5 ms·

"and the primary source of frustration is that they are mostly taken by various squatters and other scums of the Internet" "Scums of the Internet"? Oh please.

by larrys 13y ago

"and the primary source of frustration is that they are mostly taken by various squatters and other scums of the Internet" "Scums of the Internet"? Oh please. Where are you getting this all from exactly? You've just decided that since you weren't able to buy a domain [1] that you wanted at a price that you could afford to pay that all domains "are mostly taken by various squatters and other scum of the Internet". I mean "scum"? How unfair that something that you want isn't available at a price YOU can pay. And if that price was affordable that someone else wouldn't have beaten you to buying it (which is already what happened, right?). I mean it would just be sitting there because nobody else ever thought of using or buying, say "hackernews.com" until PG decided to start Hacker news. Or perhaps you think that domains are a "public trust" and that there should be some official board designated that decides who is worthy of a particular domain and whether they are "using" that particular domain "the right way". You know to make things fair. Is that it? Further you are talking about .com because in general and with maybe a few exceptions, you can find many names in other TLD's (you just don't want them) or make a slight modification and have the domain you want in .com. By the way are you aware that google owns duck.com and refuses to sell it [2] at any price at all? (And has turned down $500,000 for it iim.) Of course they aren't "using it" [3] and only have it because they bought the company that previously owned it At least if it was owned by a person such as you refer to it would be available for sale at some price. [1] Or perhaps that wasn't even the case maybe you have just read about other people or know someone that this was the "aggrieved" party? [2] I was involved in trying to do this. And I communicated and had back and forth with high level people at google who in the end simply said "sorry not interested at any price". And this isn't the first time this has happened with a company either. [3] It redirects to google.com as if they need that traffic.

