5 ms·

I think a lot of people don't know what "domain squatting" is. If there's a domain you want, but someone else has it but is not using it, that's not squatting.

I think a lot of people don't know what "domain squatting" is. If there's a domain you want, but someone else has it but is not using it, that's not squatting. If you let your personal name domain expire, and someone else registers it, that's not squatting. In order for it to be squatting, they have to be trying to profit off a trademark. I assume Jerry Alex is not a trademark. "Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using an Internet domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

ohashi 7y ago
Also 'I had forgotten to renew it and it was immediately snatched up' means they didn't notice renewal emails, didn't notice the website stopped working, if it truly expired, it takes months go through that process without them noticing.
- crazydoggers 7y ago
  Yes, this. People complaining about failed renewals always leave this out. On top of not noticing renewal notices, there’s a 45 day renewal grace period where you can renew the domain after it expires. And even if you miss that, there’s another 30 redemption grace period, where you can pay a fee and have the name restored anyway. So you’re usually talking at least 2-3 months of not noticing or caring. Registrars are also required to email domain holders and ask them to update their contact information and email yearly. So you’ve really got no excuse if you lose a domain via expiration.
  - SenHeng 7y ago
    It happens sometimes. I once owned a domain via MediaTemple registered to an account that no longer existed. I tried but MT wouldn't let me renew the domain even with proof that I was the owner other account (whois contact info, cc purchase history). Only way to get that domain back was to let it expire and hope no one took it.
    - crazydoggers 7y ago
      What do you mean by “the account no longer existed” Do you mean you no longer had access to the email? If you either have the email account or you know the password to your domain account you should be able to get in and change things/renew. Otherwise you’d have to lose both your email account and your password.
      - SenHeng 7y ago
        The email account no longer existed because our company shutdown and all email addresses were deleted. The MT account too was deleted using the dashboard. After the storm settled and I got control of all remaining assets, I decided I wanted to keep the domain for sentimental value which is when I discovered that it was all gone.
crazydoggers 7y ago
People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” Why do people think generic names shouldn’t be priced at what the market demands. And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Should you get a house on Smith Dr, just because you share that last name? Stop treating generic domains like no one should own them... they’re valuable internet real estate, and they deserve to be priced accordingly.
- markdown 7y ago
  > People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. Buying property anywhere and then sitting on it without developing it is a negative for everyone in that community, so of course its "evil" and frowned upon. > It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” If that person bought the lot with no intention of ever building on it... you're exactly right! That's terrible, and most developments strongly discourage this sort of situation by requiring the buyer to build a house to a certain standard within a certain period of time, all to avoid empty lots all over the place. > And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up.
  - crazydoggers 7y ago
    You’re talking about housing developments where the owner of the land requires builders to build certain numbers of houses. That’s because they are in the process of developing it already and want it to be appealing to home buyers. Prior to that the land was owned, probably for a long period of time, before the area was deemed worthy of development. Do you really think there are just empty tracks of land waiting for the first buyer... that are held by whom??? No... someone took a risk and bought the land speculating that eventually the land would be wanted by someone to develop something on it. Same as purchasing a domain, paying the yearly fees... and hoping eventually some one will want to develop on it. And if it’s beach front property... the equivalent of a nice domain name... it’s gonna go for a lot more. Again, there’s no public trust or anything to hold property just in case someone wants to develop on it, because who decides who gets to use it? Instead there are private investors taking a risk to carry the property, possibly for a loss. > Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up. That’s some utopia!! Who decides if what you’re building is valid or useful? What if I just display “hello” on the page? How about relevant ads related to the domain? What if I want to display my favorite music... what if my son just wants to post pictures of his LEGO’s? Who defines the line?? You’re gonna say “hello” or “ads” doesn’t count but pictures of Legos do? Why? You or some cabal get to dictate what speech is relevant? Your method of handing domains to the first person with “intention” quickly falls into abuse, corruption, censorship, etc. I’d rather have a free market, thanks.
baddox 7y ago
> If there's a domain you want, but someone else has it but is not using it, that's not squatting. If you let your personal name domain expire, and someone else registers it, that's not squatting. But these aren't mutually exclusive with your description of the legal definition of squatting, right? If someone just happens to have the same name as you, and buys your expired personal domain name to use as their personal website, of course that's not cybersquatting. But isn't it cybersquatting if they purchase the domain with the intention of selling it to you at an above-average price? The US legal definition you posted seems to imply that, with the phrase "trafficking in." I think simply offering the domain for sale with the knowledge that it is probably more valuable than the average domain because of its association to some well-known name or trademark absolutely qualifies as cybersquatting. But I could absolutely be mistaken. That's just my relatively hasty reading of the US law.
- unreal37 7y ago
  If you buy faaaaacebook.com, that's probably a violation of trademark law but that's not squatting. If you buy facebook.co and try to sell it to Facebook for $1 million, that's squatting.
markdown 7y ago
Reminds me of the hacking/cracking argument. The commonly accepted definition of squatting is registering and sitting on a domain with no intention of using it other than to sell it at a profit. How a US-only law defines it isn't really irrelevant.
twhb 7y ago
People know full well what they're talking about: holding domains for profit, not any crime, not domain underuse, not domain snatching. That may not be the legal definition of "domain squatting", but neither are the common and legal definitions the same for "brief", "motion", or "harassment". US law narrowing a term doesn't make common use wrong.
- unreal37 7y ago
  I get that people misuse words sometimes, and occasionally the definition of those words changes to match the common use. But still, squatting is not "someone bought a domain that used to be mine. And when I asked to buy it back, the price was not what I was willing to pay." It's not.
icebraining 7y ago
> I assume Jerry Alex is not a trademark. I'd say it is. He markets himself under that mark, including offering a newsletter with a business focus. Remember that trademarks don't have to be registered; but he could even do that, if he gains enough visibility - see the registered trademark "Sarah Palin", for example.

