Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Web Design and Development

View Poll Results: How should domain squatters be stopped?
Domains with no content on them should be taken away from the squatter after a set period of time. 13 35.14%
People should be limited to the number of domains they can buy. 1 2.70%
Nothing, domain squatters are clever oppurtunists and they deserve the exortion money. 23 62.16%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 2, 2012, 01:31 PM   #1
musty345
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Should their be a punishment for domain squatting?

I'm aware that there are quite a few other threads of domain squatting, but I wanted to put it to a poll.

I don't think any of us like domain squatting, but how do you think squatters should be stopped? For example, I wanted jailbreaktime.com for my website, but the guy who was squatting the domain wanted around $7000 for it! Therefore I had to settle with jailbreakzeit.com (zeit being the German word for time). Have a look at jailbreaktime.com there's nothing there. This is sort of like internet pollution.

As web_god61 said, "What pisses me off, 99% are just domain squatters. Then, 0.5% are websites that haven't been updated since 1985 and the other 0.5% are actual sites." on this post.

If you have any other methods of prevention just post your reply below.
__________________
MacKeeper Review
Owner and editor of http://www.JailbreakZeit.com
Twitter
21.5" iMac, iPhone 5, iPod Touch, iPod Classic
musty345 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2012, 05:48 PM   #2
Mal
macrumors 603
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando
Why should there be punishment? They purchased the right to that name, with no commitment to what they would do with it. They've not broken any laws or contracts by spending money to hold what others may want in the future.

jW
__________________
The Bearded Nerd
13" MacBook Pro; 64GB iPod touch
"It's a real burn, being right so often."
NoiseTrade.com/Walker
Mal is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2012, 07:09 PM   #3
ppc_michael
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Send a message via AIM to ppc_michael
I think it would be hard to really define "squatting."

In your situation, I'm sure it's irritating, but it's a real guy and he bought it so it's his.

But I really hate the spammy squatting types, where you go to a domain and it says "[Domain.com]: Everything you need, when you need it!" and a bunch of spammy links to make money.
ppc_michael is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2012, 05:06 PM   #4
musty345
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
Why should there be punishment? They purchased the right to that name, with no commitment to what they would do with it. They've not broken any laws or contracts by spending money to hold what others may want in the future.

jW
I understand what you mean but land and domains are very different, domains are dirt cheap, whereas land tends to cost a lot more.

Imagine this, there's a relatively new town, and some billionaire comes and buys all the houses and land there. This means that families can't get a house anywhere and they have to resort to moving 100s of miles away from the place they were brought up in. Imagine if that billionaire bought every single house and piece of land in a 1000km radius, or even bought every new house and piece of land in America, and did nothing with it.

Surely something would have to be done about this?

Oh and I just realised that I used 'their' in the thread's title,instead of 'there'. Sorry.
__________________
MacKeeper Review
Owner and editor of http://www.JailbreakZeit.com
Twitter
21.5" iMac, iPhone 5, iPod Touch, iPod Classic
musty345 is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2012, 05:22 PM   #5
NathanCH
macrumors 65816
 
NathanCH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Send a message via Skype™ to NathanCH
Quote:
Originally Posted by musty345 View Post
I understand what you mean but land and domains are very different, domains are dirt cheap, whereas land tends to cost a lot more.

Imagine this, there's a relatively new town, and some billionaire comes and buys all the houses and land there. This means that families can't get a house anywhere and they have to resort to moving 100s of miles away from the place they were brought up in. Imagine if that billionaire bought every single house and piece of land in a 1000km radius, or even bought every new house and piece of land in America, and did nothing with it.

Surely something would have to be done about this?
Those families that were brought up in this 'new town' (some how) would move to a different town if they weren't satisfied living 100km from the town centre. If this billionaire bought all this land and demolished the buildings the town would most likely fail and his land would lose its value and his purchases would be useless. No law needed imo

the less laws the better
__________________
Design/Development Portfolio: Cetan.ca
NathanCH is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2012, 10:58 AM   #6
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by musty345 View Post
...

Imagine this, there's a relatively new town, and some billionaire comes and buys all the houses and land there. ...
With respect, there are two problems with the logic of this post.

1) A "relatively new" town won't have people who grew up there, as that would make it an old town... but that is just a quibble...

2) More importantly... The land in a town is already owned by somebody (as opposed to unclaimed domain names). People who owned land in the town would only have to move ... if they agreed to sell their land to the billionaire. If they didn't sell they wouldn't have to move.


Your analogy works more like this... to my way of thinking.

