3 ms·

And you'd be wrong. I'm not trying to be spicy -- the literal definition of domain squatting is intentional trademark infringement or confusion. Someone else s

And you'd be wrong. I'm not trying to be spicy -- the literal definition of domain squatting is intentional trademark infringement or confusion. Someone else sitting on your grand plan doesn't make it domain squatting because someone else has their own grand plan they want to sit on. Squatting by definition is illegally occupying property that you don't own, which would be a trademarked term. e.g. If someone builds a hut at the back of your property, they're squatting. If someone else looks at your property and decides they want to make it a lucrative Taco Bell location, it'd be pretty rich for them to call you a squatter and claim right to it, yet that's exactly what's happening in that incorrect usage. This is hardly a hill I want to die on, but on HN -- of all places -- I'd expect we'd have a somewhat proper use of terminology.

loeg 7y ago
You're talking about law and legal terms of art, but the conversation is about English. There is often specific legal meaning to terms of art that does not align with the lay definition. I think you are making the case that this is another example of that. I'm not even sure that it is — the US legal term defined by ACPA is "cybersquatting," not "domain squatting. The latter appears nowhere in the text of the bill, whereas the former appears something like 66 times.
- endorphone 7y ago
  No, I'm talking about the literal definition everywhere. Not in some abstract textbook. "the US legal term defined by ACPA is "cybersquatting," not "domain squatting." Okay? What is the point of this? The key is the term squatting -- illegally occupying property that is not your own. Calling completely legal, completely compliant ownership of something squatting because you personally don't like it is...well...it's nonsense. It's the dumbing down of terminology.
  - loeg 7y ago
    You're still talking about squatting, the legal term of art.

loeg 7y ago

You're talking about law and legal terms of art, but the conversation is about English. There is often specific legal meaning to terms of art that does not align with the lay definition. I think you are making the case that this is another example of that. I'm not even sure that it is — the US legal term defined by ACPA is "cybersquatting," not "domain squatting. The latter appears nowhere in the text of the bill, whereas the former appears something like 66 times.

endorphone 7y ago
No, I'm talking about the literal definition everywhere. Not in some abstract textbook. "the US legal term defined by ACPA is "cybersquatting," not "domain squatting." Okay? What is the point of this? The key is the term squatting -- illegally occupying property that is not your own. Calling completely legal, completely compliant ownership of something squatting because you personally don't like it is...well...it's nonsense. It's the dumbing down of terminology.
- loeg 7y ago
  You're still talking about squatting, the legal term of art.