null_ptr 13y ago
Domain squatters are no better than investment bankers. They really do the same thing, they make money without creating anything useful.
- rolandukor 13y ago
  Would you mind substantiating your generalisation that investment bankers make money without creating anything useful?
  - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
    What on earth do you think Investment Bankers do? build playgrounds for the local children? Creating nothing useful is in the definition of "Investment Banker".
    - TylerE 13y ago
      Umm, yes actually? Where do you think the playground equipment manufacturer got their initial capital?
      - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
        I think you are confusing "investing in" with "producing". They are in fact different activities.
        joesb 13y ago
        I believe "creating anything useful" in this context means "doing any useful task"; I don't believe the original poster intended to put nurses, cops, or any service job in the same group as investment banker and domain squatter. In that sense, investment banker is still a useful and necessary job, unlike domain squatter.
        larrys 13y ago
        So in your opinion is a domain squatter worse, the same, or better than a real estate investor? That is someone who identifies something that has value that might be able to be sold at a higher value at a later date and buys it for less than they intend to sell at that later date?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
girvo 13y ago
Squatters took the .com.au domain that I owned for my old business that didn't get re-registered due to the partnership folding. I went to get it 6 months later, and literally some squatting company had taken it and wanted to "auction it off" -- despite the fact that prior to me, no-one wanted it (its weirdly specific) and seeing as 5 years later they still have it and have just plastered it with ads, no-one still does. Oh, and that goes against Australian domain regulations, but auDA refuse to do anything about it, sigh. Oh well, they can own a useless (to them) domain if they want to. I just think its silly.
Houshalter 13y ago
Squatters are scum. They add nothing of value and make a resource artificially scarce for their own profit. If domain names had no value and people could just buy another one, then squatters wouldn't be making money in the first place.
- nick2021 13y ago
  I guarantee every person on here complaining about squatters being scum would jump at the opportunity to buy something that could potentially be of interest to someone else later on. Your logic is similar to a used car dealer buying cars that they don't plan to drive themselves, or grocery stores buying all of the food to resale in their own store. If you have such a problem with this why don't you buy all of the domain names and then decide on who should be allowed to buy them from you? The short answer is your a lazy, unhappy individual who hates anyone who is more ambitious than yourself.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  I can't reply to you for some reason, nick2021, so replying to myself. It's different because the squatter is essentially leeching off of everyone else. If it wasn't for them the people who wanted the domains could have gotten it for free or at least less. They add nothing of value at all. One could argue the same for people who squat other scarce natural resources that they paid nothing for.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
- lostlogin 13y ago
  I agree with you. However making a resource artificially scarce to push the price up is what humans do. From where I am sitting I can see multiple items where this happens gold, diamonds (wife's ring), water (in a glass) electricity (well, a turned in light), several things with brand names on them (the copyrighted logo seems to keep that price up by ensuring that only one supplier exists, keeping supply low). I'd be quite surprised if there was much in the room which wasn't artificially price inflated.
joesb 13y ago
I don't know what "the right way" of "using" the domain name is. But I don't think sitting on the domain without actually using it is the right way. Who is worthy of the domain? At least the one actually intend on using it is more worthy than the one intending to sit on it to ask for rip-off money. Squatter are scums.
lmm 13y ago
First-to-claim is a really poor way of allocating any kind of resources, and yes, someone who just claims a bunch of stuff under such a system and then waits for it to become valuable due to other people's efforts is scum. Solutions? I'd like to see something like a tax proportionate to asking price on domains, analogous to a land value tax, to discourage claiming domains that you're not actually using.
ewoodrich 13y ago
I get it, you work for a registrar, so you are naturally defensive (which I understand). But like individuals who buy empty lots from the Forest Service to resell at a premium, can't you understand why this seems like an inefficient market outcome? Sure, it may be desirable/profitable, but not ideal? Squatting may be a result of our domain registration system, but is it really desirable? to me it seems like a negative externality, that over-uses free domain names and which sells them for 100x times the price from a registrar, despite their non-use. Why is a squatter adding any value? Should all domains be bought by one person who uses none for his one purposes, and sells each for 1k?
- larrys 13y ago
  Explain what you mean by ideal? I'm not sure I get where you are going with that. Domain pricing is determined by economic forces. "Why is a squatter adding any value?" Value? What is the value of gambling at the casino or horse racing? Is value the demarcation point of economic activity that is acceptable? What value does anyone provide who has enough knowledge (and or capital) to be able to buy something in advance anticipating that someone else might find it of value at a later date? We aren't talking about cornering the market on insulin here are we? Am I allowed to buy high volume scanners on craigslist and then sell them on ebay and make money? Am I providing "value"? "Should all domains be bought by one person who uses none for his one purposes, and sells each for 1k?" Well what prevents you from doing this to make money? Is it that you a) don't have the capital or b) don't have the knowledge to determine what would sell at a later date or c) you just find it objectionable and desire to not be in that business. (Like porn for example..) If "c" then can you understand that it's a valid business model, is not illegal and in a sense is about as "fair" as someone buying real estate years ago in a hot area and now expecting to make a profit off that real estate? After all there is a risk in using your capital "a" to take this chance, right? You certainly don't believe that buying a bunch of domains that you think might go up in value is guaranteed do you?
- kjs3 13y ago
  <i>I get it, you work for a registrar</i> Or AFLAC.

by larrys 13y ago

null_ptr 13y ago

Domain squatters are no better than investment bankers. They really do the same thing, they make money without creating anything useful.

rolandukor 13y ago
Would you mind substantiating your generalisation that investment bankers make money without creating anything useful?
- TheZenPsycho 13y ago
  What on earth do you think Investment Bankers do? build playgrounds for the local children? Creating nothing useful is in the definition of "Investment Banker".
  - TylerE 13y ago
    Umm, yes actually? Where do you think the playground equipment manufacturer got their initial capital?
    - TheZenPsycho 13y ago
      I think you are confusing "investing in" with "producing". They are in fact different activities.
      - joesb 13y ago
        I believe "creating anything useful" in this context means "doing any useful task"; I don't believe the original poster intended to put nurses, cops, or any service job in the same group as investment banker and domain squatter. In that sense, investment banker is still a useful and necessary job, unlike domain squatter.
        larrys 13y ago
        So in your opinion is a domain squatter worse, the same, or better than a real estate investor? That is someone who identifies something that has value that might be able to be sold at a higher value at a later date and buys it for less than they intend to sell at that later date?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

girvo 13y ago

Squatters took the .com.au domain that I owned for my old business that didn't get re-registered due to the partnership folding. I went to get it 6 months later, and literally some squatting company had taken it and wanted to "auction it off" -- despite the fact that prior to me, no-one wanted it (its weirdly specific) and seeing as 5 years later they still have it and have just plastered it with ads, no-one still does. Oh, and that goes against Australian domain regulations, but auDA refuse to do anything about it, sigh. Oh well, they can own a useless (to them) domain if they want to. I just think its silly.

