of bidders can be attributed to the worthlessness of the product in the first place! Another poster accurately observed that any legitimate business could oust cyber-squatters by legal means. The squatters are simply playing a numbers game, trying to guess the names of successful businesses and then cash in by selling off a name which they appropriated but to which they have little real claim.
>"Most people don't recognize the value of those >names because they don't share the vision that >you have in the first place," added Provost. >"That's why we're not getting a lot of bites."
Here's another way of looking at it: you're making up names, buying them, and then complaining that no one else is going out and starting a successful business by that name, making you rich with *their* vision and hard work!?
Methinks the gravy-trainers doth protest too much, and should go do something useful for a change..
My 2 cents...
Chief Justice
The company I work for (hence AC) decided they wanted a certain dommain name so we approached the "owner" with a six figure offer. They responded that they had a new offer that raised our bid. After going back and fourth several times we ended up getting the name for about five times what we initially offered. Turns out another branch office in our firm thought they were the ones responsible for getting the domain. Moral - make sure you don't raise your own bid.
No, it's nowhere near the same. Let's not forget that internet realestate doesn't really exist. It's just a concept.
If someone buys land, then they have something they can use. If someone invests in a company, then they have a part of the company and a say in the workings of that company.
The only reason cyber-squatters buy up domain names is to make a quick buck off of the people that could actually use them. (There are exceptions, like failed bussinesses selling their domains).
There are people who just buy land and sell it for a profit to someone who needs it more. They're called middlemen and they make things more expensive. At least where middlemen are involved, the previous owner is compensated and there's always some other land that can be bought.
I say, if you don't use a domain for 6 months, you lose it.
P.S. Don't say there's always another domain that can be bought. ponton.com, thepontonfamily.com, thepontons.com & most permutations of those were already taken last time I looked. Not only that, but I couldn't even use the domain as I wanted. They would give me the priveledge of having an e-mail address with my own family name in the domain for only $5 dollars a month.
(btw, I note that www.bushsucks.com takes you to G.W.B's campaign site; I have no problem with him buying up the 'offending' name, but was it really a good idea to have it redirect to his real site?)
They've bought up some huge number of similar domains, all of which redirect to his webpage.
Put it this way, would you rather have a derogatory name point to your page, or would you rather it point to an equally derogatory website?
I wonder if domain names will ever replace
trademarks? No need for lawyers, no complicated searches and forms to fill out. No accidental granting 2 people the same TM. Instantly internationally binding and automatically enforced. If you compared the convience domain names present over TMs, they are damn cheap.
The only thing that remains is an automatic image TM system for logos, etc. Perhaps you submit your logo in a vector format and it is compared using a yet to be invented standard algorithm to other registered images. If a match of X% probability occurs the image is rejected.
-- Virtual Windows Project
Yeah, the only problem is that half of those domains are spelled incorrectly. Did you check out eBay? Names like "febuary.com", which lacks an 'r' after the 'b', and "levis-strauss.com" which has an extra 's'... it's not trademark infringement when you're too crosseyed to spell them right! :)
jhunt@navi.net
burp
-- "'It was horrible' recalls former child" - Never Eat Anything Bigger Than Your Head
Ofcourse domain name is important. .com,
:-)
I'll give you a good example: c-net.
they have download.com and news.com developer.com...
Newbies have no idea what a "domain" is, and just type a word and
so if they are looking for news they will try news.com, if they are looking to downlaod something they will go to download.com
I think the best domain for this kind of things is sex.com
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
If (a big if) domain names do have some intrinsic value, and are marketable in and of themselves, wouldn't it make sense that a matched set of the big three (.com, .org, .net) would be worth much more than just one? Or more than the seperate value of all three individually?
I just grabbed a domain for myself, and got all three. Not because I plan on selling them, but because I didn't want someone registering the companions to get free publicity if (another huge if) my site becomes popular. Wouldn't that same mindset apply to reselling domain names?
