8 ms·

While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears over shady domain landgrabbers losing their 'property'. It's unfortunate (and clear

by gergles 12y ago

While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears over shady domain landgrabbers losing their 'property'. It's unfortunate (and clearly shouldn't have been filed under seal) but the histrionic comments on anigbrowl's link about how this is going to kill the domain squatting 'business' just make me think "good."

cheald 12y ago
Careful - you're dangerously close to allowing the end to justify the means there.
ddod 12y ago
Let's not conflate the implications of this with prejudices against the victims. If a startup had snagged one of these domains and had built a community or SEO with it, could you imagine that being taken away from them without any sort of due process?
- wpietri 12y ago
  What's to say that would have happened? The sealed bit is weird, but bankruptcy judges are awfully sensitive to economic value. I'd be surprised if they would do something like that. Of course, if the domain were seized in that case, due process would still be available. The startup's lawyer would immediately file with the judge in question asking for control to be temporarily restored to the startup while the legal stuff plays out.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" - "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" - "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" from 'A Man For All Seasons', by Robert Bolt
- notacoward 12y ago
  That's a great quote, but I'm not sure it really applies here. Both sides are "the law" here. One side is the law (defined by ICANN and enforced by a US court) that allows domains to be taken away. The other is the fourth-amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which clearly forbids that very same thing. Both sides are the Devil, too. ICANN vs. domain squatters and speculators. Which is more loathsome? Which law to defend? Which malefactor?
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    It was more in response to "While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears..."
joelrunyon 12y ago
Given that we don't even know why they were seized (or how many were seized by each person), it seems like you have an amazing hostility towards domainers in general. What makes you so mad towards them?
- fleitz 12y ago
  All you really need to read is the language, they aren't people they're 'shady domain land grabbers'. You can tell from the language that the OP knew of an opportunity to buy mispriced assets and/or renew their domain, and having failed to take the opportunity is now upset at others having taken the opportunities they missed. You know the kind of people that couldn't be bothered to spend $90 for a 10 year registration and now have to pay a few hundred to get a domain back they wasn't worth $10, or clicking the 'auto-renew' button to them.
  - joelrunyon 12y ago
    Given that you have 75 days to renew your domain after it's lapsed renewal - it's not really taking advantage of anyone. There has to be some mechanism to release unused & unregistered domains back to the market. And careful - you just dehumanized an entire set of people ("they're not people") because of the work they do. Domainners might be annoying - but they're not gangsters.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Oh sorry I meant to quote the OP, not dehumanize them, also gangsters are people too :)
    - ASneakyFox 12y ago
      They're not gangsters they're squaters. They seem to have been out squated by another domain squater. Should have had his insight.
    - teacup50 12y ago
      They're not just annoying -- they're immoral.

by gergles 12y ago

cheald 12y ago

Careful - you're dangerously close to allowing the end to justify the means there.

ddod 12y ago

Let's not conflate the implications of this with prejudices against the victims. If a startup had snagged one of these domains and had built a community or SEO with it, could you imagine that being taken away from them without any sort of due process?

wpietri 12y ago
What's to say that would have happened? The sealed bit is weird, but bankruptcy judges are awfully sensitive to economic value. I'd be surprised if they would do something like that. Of course, if the domain were seized in that case, due process would still be available. The startup's lawyer would immediately file with the judge in question asking for control to be temporarily restored to the startup while the legal stuff plays out.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

"So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" - "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" - "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!" from 'A Man For All Seasons', by Robert Bolt

notacoward 12y ago
That's a great quote, but I'm not sure it really applies here. Both sides are "the law" here. One side is the law (defined by ICANN and enforced by a US court) that allows domains to be taken away. The other is the fourth-amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, which clearly forbids that very same thing. Both sides are the Devil, too. ICANN vs. domain squatters and speculators. Which is more loathsome? Which law to defend? Which malefactor?
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  It was more in response to "While this is obviously a perversion of justice, I'm not shedding many tears..."

joelrunyon 12y ago

Given that we don't even know why they were seized (or how many were seized by each person), it seems like you have an amazing hostility towards domainers in general. What makes you so mad towards them?

fleitz 12y ago
All you really need to read is the language, they aren't people they're 'shady domain land grabbers'. You can tell from the language that the OP knew of an opportunity to buy mispriced assets and/or renew their domain, and having failed to take the opportunity is now upset at others having taken the opportunities they missed. You know the kind of people that couldn't be bothered to spend $90 for a 10 year registration and now have to pay a few hundred to get a domain back they wasn't worth $10, or clicking the 'auto-renew' button to them.
- joelrunyon 12y ago
  Given that you have 75 days to renew your domain after it's lapsed renewal - it's not really taking advantage of anyone. There has to be some mechanism to release unused & unregistered domains back to the market. And careful - you just dehumanized an entire set of people ("they're not people") because of the work they do. Domainners might be annoying - but they're not gangsters.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Oh sorry I meant to quote the OP, not dehumanize them, also gangsters are people too :)
  - ASneakyFox 12y ago
    They're not gangsters they're squaters. They seem to have been out squated by another domain squater. Should have had his insight.
  - teacup50 12y ago
    They're not just annoying -- they're immoral.