11–20 of 31 posts
This gets posted every few months. Every time I wonder how it's not been taken away for squatting. I wonder if (or rather how often) he's had to go to court. Nissan.com has been the target of a few attacks if I recall correctly and is arguably less valuable and much more defensible (since the person who owns it is actually called Nissan).
Why is this being up voted ?
Did anyone ever come up with a workable method of preventing this kind of rent seeking that plagues domain names? The best scalable and impartial methods that I’ve seen mentioned were high renewal prices and limits on the number of domains one could own, but I get the feeling neither one would work when there is even a remote chance of extracting >$10M in the end. Given the current system it’s hard to blame him eithe…
This gets posted every few months. Every time I wonder how it's not been taken away for squatting. I wonder if (or rather how often) he's had to go to court. Nissan.com has been the target of a few attacks if I recall correctly and is arguably less valuable and much more defensible (since the person who owns it is actually called Nissan).
As the owner of a few interesting domain names, why does everyone think that unless the landing webpage is a fucking advertisement that I have no legitimate claim to a domain?
It's exactly backwards. Say I want a domain to use for my primary email address, but it's currently owned by a business with thousands of domains, and is one of a dozen domains dedicated to a tertiary brand nobody has ever given a single fuck about. I should be able to file AND WIN a UDRP claim that just says 'they're not doing anything valuable with this, but I have a clever pun I want to make into an email address.'
And the absolute balls of people to get mad at me when I politely decline their insultingly low offers. I totally understand why the milk.com owner wrote this page.
Did anyone ever come up with a workable method of preventing this kind of rent seeking that plagues domain names? The best scalable and impartial methods that I’ve seen mentioned were high renewal prices and limits on the number of domains one could own, but I get the feeling neither one would work when there is even a remote chance of extracting >$10M in the end. Given the current system it’s hard to blame him eithe…
What "rent" is he seeking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "rent" is he seeking?
"In public choice theory, as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
In what way does that apply to milk.com? Is the owner seeking to get wealthy from it? And if so, is he also somehow failing to create sufficient wealth in the process?
What should he be doing differently right now to not fall on the wrong side of the line?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In public choice theory, as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
I didn't ask for a definition. In what way does that apply to milk.com? Is the owner seeking to get wealthy from it? And if so, is he also somehow failing to create sufficient wealth in the process? What should he be doing differently right now to not fall on the wrong side of the line?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't ask for a definition. In what way does that apply to milk.com? Is the owner seeking to get wealthy from it? And if so, is he also somehow failing to create sufficient wealth in the process? What should he be doing differently right now to not fall on the wrong side of the line?
He (like most domain squatters) is blocking milk.com from being used for a practical purpose (from what I can tell), hoping to get $10M+ for no other reason than being the first to register it. He is definitely not creating any wealth in the process.
Way to really milk ownership of the domain.
The page states that research has been done, and there is a perceived value that as of yet hasn't been offered. The domain owner is clearly uninterested in haggling - give the right offer, or no deal.
Way to really milk ownership of the domain.
At first I thought this was a Reddit-style pun response, but then I read the linked page. I read it to mean "Yea, I really want to sell it, but it's going to be costly. Otherwise I'm happy to sit on it until a satisfactory offer comes around." Of course, there's nothing wrong with that at all. The page states that research has been done, and there is a perceived value that as of yet hasn't been offered. The domain ow…