ohashi 7y ago

Also 'I had forgotten to renew it and it was immediately snatched up' means they didn't notice renewal emails, didn't notice the website stopped working, if it truly expired, it takes months go through that process without them noticing.

crazydoggers 7y ago
Yes, this. People complaining about failed renewals always leave this out. On top of not noticing renewal notices, there’s a 45 day renewal grace period where you can renew the domain after it expires. And even if you miss that, there’s another 30 redemption grace period, where you can pay a fee and have the name restored anyway. So you’re usually talking at least 2-3 months of not noticing or caring. Registrars are also required to email domain holders and ask them to update their contact information and email yearly. So you’ve really got no excuse if you lose a domain via expiration.
- SenHeng 7y ago
  It happens sometimes. I once owned a domain via MediaTemple registered to an account that no longer existed. I tried but MT wouldn't let me renew the domain even with proof that I was the owner other account (whois contact info, cc purchase history). Only way to get that domain back was to let it expire and hope no one took it.
  - crazydoggers 7y ago
    What do you mean by “the account no longer existed” Do you mean you no longer had access to the email? If you either have the email account or you know the password to your domain account you should be able to get in and change things/renew. Otherwise you’d have to lose both your email account and your password.
    - SenHeng 7y ago
      The email account no longer existed because our company shutdown and all email addresses were deleted. The MT account too was deleted using the dashboard. After the storm settled and I got control of all remaining assets, I decided I wanted to keep the domain for sentimental value which is when I discovered that it was all gone.

crazydoggers 7y ago

People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” Why do people think generic names shouldn’t be priced at what the market demands. And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Should you get a house on Smith Dr, just because you share that last name? Stop treating generic domains like no one should own them... they’re valuable internet real estate, and they deserve to be priced accordingly.

