Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

domainnamewire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 79 posts

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#51

Post by Dylan16807 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #39
Shinkei wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that it's 'more popular.' That's not the debate. The debate is that the .com site is being squatted. If it was some 4chan interior design company with even some legitimate business, then the debate would be over. Do you think it's a bad precedent if Google becomes popular and you can show that a person subsequently registered all the single permutation misspellings of Google and then tried to sell them back…

Define squatted (or define legitimate use) - if the owner is using the domain for email and simply finds serving advertising provides some income, is that squatting; given there is no confusion issue. If they have a project in hand, or bought it to give to their child when they're 18, or ... are all those squatting? How about, as for me, they renewed for a client and then the client didn't pay but now wants "their" d…

It's less about what you do with the domain and more about the method of choosing the domain. If your domain is blatantly copying a company name, and it's not your company name, you're not in a strong position. By copying I mean something like paypa1.com, not something like paypalsucks.com.

If you have a domain where you do nothing on it, but it's not copying anything either, that's squatting but nobody is going to care.

If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. So what, that's not a value judgement.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#52

Post by Lambdanaut »

Shinkei wrote: post #24

Let's say I run a town with shopping centers. Both are called Main Street Shopping but one is located on Main St and 1st and the other is located at Main St and 120th. When you show up at Main St and 1st, is it a bussling shopping center filled with stores of all kinds. When you GPS Main Street Shopping Center and accidentally arrive at the other location, you just find a parking lot with an empty field with a "comin…

> Just because you own something DOESN'T give you impunity to 'waste' it as you see fit

Under US law you sure do.

You also have to define "waste". The owners of 4chan.com are obviously holding onto their domain because they see it as a valuable asset. I doubt they'd see this as wasting their property. They're watching it grow in value.

Your argument would virtually have us outlaw anyone from holding onto an asset if it could immediately be used better by somebody else.

As a counter-example: Why should anyone be allowed to horde gold? There's a gold shortage and it would be of much more use in computer manufacturing.

That's obviously insane, and yet it's essentially the same scenario.

I understand that it would be better for the common good if 4chan.com was owned by 4chan.org, but if we're playing the game of Capitalism, then these are the rules.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#53

Post by nivla »

Shinkei wrote: post #49
nivla wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright let me take your example and turn it around. Say someone decides to build a big fancy complex mall on Main St that will not only generate 10's of thousands employment but also attract a good amount of tourists. They finally found the plot of land, bought it and put up a sign called "Coming Soon". Pushing the paperwork, completing the construction would take 5+ years. In the mean time, someone read about this…

>In the mean time, someone read about this big project and decides to built a mini mart called Main St. Shopping right around the corner Are you trying to stengthen my argument? You've just proven that they were doing the very thing I'm arguing is unethical. Now if they incidentally named their shopping plaza this name and they can prove it was coincidence... well then we have an argument. As for Google.io, they DO h…

>Are you trying to stengthen my argument? You've just proven that they were doing the very thing I'm arguing is unethical.

No, the point is you are trying to use emotions to determine the "good" guy from the "bad" guy, which is not as black and white as it seems. On the same issue: 4chan.com was created on "12/13/03" where as 4chan.org was created on "2004-02-14". Now you can't say just because 4chan.org is popular, they should be awarded 4chan.com OR that 4chan.org should be transferred to 4chan.com because the name was "copied" from them and is thus "unethical".

>As for Google.io, they DO have a business there... and all over the internet.

No they don't! Having a brand on the internet does not automagically qualify you for legally registered business rights all around the world. Having a universal trademark is hard, time consuming and restricted to local laws.

>This is a "I know it when I see it" standard. It's usually pretty obvious what is squatting and what is not.

Yes this worked out so well which is why our laws are based on vagueness.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#54

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #51
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define squatted (or define legitimate use) - if the owner is using the domain for email and simply finds serving advertising provides some income, is that squatting; given there is no confusion issue. If they have a project in hand, or bought it to give to their child when they're 18, or ... are all those squatting? How about, as for me, they renewed for a client and then the client didn't pay but now wants "their" d…

It's less about what you do with the domain and more about the method of choosing the domain. If your domain is blatantly copying a company name, and it's not your company name, you're not in a strong position. By copying I mean something like paypa1.com, not something like paypalsucks.com. If you have a domain where you do nothing on it, but it's not copying anything either, that's squatting but nobody is going to c…

>If you hold a client's site hostage for not paying, yeah that sounds like squatting. //

Am I supposed to give them product without receiving payment?

