Kevin Ham - "the man who owns the internet" (long) | Hacker News Reader

Kevin Ham - "the man who owns the internet" (long)

money.cnn.com

10 pointsyubrew15 comments

I don't really agree with the vitriolic hatred of domainers. They're bottom feeders, but I don't think fair to say it is inherently evil. I've chosen not to do it myself for the same reason I'm not an SEO guy. It's unpredictable, a time sink, and it'd be hard for me to be proud of the result of my effort. I think it's easier to just create something of value. If you do that your domain name is mostly unimportant.

What a great example of Hannah Arendt's "the banality of evil". Since the domain market is unregulated why not take advantage of that for your own personal gain, regardless of who it harms? After all everyone else is too right? Buy up all the names you can and fill them with worthless advertising instead of useful content. How disgusting!

How disgusting, indeed?

It's for sale, nobody owns it, and it's eventually going to be controlled by whoever can use it best. I suspect that you aren't hurting for content, given that there's already more than anyone could possibly absorb.

The alternative is how Australia's commercial domain names are issued. You must have a registered business name in Australia before you can get mycompany.com.au. I'd rather the easy simple .com method any day.

Also what's with the devaluing of the word evil lately? We should save evil for the Holocaust, the Gulag's etc. Not waste it on business methods that are just low/tacky.

The thing that bothers me about the article is that CNN makes the practice seem like something that is not even morally questionable at all. I understand remaining neutral or whatever, but they could have at least mentioned new businesses that are trying to get a presence on the web, businesses that have to pay far more than they should just to get a name from someone who is providing no content at all.

The real problem is the idiots out there who actually click on the links on these sites. If not for them, this practice would not be possible.

This guy is providing everybody with a useful service! Bare with me!...

All non-registered domain names are currently sold for the same price, regardless of much value they have to potential buyers. By thinking of and buying say "weddings-central.com" for $10 and then reselling it for $10,000 he's creating valuable domain names that won't be wasted by being sold for less than they are worth.

He's basically a speculator. If he bets wrong he loses money, and he bets right he makes money and provides a useful service.

i don't see it, where is the value add?

Speculation creates a market and helps resolve real prices (rather than phony prices--for example, 10 dollars a year for every domain, whether weddingshoes.com or xxxyalfjadsgjg.com)

Exactly. He's also thinking of the names in the first place (excepting the misspelling type ones like google.cm).

This makes no sense to me. He's only doing a service for himself and those that advertise through him.

If I want to start my own online radio station (I know, it's been done), onlineradio.com seems like a good place to start. Except of course that it's being squatted on, so I can't pay the "public domain" price that I should be able to, but instead I have to pay one of these bosos whatever they think it's worth. The fact that he bought it didn't help me come up with the name... it's an obvious name, and that's why he bought it in the first place.

So where's the service again?

The service is that he's making onlineradio.com available to you, for a price you both agree on. If he didn't, and someone else took it who wasn't a squatter then you would have no chance of getting it.

He's selling you a second chance to get the domain name, and a service of preserving the good domain names.

Hm... but do you really "own" a domain name? My understanding that legally all domain names are public property and you can only "lease it" for a period of time.

However, if you can prove that a certain domain name is the name of your business (and you have a legit, valid business running) and a scumbag like this fucker "owns" but does not use your name, you can claim that domain in court. I heard google did this with google.ru in russia: the asshole-domainer who "owned" it got nothing.

My long-standing opinion of domain speculators notwithstanding, I feel bad for the future web developers of Cameroon, and all those other African countries whose domains this guy is going to squat on.

I could draw a bunch of other fun implications from this article, but they mostly fall in the "What you Can't Say" category.

This smells wrong... like "how to get rich playing poker"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com