4 ms·

Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real-estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment. In the case

by 67726e 14y ago

Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real-estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment. In the case of squatting on a domain, you are depriving someone of the productive use of that domain, while also trying to extort large sums of money simply for the ability to rent it. Of course generally when this happens, it involves a shady company that also seeds the site with loads of sketchy ads.

npsimons 14y ago
What evidence do you have that he's a squatter?
- 67726e 14y ago
  He says on his website that he will only transfer the lease of a domain, that he is currently leasing, for ten million dollars to an organization that wants it so they can actually use it.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    He's not a squatter. He's owned the domain for well over ten years, he has content on it, there are no ads and no parked page. By all criterion it looks like a personal domain. I suspect he only put up the "here's how much it would cost" because so many people kept pestering him with laughably stupid offers ("we'll give you discounts on our dairy products if you give the domain to us!"). He's using the domain, not holding it for ransom. Quite frankly, I don't think the web will be any poorer for having one less corporate media experience, especially from an industry that everyone already knows about. If they want a big glitzy advertising website, I'm sure Google will index it properly, no matter it's domain name. As for the owner of milk.com? He's put actual content up. Useful things. Interesting things. Things that took time to create and curate. This is not the M.O. of some squatter looking to make a quick buck. Especially with the whole "waiting for more than ten years" part.
larrys 14y ago
"Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real-estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment." Back when many of these domains were acquired the investment was either $70 or $100 (or $0) depending on the year acquired. Do you think it was so obvious that that $100 investment (for 2 years reg with NSI) was a sure bet? Guess what, it wasn't. It was a gamble or people would have bet everything they had to acquire as many names as they could. Explain to me why buying a share of stock at $100 and risking $100 is different than thinking a domain might be valuable and risking $100 on that? And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"? What if the domain was owned by some small nobody on Main Street who didn't want to sell? Or Warren Buffet? Who do you think is going to determine what the best use of a domain is exactly?
- 67726e 14y ago
  And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"? Well, if I have a company that, I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product. Maybe I have some startup that deals in milk. That would be a good domain to have. But unfortunately I cannot use that domain to host my website, or web application. Someone decided to lease that domain for what is likely a measly $20 USD per year, and thinks a reasonable price to transfer that lease to me is about $10.000.000 USD. Instead this fine gentleman decided to purchase the domain and thinks acting like a child on a playground by going "Nanananana, you can't have it".
  - larrys 14y ago
    "I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product." So what? I can drive around my neighborhood and somebody might have beat me to the last breakfast sandwich at the Starbucks and they might take one bite and throw it away. The world doesn't work by the fact that you or anyone might have a use for something better than someone else. You pay the money, you buy something, you decide what you want to do with it. I think what you don't understand is that there is a business model built around buying and selling domains. And there is nothing wrong with doing this even though it upsets many people who just think "it's not fair!". With your hypothetical company that wants that domain what happens if what you are doing with it (for your "little" store) doesn't match up to some big dairy when they think they should have it. Are you going to just give it to them or would you try to make money? More importantly you seem to assume that "milk.com" would be available right when you want it. The truth is the owner could have sold it years ago to someone for $5,000 that is using it for something and then you wouldn't get it anyway. I'd like to say that I agree that he, for lack of a better way to put it, is being "a dick". But the truth is that's actually good if you want to buy it because it will scare many people away who could buy the domain in the past who believe his (what I feel is) false bravado.

by 67726e 14y ago

npsimons 14y ago

What evidence do you have that he's a squatter?

67726e 14y ago
He says on his website that he will only transfer the lease of a domain, that he is currently leasing, for ten million dollars to an organization that wants it so they can actually use it.
- npsimons 14y ago
  He's not a squatter. He's owned the domain for well over ten years, he has content on it, there are no ads and no parked page. By all criterion it looks like a personal domain. I suspect he only put up the "here's how much it would cost" because so many people kept pestering him with laughably stupid offers ("we'll give you discounts on our dairy products if you give the domain to us!"). He's using the domain, not holding it for ransom. Quite frankly, I don't think the web will be any poorer for having one less corporate media experience, especially from an industry that everyone already knows about. If they want a big glitzy advertising website, I'm sure Google will index it properly, no matter it's domain name. As for the owner of milk.com? He's put actual content up. Useful things. Interesting things. Things that took time to create and curate. This is not the M.O. of some squatter looking to make a quick buck. Especially with the whole "waiting for more than ten years" part.

larrys 14y ago

"Generally the "real-world" instances of someone buying into stock, real-estate, etc. early, they take on a large risk of losing his/her investment." Back when many of these domains were acquired the investment was either $70 or $100 (or $0) depending on the year acquired. Do you think it was so obvious that that $100 investment (for 2 years reg with NSI) was a sure bet? Guess what, it wasn't. It was a gamble or people would have bet everything they had to acquire as many names as they could. Explain to me why buying a share of stock at $100 and risking $100 is different than thinking a domain might be valuable and risking $100 on that? And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"? What if the domain was owned by some small nobody on Main Street who didn't want to sell? Or Warren Buffet? Who do you think is going to determine what the best use of a domain is exactly?

67726e 14y ago
And what do you mean "depriving someone of the productive use of that domain"? Well, if I have a company that, I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product. Maybe I have some startup that deals in milk. That would be a good domain to have. But unfortunately I cannot use that domain to host my website, or web application. Someone decided to lease that domain for what is likely a measly $20 USD per year, and thinks a reasonable price to transfer that lease to me is about $10.000.000 USD. Instead this fine gentleman decided to purchase the domain and thinks acting like a child on a playground by going "Nanananana, you can't have it".
- larrys 14y ago
  "I don't know, sells milk, well I may just have a use for that domain in promoting my product." So what? I can drive around my neighborhood and somebody might have beat me to the last breakfast sandwich at the Starbucks and they might take one bite and throw it away. The world doesn't work by the fact that you or anyone might have a use for something better than someone else. You pay the money, you buy something, you decide what you want to do with it. I think what you don't understand is that there is a business model built around buying and selling domains. And there is nothing wrong with doing this even though it upsets many people who just think "it's not fair!". With your hypothetical company that wants that domain what happens if what you are doing with it (for your "little" store) doesn't match up to some big dairy when they think they should have it. Are you going to just give it to them or would you try to make money? More importantly you seem to assume that "milk.com" would be available right when you want it. The truth is the owner could have sold it years ago to someone for $5,000 that is using it for something and then you wouldn't get it anyway. I'd like to say that I agree that he, for lack of a better way to put it, is being "a dick". But the truth is that's actually good if you want to buy it because it will scare many people away who could buy the domain in the past who believe his (what I feel is) false bravado.