My Dip Into Domaining
ianab.com
ianab.com
I have to say, not the first thing that came to mind.
It would be interesting to see how this would map out if you went further to 3,4 and 4,3 domain names. I'm sure there are quite a bit more 4 letter words though, so that would be another thing to sort through.
Be careful, some registries don't require that you set a nameserver (most do). For those you will have to fall back to whois.
Of course there are internal APIs for registrars to use, but as a small fish you don't get access to them.
While not the most accurate way, in my own efforts brute-forcing of DNS name space (I was checking every word in my local /usr/share/dict/words file for possible free domain names), I have found that simple DNS queries are relatively effective and don't raise eyebrows, especially if you use your own name server. Plus, they're much faster than whois queries. Usually resolving domain.tld and www.domain.tld will tell you if the name has been registered with fair accuracy. As an added bonus, you don't have to worry about someone using whois queries to park/squat interesting domains.
Have you tried to come up with a good domain name that's not already taken? It's really freaking difficult, because squatter scumbags have taken practically all of them.
There's not much left besides names like "heroku" or "meebo" that are basically just strings of random characters, and working around squatters by concatenating the name you'd actually want with "-ly", "get-" or "-app" is not really a solution.
Your business model is extortion.
The problem is that the real estate investor had to buy that land to make it into a parking lot. That's fine. Others had the opportunity to buy the land and do what they want with it. However, domain names are effectively free. This means that instead of 'whoever wants to pay the best price' getting it, it's simply whoever grabbed it first.
In summary, land is priced based on its worth. Domain names are all priced the same at a negligible cost (Initial sale). That's why the domain name system is so broken.
It doesn't matter how you get the limited resource first. What matters is whether there is an efficient trading system for such resource. You can always buy a domain name from someone you want if you are willing to pay big bucks.
As far as saying they are squatters and extortionists. I am going to have to call bullshit. Cybersquatting is infringing someone's trademark. Unless the author is buying something to infringe on a mark it is NOT CYBERSQUATTING.
As far as the extortion claim, it's also bogus. You think you deserve some awesome domain for registration fee because you have some idea? Sorry. The internet isn't about that. We all have ideas and there is no objective way domains could be distributed other than a first-come, first-serve policy. Any sort of 'use' based case is far too big a slippery slope to ever be considered.
This sort of attitude seems to be the exact opposite of the author's (which I admire) who has publicized an interesting way to try and find a good domain name on the cheap.
I wouldn't say that the internet is"about" people just grabbing names and doing nothing with them except demanding payments from people who do want to put up actual sites. That's not really having ideas or doing anything useful for anyone; it surely isn't innovative. It might be profitable, but I don't really see any way to argue it's in the hacker spirit or particularly laudable.
As far as doing nothing, they 'do' something. Most have nameservers and resolve to something.
As far as demanding payments. That's funny, you want something but don't feel obligated to pay. Nobody is forcing you to buy any particular domain. You simply feel entitled for one reason or another.
I think first-come, first-serve is the least worst option and also is in line with the spirit the internet was created. Allowing anyone to compete at minimal cost. Just because you don't get software.com doesn't limit you from selling software. If you really cannot come up with a name or put up some money and buy a decent name perhaps you need to rethink what you're doing.
If you reserve lots of domains and wait for someone to want one of them so bad that he's willing to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars, that makes you a scumbag.
It's that simple, and it doesn't matter if this specifically falls under whatever definition of "cybersquatting" you want to use.
> As far as doing nothing, they 'do' something. Most have nameservers and resolve to something.
You can't be talking about "parked" domains that resolve to a page full of shit, right? Please tell me that wasn't what you meant.
> As far as demanding payments. That's funny, you want something but don't feel obligated to pay.
Seriously? We do want to pay. We just want to pay the normal price for a domain, and not whatever outrageous amount you feel like demanding for it. Feel entitled?! What the.. Yes, most of us feel "entitled" to being able to buy a domain at market value.
> I think first-come, first-serve is the least worst option and also is in line with the spirit the internet was created. Allowing anyone to compete at minimal cost.
By "compete", do you mean allowing anyone to compete in an auction for a domain you have, and others want?
> If you really cannot come up with a name or put up some money and buy a decent name perhaps you need to rethink what you're doing.
As I said, it's really freaking difficult. An ideal domain name is a .com that's somehow related to your product/service and consists of one or two words in English, maybe with a clever twist. These are the ones that have practically all been taken by scumbags like you.
Did you forget basic economics?
Sounds like someone just didn't get their domain and wants to whine a lot. Lots of whiners, so few doers.
Your price is not based on supply & demand or market value, but just how bad someone wants the domain you're holding, which happens to be a perfect fit for his product or service.
I've actually managed to personally come up with, and get two perfectly fitting .com's for (two of) the products I'm going to make.
Those two domains consist only of words in English too. One of them is cutesy, and the other is clever. I won't tell you the names, though, because that would reveal my real name. But it really was difficult to come up with the names, because of human scum like you.
If you're a "doer", then I don't even want to be one.
Thanks for playing.
Sorry, you clearly don't understand markets.
All of your self-centered squealing here has been the result of your fragile little ego getting hurt from being called a scumbag. But that's like me getting upset about someone calling me a person. That's what I am. Scum is what you are.
Of course you will want to turn that around and say it's me being greedy. I've paid large sums for domain names and guess what... I know how to earn more money from it. Welcome to capitalism, quit your bitching and play the game or shut up.
Really? Every day? I'm curious, why do people call you names? Is it because of domain squatting, and if so, don't you think they might have a point?
