4 ms·

"camped on by some clown" Why is that language necessary? "Domain squatting is without worth and indefensible." "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of r

by larrys 14y ago

"camped on by some clown" Why is that language necessary? "Domain squatting is without worth and indefensible." "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of reselling. Exactly what is wrong with that other than you are frustrated that you don't want to pay for what they have to sell? Are you also frustrated that real estate in Silicon Valley or NYC sells for so much money? That some people bought at the right time and can now sell for more? That some people own homes and don't use them full time? That someone should get to use the home and they should give them up? "Squatters create nothing and they provide nothing of value" They can provide a domain name that you want. Read below on what happens when a domain is owned by someone that doesn't care about money (google). I understand that HN is certainly against squatters in the worst way. And that it is frustrating to deal with some domain sellers (this is part of what I do for people). I'm not defending the practices of some who are unreasonable. (I also want to point out that I am both on the buying and selling end just like an attorney can represent both parties in a lawsuit. I also own domain names as further disclosure and I've sold them for plenty of money.) There is a domain I was trying to get for someone that google owned and it was very clear they weren't going to sell the domain. Not for any price. Any price. They don't need the money. It took hours of effort to just track down the person who controlled the domain for google. No dice. Had the domain been owned by a speculator a deal would have been done easily. This happens frequently actually. You have a better chance of getting a domain if it's not being used at all and owned by someone who wants to make money then you do if it's owned by a company that either doesn't need the money or is using it for their bakery and doesn't want to rebrand. "beat a squatter with a shovel" I think you have to think about this. You have a serious anger problem.

pbz 14y ago
If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to the number of parked domains that only have the "for sale" sign on them. If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10, not $10K.
- larrys 14y ago
  "If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.
  - pbz 14y ago
    You're not seriously saying Google is a squatter, are you? When a company buys another company it's a package deal. How would you separate the value of the domain from the rest of the acquired IP? It's too much of a headache; remember they have to answer to their shareholders. There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "When a company buys another company it's a package deal. " They aren't using the domain. The company they acquired they shut down. All transition has been done. So by the logic that many commenters here use they are squatters. Because they aren't using the domain. As an aside google and many large corporations who aren't actively selling domains own domains that they have stockpiled for one reason on another (preventing competition). Back to the domain in question. It doesn't go anywhere. Just because they aren't in the business of registering domains for the purpose of profit doesn't make it less so (by once again people's definitions here..) that they are squatters. And just because they got the domain buy acquiring a company doesn't change the facts. "If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal," It seems like the thing you want to be illegal is people being in the business of buying and selling domain names then, am I correct? You think domains are a public trust and there should be a committee that passes judgement on who can get a domain and also monitors that a domain is used in an acceptable way and finally that a domain isn't sold without content. And a whole bunch of regulation to prevent people from gaming the system. Unfortunately that would hurt the internet. Your idea isn't practical and not the way a free market works. There is nothing special about domains that requires such special protection. They aren't kidneys or liver transplants. Lastly, there are other TLD that you can register your name in. You just can't get .com or any of the mostly popular ones. If you can't get hackernews.com you can get hackernews.tld I was around at the start when a) domains were free b) domains were then priced at $100 for 2 years and c) that price was lowered to $70 for 2 years. Then came ICANN and many registrars and domains dropped to $10 or whatever godaddy was charging at the time or Tucows etc. I was around in the beginning when you had to fill out a long form and say what you were doing with the name. Pretty soon there were so many people wanting domains that NSI asked the NSF if they could charge per name. Then people got upset with the money they were making and we got competition. Reviewing applications for domains stopped and that was actually good. It allowed the Internet to grow quickly. A vestige of this system exists with .edu names. Last I check (and this may have changed since I haven't attempted for years) I couldn't even get one for a University without justifying why they couldn't use their main .edu. It also exists with some sponsored TLD that you've never heard of. Bottom line: Who is going to pay for the regulation and who is going to run that system?
EvilTerran 14y ago
Why is that language necessary? What, "clown"? That's about the least offensive way of expressing frustration at people there is -- why is complaining about it necessary? "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of reselling. Exactly what is wrong with that ... All the usual problems with speculators, really: inflated prices, leading to non-speculators being priced out of the market; market instability as the speculators stampede one way or the other, being bubbles in the extreme case; etc etc. They can provide a domain name that you want. That's misinterpreting "provide nothing of value", and you know it. You have a serious anger problem. Because, of course, a cartoonish description on the internet of hypothetical violence is indicative of "a serious anger problem". And I'm the Pope.
- crikli 14y ago
  Because, of course, a cartoonish description on the internet of hypothetical violence is indicative of "a serious anger problem". And I'm the Pope. I bit the shovel thing from Patton Oswalt anyway. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDCjIjsZp_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDCjIjsZp_Y
crikli 14y ago
Hyperbole, I was using it. The worst I'm going to do to a domain squatter, should I meet one, is give them an uncomfortably firm handshake. Very firm. There may be some mild bruising. (That's more hyperbole there, to be clear. I'm exaggerating for effect.) Nowhere in your response did you demonstrate where you as a squatter are providing value for the premium you ask over the ICANN cost. It's my contention that you provide none. Squatting has no offline analogue, period. Trying to invoke real estate, a common tack, only succeeds at the most superficial levels. The barriers to entry, risks, and perpetuated costs of real estate speculation/ownership fracture the comparison quickly. Note that nowhere have I said that squatting should be illegal, in fact I said that as a libertarian I understand why it has to exist. In the same vein, I believe other business models that are currently illegal should be legitimized, even though I find them as repugnant and without value as domain squatting.
simonbrown 14y ago
If Google wanted a domain owned by a squatter they would buy it from them, so the squatter isn't preventing this from happening.

