6 ms·
It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system. Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work to
by rooshdi 15y ago
It's such a complex mess, these simple solutions don't even begin to grasp at understanding the system.
Just because it's complex doesn't mean we can't work towards trying to solve or improve this issue. We can either try to improve it for entrepreneurs and users, or allow it to continue to work in the best interest of sitting squatters.
- ohashi 15y agoDomain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that. Perhaps the system is already optimized for capitalism and entrepreneurship. There are plenty of domains available for next to nothing. Better ones that others have already come up with will cost more. This means that only better financed companies can afford them. Thus, better names go to better companies (in general). Bad companies fail and disappear and a less valuable domain was taken in the process and is now weeded out. Of course, with all these 'noble' goals of helping users and entrepreneurs, drawing actual concrete lines anywhere is virtually impossible. When actually trying to tackle this problem, you realize it's at an equilibrium (albeit a low level one).
- rooshdi 15y agoDomain squatting is a specific term, it means someone who registers in bad faith to infringe on another company's trademark. Let's be clear about that. Yes, the bad faith intent is the major issue we are trying to deter. There are way too many domain squatters who buy domains solely with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service for the public. This is the fundamental issue at hand.
- ohashi 15y agoThis right is why I don't see a constructive solution ever coming from you. Buying something with intent to profit is bad faith. That's bullshit, plain and simple. We live in a capitalist society. We buy things with the intent to profit all the time. That's what our whole society is BUILT ON. We spend money on labor and capital in hopes of earning a greater return. You twist this idea by saying someone has registered it with the bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of an entrepreneur looking to create a service. Goodwill doesn't exist until it is created. It's been show time and time again that you cannot buy something in bad faith before something exists. That's just not possible. How can you simply assume it's blocking something to be created for the public as well? You make way too many broad and wrong assumptions to try and reach a conclusion you simply want for your own selfish reasons disguised as a greater good.
- rooshdi 15y agoDon't take this the wrong way, I actually appreciate the dialogue you and I are having. I like debating with an opposing view in order to bring more issues to the surface. My argument is that domain squatters provide very little value in comparison to potential alternative users of that domain. That's the thing, a domain squatter's sole intention is to profit from buying and reselling domains, while a startup's intention is to profit by creating external value through a service utilizing that domain.
- ohashi 15y agoMost domainers I know also plan on creating services on their domains. Why does anyone else have a more legitimate right to want to build something on a domain name? What if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy? Why shouldnt I be allowed if I registered it first or paid for it? What if your startup isnt making any/much money and mine is and we're doing the same thing. Do I have more rights to that name than you?
- rooshdi 15y agoWhat if I own cats.com and just want to put a picture of my cat fuzzy wuzzy? I'm sure a .meow domain would suit your personal purposes just fine. A .com, however, would be better suited for commercial purposes if you intend to profit off of your fuzzy wuzzy photos.
- ohashi 15y agoYou're really not worth it anymore. You're reaching for ridiculous arguments about how something was originally planned over two decades ago. Things changed, you can't realistically regress to some original purpose when it is outdated. Sorry. You're wrong.
- rooshdi 15y agoOkay, we can agree to disagree my friend.