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#55

Post by number_six »

Shinkei wrote: post #48
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because you own something DOESN'T give you impunity to 'waste' it as you see fit. // Sure it does. IF you own it. > These are greedy people just speculatively buying stuff without any real interest. // This is capitalism. The more damaging domain as you suggest is real-estate. Online the problem becomes simply "oh example.com wasn't right, example.org ... oh, ya, there it is". That might be a very minor annoya…

>if you have a swimming pool and aren't using it as much as the public feel you should that it can be confiscated. Or, say, you have 2 cars - well clearly you can't drive both at once; repossession by the state, et cetera This has nothing to do with what I said. Neither a swimming pool nor a car is a scarce resource. Now if you owned the only bridge to an island and didn't allow people to use it, or charged them exto…

URLs are not a scare resource. Having a specific (and in this case marketable) one is (and really only if that URL already has market value). I could make the same argument that MY car is a scare resource. Any car is not scare but MINE is.

If I already have a pool where you wanted one, you have to put yours somewhere else. If my car is parked the spot you want at the store, you park somewhere else. If I bought the last car of the type you wanted, you have to buy a different one.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#56

Post by dsego »

Lambdanaut wrote: post #52
Shinkei wrote: post #24

Let's say I run a town with shopping centers. Both are called Main Street Shopping but one is located on Main St and 1st and the other is located at Main St and 120th. When you show up at Main St and 1st, is it a bussling shopping center filled with stores of all kinds. When you GPS Main Street Shopping Center and accidentally arrive at the other location, you just find a parking lot with an empty field with a "comin…

> Just because you own something DOESN'T give you impunity to 'waste' it as you see fit Under US law you sure do. You also have to define "waste". The owners of 4chan.com are obviously holding onto their domain because they see it as a valuable asset. I doubt they'd see this as wasting their property. They're watching it grow in value. Your argument would virtually have us outlaw anyone from holding onto an asset if…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#57

Post by brokentone »

Shinkei wrote: post #29
ds9 wrote: post #21

It would be a very bad precedent if an owner of a domain name can gain rights to the same name in another tld just by his own site becoming popular. US trademark law is limited to (a) commercial context and (b) possibility of confusion. If you aren't selling anything, or even if you are commercial but are in a different line of business, you should never be troubled by any trademark claims. This is how the old Beatle…

It's not that it's 'more popular.' That's not the debate. The debate is that the .com site is being squatted. If it was some 4chan interior design company with even some legitimate business, then the debate would be over. Do you think it's a bad precedent if Google becomes popular and you can show that a person subsequently registered all the single permutation misspellings of Google and then tried to sell them back…

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#58

Post by mikeash »

Shinkei wrote: post #24

Let's say I run a town with shopping centers. Both are called Main Street Shopping but one is located on Main St and 1st and the other is located at Main St and 120th. When you show up at Main St and 1st, is it a bussling shopping center filled with stores of all kinds. When you GPS Main Street Shopping Center and accidentally arrive at the other location, you just find a parking lot with an empty field with a "comin…

Eminent domain isn't used to avoid waste. Rather, it's used to acquire land that you need for something important.

As far as I understand it, if I'm wasting a bunch of land and refuse to sell it, but there's a million acres next door that you can buy for pennies and your project will work just as well there as it would on my land, there's no case for eminent domain. Go buy that other land and build there.

Eminent domain is for stuff like, we're building a highway from here to there, and the only reasonable route is through there, and that's where your property sits, so we'll take it from you even if you don't want to sell, because this highway will have a big public benefit that outweighs your personal property rights. If the highway can just move half a mile to the left to the land of someone who wants to sell, then you do that instead.

On the internet, all property is adjacent and nothing has to be in a particular spot. The supply of domain names is effectively infinite. I don't see the case for taking one just because the owner is "wasting" it. You don't need that specific domain, just buy the one "next door", which on the internet is all of them.

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#59

Post by atwebb »

dsego wrote: post #56
Lambdanaut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because you own something DOESN'T give you impunity to 'waste' it as you see fit Under US law you sure do. You also have to define "waste". The owners of 4chan.com are obviously holding onto their domain because they see it as a valuable asset. I doubt they'd see this as wasting their property. They're watching it grow in value. Your argument would virtually have us outlaw anyone from holding onto an asset if…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

That's for currency, am I missing something?

Re: 4chan demands 4chan.com domain name

#60

Post by jarradhope »

mikeash wrote: post #58
Shinkei wrote: post #24

Let's say I run a town with shopping centers. Both are called Main Street Shopping but one is located on Main St and 1st and the other is located at Main St and 120th. When you show up at Main St and 1st, is it a bussling shopping center filled with stores of all kinds. When you GPS Main Street Shopping Center and accidentally arrive at the other location, you just find a parking lot with an empty field with a "comin…

Eminent domain isn't used to avoid waste. Rather, it's used to acquire land that you need for something important. As far as I understand it, if I'm wasting a bunch of land and refuse to sell it, but there's a million acres next door that you can buy for pennies and your project will work just as well there as it would on my land, there's no case for eminent domain. Go buy that other land and build there. Eminent dom…

> The supply of domain names is effectively infinite

If you don't mind going to places like, adjkdhad3fnnkjd.com for all your future services, at which point domains lose their intended use, you might as well just remember and type out the ip number.

Post reply on HN