Will we still be using dns in ten years anyway? Won't we have moved to a directory based system by then, using ldap to access it?
support gun control: take guns from cops
I don't know the legal end of it, but it seems to me that when they are in court and they say "In 2001, we came out with the foobar product, and this person is trying to get money from us by owning the foobar.com domain name" and the other persons lawyer says "but my client has had foobar.com for 2 years, well before this product"
I would hope that would be the end of it.
the buyers. "Most people don't know what these things are
worth," said Gerald Provost, a Web consultant who is
hawking his E-reward.com and Shoppersalley.com for
several thousand apiece.
Or, maybe they just don't care.
It's more about getting eyes than anything else.
Now, what to do with crashdot.org... :-)
http://www.domainame.com/welcome.html
What a bunch of guff.
The above post is an editorial, the poster cannot and will not be held responsible for all or in part for it's contents
I agree domain names are important because people type stuff into their browser bars. For example, when Dell first went online in France under www.dell.fr, someone bought a computer on their site within 15 minutes. Dell hadn't even begun thier public advertising campaign. Someone was just typing in Dell's French URL by chance and happened to buy a computer as well.
Sure, they pay taxes. So what? They get quite a few privileges and protections from our government as well. Each and every person in that corporation could make a campaign contribution if they want to. The corporation itself should not be allowed to. It undermines the system by putting the power in the hands of those with the most money. Let them individually contribute if they want.
I personally think that the whole contribution thing is crazy anyway. The government should give each candidate a specific budget that must be fully accounted for. They can use it to promote themselves as much as they want. They cannot use it to buy personal items (no buying yourself a car and then losing on purpose). That would put the candidates on equal footing and remove some of the influence of big money on the election. I'm sure corporations will run their own commercials and whatnot for their candidate. Can't stop them there, but let's at least try to do whatever possible to stop the direct transfer of funds. Candidates should not be allowed to make deals for support with corporations. I have obviously not thought this all the way through, but it's equally obvious that the current system is screwed up. Might as well start thinking up alternatives. Basically, we need to let THE PEOPLE vote for their choice. I don't want someone in office who is indebted to those people who paid for his campaign. It's a conflict of interest.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
In fact, it is NSI's policy to let you keep the domain under those circumstances - a prior trademark application is required. So it's exceedingly doubtful that any such case would go to court.
D
----
Back in 1994, when domain names were free of charge and the InterNIC supposedly went over every application by hand and approved it, I registered amazing.com .
I have contradictory feelings about it. On the one hand, I want to keep it because a lot of my life is in it. On the other hand, I'm sure it's worth a lot of money to the right company.
I've gotten occasional offers for it - the last one was for $ 10k. I'd say it would cost about $10k worth of effort to move all my sites off the domain and try and reset all the links to it. Also, I think the absolute right buyer would pay more.
Any thoughts on how much such a common and distinctive word is worth? I looked on eBay and came to the conclusion that it's just not a good place to sell a name.
D
----
Its already happened.
A site dedicated to movies (movie buff?) was lost because another company came out with a product that was called Movie Buff. They demanded the web address and won in federal court.
A web address does not have trademark or copyright protection, and yes, if someone comes out with a product using that name and you are not using it in for a business or other protected purpose you will lose the domain name.
End of Story.
. * Did aliens forget to remove your anal probe?
Those people trying to convince us of how valuable their domains are sound just like a investment advice columnist who says that a certain bum stock is the 'next big thing' because he owns a bunch of it and wants the price to go up.
In another sense, they sound like Amway representatives, trying to convince you that they're going to be rich and so you should join the bandwagon so you can be rich too.
What I would like to ask these people is - if you're so convinced these domains are going to be worth millions in 10 years, why are you selling them for a couple thousand now? But instead I'll just chuckle softly in my cube and move on to the next article.
The enemies of Democracy are
I wonder how these sellers will fare once other high level domains are created. Mil, com, edu, net, org, and nu will only go so far and as one other reader pointed out most names are registered across high level domains. As more are created (an if, admittedly), the value of the older ones will likely drop because it's not all about legacy addresses it's about novelty (save for the few times when legacy becomes novelty). It's time to be more creative rather than to be ad hoc. How about a Norwegian creating maybe@yes.no ? It's all about the possibilities...