A couple of centuries ago (more or less, in North America) a group of people arrived and claimed land that they decided was unoccupied (leaving aside the whole issue of Aboriginal Title). They either just claimed what they wanted, or they paid a low flat fee to a territorial government to claim a "stake". It was those 1st settlers who are analogous to today's domain name situation. Some land/domain-names were/are put to immediate use. Other land/domain-names are held for their future increase in value. It is these speculators who have tried to figure out which land/domain-names would be valuable one day.

Regarding our settlers - some got lucky ... Any land preempted from the First Nations near a present city, or land that was on the eventual railway lines, or on a coal seam, or etc etc. Some didn't get lucky .... land in the desert that ended up not being near a railway, or example.

All subsequent owners of that land have benefitted - or not - based on whether these original claimants to the land made a good/lucky choice, or not.

At least in this case there are no Aboriginal Land Issues to be resolved... it truly is unclaimed territory. At least as far as we know of....
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2012, 12:02 PM   #7
musty345
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by snberk103 View Post
With respect, there are two problems with the logic of this post.

1) A "relatively new" town won't have people who grew up there, as that would make it an old town... but that is just a quibble...
Your absolutely right with that point I think what I meant was that the people had been brought up around that area, and these people wanted to get their own houses in that area- they weren't brought up in that new town because well, as many of you pointed out that would be impossible.

But I don't think that land and domains are easily comparable, because domains are literally dirt cheap. These people buy thousands of domains and do absolutely nothing with them. It's as if these new settlers in your analogy bought all of the land within a 100km radius of any water, and so people were banished to wasteland, and these new settlers did nothing with the land they bought.

When these people in the wasteland wanted to move near water so that they could efficiently grow crops, and not pay a premium for transferring drinking water to them (liken water to traffic), these settlers charged them outrageous prices, which only the richest could afford.

Furthermore, these rich settlers kept on buying any land near any new stream of water that sprouted up, and so the only options were for people to try and build expensive irrigation systems and try and make their way in the wasteland, or to pay extensive amounts of their currency to live a better life.

Wouldn't it just be better if these rich settlers (the squatters) just stopped what they did and let everyone live happily ever after?
__________________
MacKeeper Review
Owner and editor of http://www.JailbreakZeit.com
Twitter
21.5" iMac, iPhone 5, iPod Touch, iPod Classic
musty345 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2012, 12:20 PM   #8
Sounds Good
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by musty345 View Post
Wouldn't it just be better if these rich settlers (the squatters) just stopped what they did and let everyone live happily ever after?
Let's say they did just that. Who should get the name then? What gives YOU the right to it?
Sounds Good is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2012, 12:31 PM   #9
lucidmedia
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Keep in mind that if someone is squatting on a trademark you own, there are ways in which to force them to vacate and take the name over. Corporations do this all the time...

Your complaint seems to be over domain names that neither you or the "squatter" have previous legal claim over... so it is first come, first served... and I completely understand the anger that comes from not getting their first.

But, imagine if the roles were reversed? How does one define a squatter? How much rights would you want others to have to make claims over domains they don't control? Could I define you as a squatter if you were in the way of my business interests?

Imagine if I owned a large company with millions in revenue and I could prove a dubious interest in the domain name jailbreakzeit.com. What should you have to do, legally, to show that the domain is truly in use? Prove you make money from the domain? How much? Show how much traffic the site gets? and how much?

Most parked domains have some content and traffic.

if I could prove to the internet naming bodies that my site would get more traffic and more revenue, should I be able to take it from you? Would this have to be decided on a case-by-case basis?

While it may seem like extortion to pay $7,000 for a domain, forcing people to invest in names makes sure that the domains are well used and valued.
lucidmedia is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2012, 12:31 PM   #10
snberk103
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: An Island in the Salish Sea
Quote:
Originally Posted by musty345 View Post
....
But I don't think that land and domains are easily comparable, because domains are literally dirt cheap. These people buy thousands of domains and do absolutely nothing with them. It's as if these new settlers in your analogy bought all of the land within a 100km radius of any water, and so people were banished to wasteland, and these new settlers did nothing with the land they bought.
...
Ummm, actually that is exactly what happened in many places that were colonized/settled. New setterlers could buy land dirt cheap. Think Oklahoma - where in one instance it was the 1st person to drive stakes into the ground claimed that land. In other places people with money bought all the land they could afford, since in some places there was no limit on the land you could buy. Territorial/colonial governments were basically giving it away and the "purchase price" was nominal in that it created some revenue for the territorial/colonial government and covered the expense of dealing with the paperwork.

