31–40 of 58 posts
My offer to break that guy's knees from summer 2007 still stands.
note that I don't like squatters either, but who can tell that he wasn't legitimate when he registered it first?
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dropbox.com
which doesn't show too much except for some godaddy.com domain parking.
If it was just a domain parked while the guy was trying to figure out what he wanted to do with it, I'm not so excited about the outcome. If it was misleading site pretending to be getdropbox.com, then that's a whole other story.
There really needs to be a better system for domain name registration. I'm all for inexpensive domain names but perhaps there should be some sort of waiting list, and if people are on the waiting list, the renewal fees get raised by a set amount each year (perhaps capped at something like 25%) as long as there was a waiting list. Once the person doesn't renew, the first person on the waiting list gets it but they get charged at the new rate.
In that way, you couldn't just squat on a domain without doing something with it and eventually there would be a fair market price for it. If no one wanted it, the price for the domain would stay low.
There is probably still some gaming in a system like that but at least it would encourage more turnover of unused domains, which would be a good thing.
FWIW, I was trying to find out what the site looked like before this kerfuffle. I only found this: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dropbox.com which doesn't show too much except for some godaddy.com domain parking. If it was just a domain parked while the guy was trying to figure out what he wanted to do with it, I'm not so excited about the outcome. If it was misleading site pretending to be getdropbox.com, then…
Second, it's actually quite possible Dropbox asked the .com holders to forward traffic to the real site in order for both parties to value the domain's contribution to downloads/upsales from type-in traffic (is it 90% new users? Or almost always those who have an account?). This would mean TechCrunch hurts Dropbox by increasing their cost to buy/license the domain.
Third, we can't tell who owns the domain, so it could still be the same party! The .com could forward to the real site for just one day to tease Dropbox by sending it visitors for just one day. This also means they could point to the real site for a month, then a competitor later on after links start rolling in.
Finally, I don't think this owner, nor Justintv.com, are cybersquatters since they owned their domains since the 90's.
At MIT's Startup Bootcamp, Kyle noted a similar squatter on http://justintv.com/ .
FWIW, I was trying to find out what the site looked like before this kerfuffle. I only found this: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://dropbox.com which doesn't show too much except for some godaddy.com domain parking. If it was just a domain parked while the guy was trying to figure out what he wanted to do with it, I'm not so excited about the outcome. If it was misleading site pretending to be getdropbox.com, then…
When I saw it (not long ago), it was a completely empty page with a google header.
My offer to break that guy's knees from summer 2007 still stands.
Why so much rage? The original owner registered the domain first. note that I don't like squatters either, but who can tell that he wasn't legitimate when he registered it first?
First, Dropbox has not commented on why Dropbox.com redirects to them, nor about their lawsuit of the domain owner. Therefore, this is a horrible news article, with an assumption that Dropbox holds an new ownership stake in the domain. Second, it's actually quite possible Dropbox asked the .com holders to forward traffic to the real site in order for both parties to value the domain's contribution to downloads/upsale…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt most people navigate that way. Sure, plenty of browsers will do a google search from the address bar but only if what you've typed doesn't resolve on its own.
You'd be surprised how far normal users will go out of their way to avoid the address box, often using comically complex routines. Google is much more trustworthy than DNS -- it's essentially content-addressed.