by larrys 14y ago

pbz 14y ago

If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it (probably trademark protection). These cases are rare compared to the number of parked domains that only have the "for sale" sign on them. If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10, not $10K.

larrys 14y ago
"If somebody (Google) doesn't want to sell the domain is because they have a good use for it" So you are saying that google can have a "good" use for a domain and speculating "probably trademark protection". Actually the domain that I am referring to was from a company that they acquired that was shut down. And no they don't have a good use for it. They told me that. They just don't care. It is of no benefit to the decision maker to sell the domain. He won't get the money. So why not hold on to it in case they have a use in 10 years? (And all the evidence points in that direction). Additionally: In the case of this particular domain they simply don't want what they feel is a potential competitor to get the domain. "If the squatter would not have taken it then it would've been available for $10" Absolutely positively the biggest myth out there. Simply not the way any market works. That a domain that you want would be there for you when you want it. Emphasis: You. Not that someone with another idea would have gotten it first and you'd have to convince them to sell.
- pbz 14y ago
  You're not seriously saying Google is a squatter, are you? When a company buys another company it's a package deal. How would you separate the value of the domain from the rest of the acquired IP? It's too much of a headache; remember they have to answer to their shareholders. There's no myth, it's logic. If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal, then if I want domain X then it's either available or used by somebody - which I have no problem with. If you think that sitting on it, because somebody may have a good use for it in the future, provides any useful service you're fooling yourself. In that case parasites also provide a good service by regulating the ecosystem.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "When a company buys another company it's a package deal. " They aren't using the domain. The company they acquired they shut down. All transition has been done. So by the logic that many commenters here use they are squatters. Because they aren't using the domain. As an aside google and many large corporations who aren't actively selling domains own domains that they have stockpiled for one reason on another (preventing competition). Back to the domain in question. It doesn't go anywhere. Just because they aren't in the business of registering domains for the purpose of profit doesn't make it less so (by once again people's definitions here..) that they are squatters. And just because they got the domain buy acquiring a company doesn't change the facts. "If you eliminate squatters, let's say you somehow make it illegal," It seems like the thing you want to be illegal is people being in the business of buying and selling domain names then, am I correct? You think domains are a public trust and there should be a committee that passes judgement on who can get a domain and also monitors that a domain is used in an acceptable way and finally that a domain isn't sold without content. And a whole bunch of regulation to prevent people from gaming the system. Unfortunately that would hurt the internet. Your idea isn't practical and not the way a free market works. There is nothing special about domains that requires such special protection. They aren't kidneys or liver transplants. Lastly, there are other TLD that you can register your name in. You just can't get .com or any of the mostly popular ones. If you can't get hackernews.com you can get hackernews.tld I was around at the start when a) domains were free b) domains were then priced at $100 for 2 years and c) that price was lowered to $70 for 2 years. Then came ICANN and many registrars and domains dropped to $10 or whatever godaddy was charging at the time or Tucows etc. I was around in the beginning when you had to fill out a long form and say what you were doing with the name. Pretty soon there were so many people wanting domains that NSI asked the NSF if they could charge per name. Then people got upset with the money they were making and we got competition. Reviewing applications for domains stopped and that was actually good. It allowed the Internet to grow quickly. A vestige of this system exists with .edu names. Last I check (and this may have changed since I haven't attempted for years) I couldn't even get one for a University without justifying why they couldn't use their main .edu. It also exists with some sponsored TLD that you've never heard of. Bottom line: Who is going to pay for the regulation and who is going to run that system?

EvilTerran 14y ago

Why is that language necessary? What, "clown"? That's about the least offensive way of expressing frustration at people there is -- why is complaining about it necessary? "Squatters" buy something with the hopes of reselling. Exactly what is wrong with that ... All the usual problems with speculators, really: inflated prices, leading to non-speculators being priced out of the market; market instability as the speculators stampede one way or the other, being bubbles in the extreme case; etc etc. They can provide a domain name that you want. That's misinterpreting "provide nothing of value", and you know it. You have a serious anger problem. Because, of course, a cartoonish description on the internet of hypothetical violence is indicative of "a serious anger problem". And I'm the Pope.

crikli 14y ago
Because, of course, a cartoonish description on the internet of hypothetical violence is indicative of "a serious anger problem". And I'm the Pope. I bit the shovel thing from Patton Oswalt anyway. :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDCjIjsZp_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDCjIjsZp_Y

crikli 14y ago

Hyperbole, I was using it. The worst I'm going to do to a domain squatter, should I meet one, is give them an uncomfortably firm handshake. Very firm. There may be some mild bruising. (That's more hyperbole there, to be clear. I'm exaggerating for effect.) Nowhere in your response did you demonstrate where you as a squatter are providing value for the premium you ask over the ICANN cost. It's my contention that you provide none. Squatting has no offline analogue, period. Trying to invoke real estate, a common tack, only succeeds at the most superficial levels. The barriers to entry, risks, and perpetuated costs of real estate speculation/ownership fracture the comparison quickly. Note that nowhere have I said that squatting should be illegal, in fact I said that as a libertarian I understand why it has to exist. In the same vein, I believe other business models that are currently illegal should be legitimized, even though I find them as repugnant and without value as domain squatting.

simonbrown 14y ago

If Google wanted a domain owned by a squatter they would buy it from them, so the squatter isn't preventing this from happening.