markdown 7y ago
> People like to think that generic domain names are somehow common property or something, and anyone holding that property for profit is somehow evil. Buying property anywhere and then sitting on it without developing it is a negative for everyone in that community, so of course its "evil" and frowned upon. > It’s as if someone bought the lot across from your house, and then sold it for a profit and you say “Hey! That’s next door to me... they are evil to hold or sell it.. what if my friends/parents, etc want to live there!?” If that person bought the lot with no intention of ever building on it... you're exactly right! That's terrible, and most developments strongly discourage this sort of situation by requiring the buyer to build a house to a certain standard within a certain period of time, all to avoid empty lots all over the place. > And with name domains... who says you get that name when there are probably tons of other people sharing your exact name. Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up.
- crazydoggers 7y ago
  You’re talking about housing developments where the owner of the land requires builders to build certain numbers of houses. That’s because they are in the process of developing it already and want it to be appealing to home buyers. Prior to that the land was owned, probably for a long period of time, before the area was deemed worthy of development. Do you really think there are just empty tracks of land waiting for the first buyer... that are held by whom??? No... someone took a risk and bought the land speculating that eventually the land would be wanted by someone to develop something on it. Same as purchasing a domain, paying the yearly fees... and hoping eventually some one will want to develop on it. And if it’s beach front property... the equivalent of a nice domain name... it’s gonna go for a lot more. Again, there’s no public trust or anything to hold property just in case someone wants to develop on it, because who decides who gets to use it? Instead there are private investors taking a risk to carry the property, possibly for a loss. > Nobody. Nobody says that. What people say is that the first person with an intention of building something on it should get it, and not just the richest person with that name. Squatters prevent anyone using the domain until someone with a lot of money to spend shows up. That’s some utopia!! Who decides if what you’re building is valid or useful? What if I just display “hello” on the page? How about relevant ads related to the domain? What if I want to display my favorite music... what if my son just wants to post pictures of his LEGO’s? Who defines the line?? You’re gonna say “hello” or “ads” doesn’t count but pictures of Legos do? Why? You or some cabal get to dictate what speech is relevant? Your method of handing domains to the first person with “intention” quickly falls into abuse, corruption, censorship, etc. I’d rather have a free market, thanks.

baddox 7y ago

> If there's a domain you want, but someone else has it but is not using it, that's not squatting. If you let your personal name domain expire, and someone else registers it, that's not squatting. But these aren't mutually exclusive with your description of the legal definition of squatting, right? If someone just happens to have the same name as you, and buys your expired personal domain name to use as their personal website, of course that's not cybersquatting. But isn't it cybersquatting if they purchase the domain with the intention of selling it to you at an above-average price? The US legal definition you posted seems to imply that, with the phrase "trafficking in." I think simply offering the domain for sale with the knowledge that it is probably more valuable than the average domain because of its association to some well-known name or trademark absolutely qualifies as cybersquatting. But I could absolutely be mistaken. That's just my relatively hasty reading of the US law.

unreal37 7y ago
If you buy faaaaacebook.com, that's probably a violation of trademark law but that's not squatting. If you buy facebook.co and try to sell it to Facebook for $1 million, that's squatting.

markdown 7y ago

Reminds me of the hacking/cracking argument. The commonly accepted definition of squatting is registering and sitting on a domain with no intention of using it other than to sell it at a profit. How a US-only law defines it isn't really irrelevant.

twhb 7y ago

People know full well what they're talking about: holding domains for profit, not any crime, not domain underuse, not domain snatching. That may not be the legal definition of "domain squatting", but neither are the common and legal definitions the same for "brief", "motion", or "harassment". US law narrowing a term doesn't make common use wrong.

unreal37 7y ago
I get that people misuse words sometimes, and occasionally the definition of those words changes to match the common use. But still, squatting is not "someone bought a domain that used to be mine. And when I asked to buy it back, the price was not what I was willing to pay." It's not.

icebraining 7y ago

> I assume Jerry Alex is not a trademark. I'd say it is. He markets himself under that mark, including offering a newsletter with a business focus. Remember that trademarks don't have to be registered; but he could even do that, if he gains enough visibility - see the registered trademark "Sarah Palin", for example.