> What irritates me is those preaching about how bad something is without ever being able to offer a better solution other than one that would suit them.
Would it make sense for someone to offer a solution that didn't suit them? There could be lots of potential solutions, but I'm not sure we agree on what the problem is.
They could release all obviously squatted/parked domains, for example, and prevent or limit their programmatic reservation. I wouldn't mind an increase in price either, if it made squatting unprofitable, or there could be some requirements for reserving a domain.
> They all simply want more for themselves, it's not this perceived injustice that you couldn't get the domain you wanted is a bigger issue. It's not. It's simply your greed.
Heh. So now wanting a domain is the same as being greedy? Or is it greedy to want a domain that happens to be squatted? Either way, your comment didn't make any sense.
> Of course you will want to turn that around and say it's me being greedy.
Greedy? Most people are, but greed is not really the problem here - it's what you do.
> I've paid large sums for domain names and guess what... I know how to earn more money from it.
I'm sure you do. It's much easier to make money when you have no shame or morals.
> Welcome to capitalism, quit your bitching and play the game or shut up.
Yes, I'm sure you'll continue doing what you do.
'Obviously squatted' - again back to a slippery slope. You clearly don't understand how the markets work either. The best stuff is the most profitable, price increases and such only reduce domain values at the margins. Requirements for registering is a pretty laughable system. Go develop kids.us or .mobi, last I checked they have requirements. Maybe .TV with super high pricing. Sure you can find something available.
You want something for yourself and think a system sucks because it doesn't suit you.
It's what we do. Uh-huh. It's no different than many forms of speculation or real estate investment. People can hate on it all they want, those not making money often do.
No shame or morals - another good argument coming from you. You have no idea what I've done or how I do it, yet of course believe yourself to be all knowledgeable and able to judge. You want to call me scum, but really you're just some disillusioned asshole who falsely thinks they are on some moral high ground . You are unhappy and want to bitch, I see many people just like you every day, incapable of actually doing anything or figuring out solutions. The author of the post takes a system and works with it to meet his needs. I entered this business long after people knew what domains were and were investing in them and was able to figure out profitable ways to invest. Instead of actually understanding the systems and making them work for you, they simply bitch it's unfair for them therefore it's wrong. They don't even understand it isn't unfair for them, they simply are too inept to take advantage.
Personally I've always found that to be a bad idea. How about charging say $500 for domain registration and putting that money into good projects on the net. You'd get far less squatters, people would be more likely to actually use domains they have, and you'd get some revenue to do good work with.
I would have. But I would only have bought domain names for things that would actually make money, or be worth it in some other way.
The currently system, you have maybe 5% of registered domain names actually in use. The other 95% are being sat on by extortionists trying to extract money from people for them.
SSL certs cost more than that.
Can you think of any other system where you can buy something for a nominal price, and then sell it for what it's actually worth?
US$500 for a .com would have set back widespread adoption of the internet immensely, maybe even fatally.
And they pay for it now because it's established that the internet is essential for doing business, but if domains had cost US$500 from the start we might not be in that position now.
Hiking up domain name costs makes sense only because we live with an internet that was developed without ridiculously high domain name costs.
Raising the cost now would be futile - it would actually make all the people hoarding domains a huge pile of money.
Near where I live the local city council has run a campaign for years to get people to notify them about derelict and unoccupied buildings in order for them to be able to expropriate it and resell or lease it to companies or residents that actually wants to use the land.
This is exactly because it is recognized that buying and holding land in areas where land is a scarce resource is not in the public interest.
http://www.000fff.org/uploads/checkdomains.zip
We often have to come up with names for our clients and sometimes have hundreds of names.
The script allows you to create a list of domains you want to check in a text file and then filter those out that are available.
That should help you find someone to fix it, should your sysad disappear.
Is it ethical to claim as much land as possible, for the sole purpose of selling it in the future to people who had the misfortune to come later? It's clearly legal, but it's also abuse of a common good.
auDA ruled a few years back that "domain monetisation" falls within "a service that the registrant provides" (with a few exceptions).
Sales/transfers of domains were a bit painful back in the day but have been relaxed now. There are restrictions (from memory, you can't register a domain and then sell it within six months) but it does make speculation a bit easier for domainers.
Marketplaces: sedo, afternic
and plain ol' contacting people who might be interested via email, phone, letters, walking up to their store.
I wish it weren't true - many times I've wanted a perfect domain to find it taken up by some loathesome spam page.
Furthermore, stuff that's common practice amongst squatters is expressly forbidden in other areas. At least in the US, you'd have a very difficult time trademarking an software company spelled "Microsoff", but typo-squatting is _rampant_.
There's a massively disproportionate amount of risk/reward for property speculation than there is for domain 'speculation'. If I find out about some new product coming to market and squat the domain - the company could potentially lose a huge amount of revenue, whereas I'm risking the cost of a latte.
In the end, any resource that is limited, underpriced and has some ability to produce income will get nailed by speculators sooner or later, and the price will rise.
Typo-squatting is of course unethical. I would not say that the practice is rampant. A recent report by Verisign showed that it is declining and really is not prevalent. It's also not very profitable. PPC revenue has hit rock bottom in recent years. Talk about risk.
There is risk it seems because there is a high learning curve for what a quality domain name is. If you watch the industry, research keywords and learn to evaluate domain names you can do very well.
As far as punishment, looking ACPA, 100k penalty for cybersquatting. That's taken out some of the biggest offenders (see IREIT).