3 ms·
You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would sim
by ohashi 15y ago
You don't have a better solution, plenty of companies have enormous portfolios of domains. This also wouldn't free up the better names, the best ones would simply be allocated into different management companies, only the marginally profitable ones would be let go. There is no shortage of domains and nobody is restricting anyone's right to a domain. Just because I own a name doesn't mean you've lost a right to domains, you have the exact same rights you always did, the freedom to register a domain that nobody else has purchased. The same position everyone else is in, equally. You have not proposed any objective way to measure and define better. Utility in a real market is hard if not impossible to measure. You think it's your right to have a better domain name? It's not. Welcome to capitalism, where a free market dictates how resources are used. But they are blocking valuable startups you say. If the company is actually viable and successful they can surely purchase it when their utility is greater than the current owner. That's the beauty of capitalism. When someone else's utility is greater than my own, they can purchase my asset and it becomes theirs. Simple.
May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. You ask for the same protections, if not more, for your own assets, but want to take others' protections away. Your arguments, if they can even be considered such, boil down to "you suck, it's unfair someone has the name I rightfully deserve for no apparent reason other than I want it, and we should change the system so I get what I want." Go try that in the nicer area of your city/state/province with a lot of vacation rentals. Tell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it.
- rooshdi 15y agoTell a homeowner that you need that property more than they do because they have another home and how it's more fair that you get it. Your real estate analogy is a flawed one, especially in today's domain environment. A more accurate analogy would be an overpopulation of people (financially stable mind you) forced to live in cardboard boxes due to real estate investors buying up neighborhoods of good homes, bumping up their prices, and not returning phone calls. Plus, real estate investors in the real world at least try to maintain their property and improve it through actual work. Domainers just park pages. May I ask why I have to use my capital for YOUR benefit? Since it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it. That's the nature of capitalism and freedom. Just because you don't like or even agree with what I do doesn't mean the system is broken. Just because something is a product of capitalism doesn't mean it can't be broken by selfish extremists. How do you think we got in this recent financial fiasco? One word, greed. Sometimes there needs to certain measures of regulation to ensure individuals are not taking advantage of the system at the expense of others. That is all I'm saying. There comes a point when a foot has to be put down after a certain threshold, especially when the majority of people in a system are being hurt by these extremists.
- ohashi 15y agoExcept nobody is being hurt in this case. There are infinite available domains for all intents and purposes. The real estate analogy is fine, you just don't live in the really nice neighborhood. You live in a cheaper one. Or perhaps in a .info ghetto. You still have a house, it's just not a mansion on the beach. Unless you pay for it. People aren't harmed by not having a the best domain available.
- rooshdi 15y agoExcept nobody is being hurt in this case. Tell that to these people: http://ask.metafilter.com/144210/Buying-a-domain-namefor-the-children http://ask.metafilter.com/144210/Buying-a-domain-namefor-the... http://www.elscottharrell.com/2008/08/domainers-suck.html http://www.elscottharrell.com/2008/08/domainers-suck.html http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/www-domainduck-com-domain-squatting-245067/ http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/www-domai... http://thomasfreudenberg.com/blog/archive/2005/12/10/cyber-squatters-suck.aspx http://thomasfreudenberg.com/blog/archive/2005/12/10/cyber-s... http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=719440 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=719440 etc, etc, etc.
- ohashi 15y agoWhat's ironic is you actually picked an example I DID answer back in 2008. But I guess you did just a quick google search instead of actually reading the messages. These people aren't harmed by domainers owning the domain they want. They simply think they could better themselves with ownership. Those are two very different things. Just because someone thinks they come up with something clever and deserve it doesn't mean they actually do. If someone else purchased it first, they clearly didn't have some magical unique insight, upon which, they deserve some special rights. Some of these people aren't hurt at all, they are just being greedy and feel something is unfair because the outcome wasn't optimal for them. Others, made mistakes and want to blame someone (they actually failed to renew their own domain, and used a bad registration company, not domainers' fault). Others still, are simply inquiring how to get domains.