Cybersquatter email • Hacker News Board

Re: Cybersquatter email

#11

Post by edw519 » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:26 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #10

andres wrote: post #3

octopart.cn and octopart.com.cn were registered on 3/10/07. we launched on 3/05/07.

this is called enterprising. They aren't pretending to be you, they are just buying generic domain names that might be useful to someone in the future. You can either buy them from them, or give them a pass.... that's your choice. But it seems like you're offended that they offered them to you and that's a waste of energy.

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain.

What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough".

Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

Re: Cybersquatter email

#12

Post by BitGeek » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:29 PM UTC

These are not "cybersquatters". Octo and Part are generic terms.

One of the domains I own is a combination of a word that means "software" and another word that means "place you like to go". I got it for a developers site... and then after I got it I discovered that there was an italian maker of luxury goods whose trademark is that word - apparently the combination of these two english words makes another word completely in italian.

Am I cybersquatting? I've considered selling this domain to them because its much better than the one that they are currently using. If I sell it to them, then they will be getting a better domain at a price that they think is fair (or they wouldn't be buying it).

Some may say I'm being opportunistic and this is wrong- well, I say that my intent was elsewhere and this was a surprise coincidence... but that my intent isnt' really relevant. If I'd registered the name then I have perfect rights to it-- after all if they'd wanted it, why didn't they register it? If I register it and several years later they decide they want it-- what gives them the right to demand that I give it to them for free?

Finally, the truth is that I didn't register this domain, I bought it at auction. so, what's to say what a fair price is?

The idea that these people are "cybersquatters" is an idea of entitlement-- its based on the false notion that you somehow have a right to domain names, even though you didn't register them when they were free.

This is false. Domain names are an open territory- if you think of it and register it, its yours. If you later realize you should have registered it, then its you're error, not the error of the preson who did register it.

They arent' scamming you, they are asking for compensation for the risk they took in registering it. If hte price they ask is higher than the value of the domain (and if you have foo.com then foo.cn isn't really that valuable, is it?) then just don't buy it and let the owner of foo.cn use it for whatever they want.... why should you care?

If they are using a domain to pretend to be you-- then that would be one thing, and that's what cybersquatting really means.

But domain speculation, like real estate speculation, is a perfectly legitimate activity. Where does one get the idea that all names of a certain category should belong to them even though they couldn't be bothered to register them?

(Speaking in general here, not to the original poster since he didn't express much of an opinion, other than to misuse the word cybersquatter)

Re: Cybersquatter email

#13

Post by BitGeek » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:33 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #11

BitGeek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is called enterprising. They aren't pretending to be you, they are just buying generic domain names that might be useful to someone in the future. You can either buy them from them, or give them a pass.... that's your choice. But it seems like you're offended that they offered them to you and that's a waste of energy.

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain. What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough". Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value.

They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit other people, rather than yourself:?

They are providing added value, they registered a domain that someone else didn't think of.

The problem here is, that you regret not registering it, and so you, rather than accepting blame for your own failure, are blaming the person who was smarter or faster than you.

Back in the 1990s, I looked up USWeb.com. I almost registered it, but was on the fence, then went back three days later to register it and found that it had been taken the day after I thought of it-- and that company became a big company eventually before the bust.

Were they holding my intellectual property hostage? No.

Where does this sense of entitlement come from? IT reminds me of people who build a house in a neighborhood and then complain because a walmart gets built nearby... as if they think they somehow have property rights in the land that walmart bought. LOL.

Re: Cybersquatter email

#14

Post by falsestprophet » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:46 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #13

edw519 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain. What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough". Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value. They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit…

No. They are speculating, which does not generate wealth.

Re: Cybersquatter email

#15

Post by michael_nielsen » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:54 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #13

edw519 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain. What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough". Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value. They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit…

You assert three times that they are providing value, but never explain how they are adding value. Can you please provide a concrete example of how this adds value?

Re: Cybersquatter email

#16

Post by kirse » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:56 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #12

These are not "cybersquatters". Octo and Part are generic terms. One of the domains I own is a combination of a word that means "software" and another word that means "place you like to go". I got it for a developers site... and then after I got it I discovered that there was an italian maker of luxury goods whose trademark is that word - apparently the combination of these two english words makes another word comple…

Sounds like BitGeek is sending your emails ;)

Re: Cybersquatter email

#17

Post by corentin » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:57 PM UTC

michael_nielsen wrote: post #15

BitGeek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value. They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit…

You assert three times that they are providing value, but never explain how they are adding value. Can you please provide a concrete example of how this adds value?

Well, they provide protection against other domain squatters! :)

"It's a nice domain name you have there; it would be bad if something happened to it..."

Re: Cybersquatter email

#18

Post by corentin » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 9:59 PM UTC

snowmaker wrote: post #6

We got one, too, at Scribd. Maybe they read news.ycombinator.

I guess it's more automated than that; they probably monitor registry updates with robots.

Re: Cybersquatter email

#19

Post by dreish » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 10:30 PM UTC

falsestprophet wrote: post #14

BitGeek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value. They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit…

No. They are speculating, which does not generate wealth.

It can generate wealth in markets where accurate prices lead to more efficient allocation of the resources needed to produce the good in question.

That's great for physical commodities, but it doesn't take a genius to see that this doesn't do any good with domain names. It takes a committed libertarian to fail to see that, though.

Re: Cybersquatter email

#20

Post by dreish » Wed, Nov 28, 2007, 10:48 PM UTC

BitGeek wrote: post #13

edw519 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain. What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough". Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value. They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit…

Would you complain if someone opened an outdoor testing facility for smelly firecrackers next to your house?

LOL right back at ya, especially if you think J. Random Shopper has enough time or interest to keep track of "bad PR", and somehow that will solve your problems for you. It doesn't work that way, which is why we reality-based types have zoning ordinances.