The colonial/territorial governments took something (land) that had not been paid for, in essence if not in technically absolutely true, and sold it to anybody who wanted it. Just like domain names. In those days there was a lot of angst about speculators too. But now, the system has settled out and we are heirs to it.

I am not saying that domain names need to be handled the same way, I am just saying your village analogy was not the best argument. In fact in many places settled/colonized a person had to show a certain degree of "improvement" to the land by a certain date, or they would forfeit it back to the government. Or they could pay extra to keep the land. I don't know how you would translate that to domain names though. It would be simple, I would think, to automate a system that merely checked for a webpage at a URL.... but how do you go beyond that? How do you judge whether a webpage is a placeholder or something that "improves" the webpage? Consider how many domain names are being registered every day. How does one judge what is truly a useful page, and what is merely a placeholder. I would find it trivial to create a place holder site. I myself have several domain names that I hold in reserve. Not with the intent of selling them, but because I have projects that I haven't had time to start, but I want to keep a good web site name for. Am I squatting? Or just too busy?

I do disagree with the term "wasteland" since in most places there was an indigenous society that was supporting itself there. And I don't want to get this pushed into PRSI by delving into this... so I am trying to just keep the terminology neutral.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world. - Jack Layton
snberk103 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2012, 07:15 PM   #11
Sounds Good
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal View Post
Why should there be punishment? They purchased the right to that name, with no commitment to what they would do with it. They've not broken any laws or contracts by spending money to hold what others may want in the future.
Exactly. People all over the world own undeveloped land. They legally purchased this land and now they can put a house or building on it if they want to, or make it a parking lot -- or do nothing at all and just have an empty lot. I'm willing to bet that someone else would love to have a particularly desirable piece of land that someone owns, but the other person bought it first. Should those people that don't build on this lot of land be punished?

Last edited by Sounds Good; Jun 2, 2012 at 07:28 PM.
Sounds Good is online now   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2012, 02:54 AM   #12
thewitt
macrumors 68000
 
thewitt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by musty345 View Post
I'm aware that there are quite a few other threads of domain squatting, but I wanted to put it to a poll.

I don't think any of us like domain squatting, but how do you think squatters should be stopped? For example, I wanted jailbreaktime.com for my website, but the guy who was squatting the domain wanted around $7000 for it! Therefore I had to settle with jailbreakzeit.com (clip)
Squatting? How about speculative investing.

Punishment? Get real.

He bought it. You want it, it's for sale. Buy it.
thewitt is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2012, 09:09 PM   #13
ezekielrage_99
macrumors 68040
 
ezekielrage_99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewitt View Post
Squatting? How about speculative investing.

Punishment? Get real.

He bought it. You want it, it's for sale. Buy it.
Ruthless thinking, but ultimately correct unfortunately. It's the same thinking and practice that drives up pricing for real estate.
__________________
"There is a world elsewhere" - Coriolanus
ezekielrage_99 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2012, 09:24 PM   #14
Sounds Good
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezekielrage_99 View Post
It's the same thinking and practice that drives up pricing for real estate.
Yep. And domain names are virtual real estate.
Sounds Good is online now   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2012, 04:40 AM   #15
dmi
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Locke thought that one who works the land creates a claim to it.

There could be potential for disagreement in the application of such a philosophy, such as if colonists think working the land means farming on it and natives think working the land means hunting on it.

The there may be even more room for interpretation in the landscape of ideas.
Steve, Paul, Johnny, Fiona, et al. may all have reason to claim an interest in domain names containing "Apple".

Humans have been dealing with land rights issues for millennia, and still resort to wars as a way to settle them.

Intellectual property laws, which have generally been rooted in the perception that encouraging innovation creates public good, has had far less time to develop, and its battles are usually fought with lawyers.

Domain names are a relatively new form of intellectual property, the **** has yet to hit the fan
Quote:
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money...
dmi is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Web Design and Development

Tags
domain, squatting

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ismael Ozanne defends stance on corporal punishment defendants jkcerda Politics, Religion, Social Issues 4 Apr 11, 2014 05:32 PM
Corporal punishment still legal? likemyorbs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 45 Sep 26, 2012 12:36 PM
Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are Godís punishment to women who previ Rodimus Prime Politics, Religion, Social Issues 30 Sep 12, 2012 01:56 PM
Safari 6.0 Replacing Domain when Navigating within a Different Domain TenneyThe2nd Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Aug 8, 2012 10:32 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC