61–70 of 115 posts
I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?
I think many of us have been looking for an available domain for a site and found all of them registered years before and parked since then. The normal way to proceed is look for another name and try again. Mehta is doing it wrong. However I don't like the general idea of squatting, also on domains. I'd be happy if there was an easy way to prevent it. Somebody suggested incremental renewal fees for unused domains, bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it society that would be benefiting from Harsh taking away Keen's domain? Or is it Harsh? By defining the benefit as being to "society" one might sound noble while masking the reality: Harsh is attempting to steal Keen's domain name in a sleazy and opportunistic fashion. Defining this kind of hijacking as a benefit to society is misdirection at best.
I'm absolutely not trying to defend Harsh Mehta's tactics. I'm just trying to start a conversation about the value of Kneen's sitting on a domain name he isn't using for 16 year.
The unfortunate thing about the case is that both parties are Internet natives and, Mehta especially, part of the startup ecosystem. What the fuck does this mean?
I have sympathy for Kneen, but do we really, as a society, benefit from people that buy useful domains and then sit on them for 16 years while doing nothing with them?
I would like to buy a cottage on the lakeshore, but the owner (who doesn't use it) won't sell it to me at the price I would like to pay. Perhaps I should sue him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
isnt the renewal fee already enough "tax"?
No, the renewal fee is fixed. The comment you're responding to suggests taxation on an appraised value. If you're sitting on a domain name for which there are documented offers of, say, $100,000, an appraised tax would assess you annually N% of $100,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the renewal fee is fixed. The comment you're responding to suggests taxation on an appraised value. If you're sitting on a domain name for which there are documented offers of, say, $100,000, an appraised tax would assess you annually N% of $100,000.
Sell me your domain for 5000 or I'll offer 100000...
Purchasing domain names is the most frustrating experience. Why there is no transparent market is beyond me. Mehta's tactics are clearly abusive, but if someone was holding onto a domain name for 16 years and not doing anything with it is more infuriating to me. There really needs to be a use it or lose it policy.
What other property rights should be under your "use it or lose it proposal"? Land? Housing?
But the Internet landscape is very different and less finite in nature.
Purchasing domain names is the most frustrating experience. Why there is no transparent market is beyond me. Mehta's tactics are clearly abusive, but if someone was holding onto a domain name for 16 years and not doing anything with it is more infuriating to me. There really needs to be a use it or lose it policy.
What other property rights should be under your "use it or lose it proposal"? Land? Housing?
That is that it's just so unfair and unjust that the name they want was purchased by someone before them and that they can't use it or buy it cheaply or at all. [1] I don't know why people seem to think the Internet is different than other ways people make money buying and selling. For example coin collecting, art work, wine to name only a few things. And of course land and housing as you are mentioning.
[1] Try buying a domain name from google or a host of large "we don't need any more money" type of companies. You will learn to love anyone who is in the business of actually selling the domains that they own because given the right offer they will at least sell those names to you.