Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ohashi | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

ohashi

Can we not call everyone who holds domains squatters? Just because they don't:

* answer your emails

* you don't see anything on the page

* there are currently advertisements showing

* won't sell for 10$ because that's registration fee

doesn't make them a squatter. A cybersquatter is someone infringing on your trademark. In almost every case I see, the people calling someone a squatter are simply pissed off that the domain they want is taken and they have no legitimate rights or claim to it, other than they thought of it just now and think they can do something better with it.

Thanks.

View on HN

I agree, it is the same thing as buying a piece of land and waiting for the area to become more popular and sell later...

The issue comes from the fact that buying domains are very cheap and easy, but that's other problem.

*btw, I am not saying that I approve people with 1000s of domains just waiting for someone interested, but the business idea is the same.

Intentionally provocative question: So you think domain squatting is ethical if it's done occasionally and unsystematically, but not if it's done in an efficient and industrious manner?

If we use the real definition, it doesn't matter, if you break trademark law, you break trademark law.

Your definition doesn't match how I usually see the term used, so I don't understand how it's the real one. Sure, it's written into law that way, but legal jargon doesn't supersede actual widespread usage except in a legal context. When people say "domain squatting" or "cybersquatting," they mean speculatively buying and holding a domain with no intention of using it, hoping to sell it later when it becomes valuable to someone else. (And no, putting up a generic advertising search page does not qualify as "using" it for the purposes of this definition.)

Then what is 'using'? Please define it and think about the implications for domain name registrations at all levels.

they thought of it just now and think they can do something better with it

It's not hard to do better than a landing page. "Domainers" make the web a less usable place overall - they've caused the growth of non .com domains and weird spellings and names, eg flickr.

Who here has ever clicked on a landing page?

millions of people.

The goal of a landing page is to optimize to users' interests. Therefore, it shows advertising for the most suited (ctrppc) advertiser. It is quite an effective mechanism to direct traffic to the person most willing to pay for it. It's that brilliance and scale which I personally think is the end of the domaining industry (won't explain, will write a long article... soon).

So back to your argument of 'doing better': that is a VERY slippery slope. When you start to say one use is more* legitimate than another you are essentially censoring free speech. If I own cars.com and just want to picture of my dog who is called Car, is that wrong? What if I only use the domain for email and redirect all the traffic because I don't want to do anything. The minute you say you can 'do better' you are taking your own beliefs and subjecting everyone else to them.

Landing pages are for people that don't know how or want to use Google or some other search engine - I'm talking about those moronic pages that look like a whole page of ad-sense links have been inserted: landing pages are not websites really: it's the same backend code and server applied to one's whole portfolio, right, changed on a domain-by-domain basis according to the type-in?

Keyword landing pages are a scourge, not some great expression of free-speech. They stifle economic growth.

Have you got a portfolio of ghost patents too?

Yes, just because you couldn't register that great domain name you no longer have an idea worth pursuing. I guess we can call 'ability to find a domain name' a good filter for finding real entrepreneurs.

My guess is that in your 7 years of domaining you've pissed off more people than you've made happy, overall.

That's a nice story.

There's a fine line between being a 'prospector' and 'squatter'. What would you call MerchantCircle who is registering domains with local business names and setting up their own mini-sites that divert traffic from the real site and confuse consumers? I think there's an even worse term reserved for them.

If they are registering names that people DO have rights to and they do not, that IS cybersquatting. They should pursue them under ACPA in US and get up to $100,000 in damages per name. But consult a lawyer first, I don't know MerchantCircle and I am not an affected customer.

Same discussion as Patent squatters (or land/copyright/or many more).

They take over a resource that can produce value and prevent that value to be passed to people. All in the hopes of monetizing on it.

I can only hope that in the future, holding a resource hostage without exploiting it, will cause it to be revoked.

Alright maybe I didn't word that very well but the current owner has a boilerplate ad page with related keyword ads which leads me to believe he has no plans to make anything of the name. What do we call those?

The industry term is domainer or domain investor. You would be amazed how much money some of those can make, often more than any sort of development. For a scalable model, it has worked quite well in the past, which is what allowed people to amass 100,000's of names.

PS - if you actually have a budget to try and purchase the name, I might be able to help you get in contact. my username .info to contact me.

I've always thought of a domain squatter as someone who holds domains for the sole purpose of selling them (and maybe selling generic ads on them while they wait for a buyer). I'm not saying that's all bad, but it can be a little annoying.

That's exactly the thing I am trying to inform people is wrong. I understand it's not a very popular industry, I've been in it for many, and I don't blame anyone for hating it. However, a squatter infringes trademarks, they are breaking intellectual property laws. Simply buying a lot of names doesn't make someone a squatter, hence it's a very touchy subject to be painted with the same brush. I hope you understand.

I understand that you're taking advantage of a situation for profit, which is probably a rough definition of capitalism. I can't say I would above it, myself. But it won't last forever, right or wrong. The domain system wasn't created for what the internet has become, and it's unnecessary given the search engine. Even TLDs are unnecessary.

So google should hold the key to everyone's access to everything? Direct Navigation is still more important in most parts of the world than the search engine from a company's perspective. How would I google to email you? What would I put on a business card? How do I tell you to get to our website in a commercial?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com