Houshalter 13y ago

Squatters are scum. They add nothing of value and make a resource artificially scarce for their own profit. If domain names had no value and people could just buy another one, then squatters wouldn't be making money in the first place.

nick2021 13y ago
I guarantee every person on here complaining about squatters being scum would jump at the opportunity to buy something that could potentially be of interest to someone else later on. Your logic is similar to a used car dealer buying cars that they don't plan to drive themselves, or grocery stores buying all of the food to resale in their own store. If you have such a problem with this why don't you buy all of the domain names and then decide on who should be allowed to buy them from you? The short answer is your a lazy, unhappy individual who hates anyone who is more ambitious than yourself.
Houshalter 13y ago
I can't reply to you for some reason, nick2021, so replying to myself. It's different because the squatter is essentially leeching off of everyone else. If it wasn't for them the people who wanted the domains could have gotten it for free or at least less. They add nothing of value at all. One could argue the same for people who squat other scarce natural resources that they paid nothing for.
GFK_of_xmaspast 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
lostlogin 13y ago
I agree with you. However making a resource artificially scarce to push the price up is what humans do. From where I am sitting I can see multiple items where this happens gold, diamonds (wife's ring), water (in a glass) electricity (well, a turned in light), several things with brand names on them (the copyrighted logo seems to keep that price up by ensuring that only one supplier exists, keeping supply low). I'd be quite surprised if there was much in the room which wasn't artificially price inflated.

joesb 13y ago

I don't know what "the right way" of "using" the domain name is. But I don't think sitting on the domain without actually using it is the right way. Who is worthy of the domain? At least the one actually intend on using it is more worthy than the one intending to sit on it to ask for rip-off money. Squatter are scums.

lmm 13y ago

First-to-claim is a really poor way of allocating any kind of resources, and yes, someone who just claims a bunch of stuff under such a system and then waits for it to become valuable due to other people's efforts is scum. Solutions? I'd like to see something like a tax proportionate to asking price on domains, analogous to a land value tax, to discourage claiming domains that you're not actually using.

ewoodrich 13y ago

I get it, you work for a registrar, so you are naturally defensive (which I understand). But like individuals who buy empty lots from the Forest Service to resell at a premium, can't you understand why this seems like an inefficient market outcome? Sure, it may be desirable/profitable, but not ideal? Squatting may be a result of our domain registration system, but is it really desirable? to me it seems like a negative externality, that over-uses free domain names and which sells them for 100x times the price from a registrar, despite their non-use. Why is a squatter adding any value? Should all domains be bought by one person who uses none for his one purposes, and sells each for 1k?

larrys 13y ago
Explain what you mean by ideal? I'm not sure I get where you are going with that. Domain pricing is determined by economic forces. "Why is a squatter adding any value?" Value? What is the value of gambling at the casino or horse racing? Is value the demarcation point of economic activity that is acceptable? What value does anyone provide who has enough knowledge (and or capital) to be able to buy something in advance anticipating that someone else might find it of value at a later date? We aren't talking about cornering the market on insulin here are we? Am I allowed to buy high volume scanners on craigslist and then sell them on ebay and make money? Am I providing "value"? "Should all domains be bought by one person who uses none for his one purposes, and sells each for 1k?" Well what prevents you from doing this to make money? Is it that you a) don't have the capital or b) don't have the knowledge to determine what would sell at a later date or c) you just find it objectionable and desire to not be in that business. (Like porn for example..) If "c" then can you understand that it's a valid business model, is not illegal and in a sense is about as "fair" as someone buying real estate years ago in a hot area and now expecting to make a profit off that real estate? After all there is a risk in using your capital "a" to take this chance, right? You certainly don't believe that buying a bunch of domains that you think might go up in value is guaranteed do you?
kjs3 13y ago
<i>I get it, you work for a registrar</i> Or AFLAC.