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.
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
In the case of "coke.com" there is an existing trademark and a prior legal claim on the name, but a name that has no particular connection to anything is essentially up for grabs to whomever wishes to register it. Of course, we're looking at two different flavours of cybersquatting really.
Whether there is an obvious owner of the domain or not shouldn't change the situation, IMNSHO, but the world rarely works the way I want it to.
If it works in theory, try something else in practice.
Well, duh... www.rickschwartz.com is still open..
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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