Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Should Something Be Done About Cybersquatting / Domainname Farming Etc. ?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2007 - 03:29 PM

It's been in a couple of different threads... and I'm going to bandy it around a couple of communities...


You can say what you like, the truth of the matter is that there are people and businesses who purposefully bought domains with the sole intention of extolling money from others - at ridiculous amounts.

If you've built more than a few sites, the chances are good that when you have looked up DNs, you have found at least a couple that are not actually doing anything - there is no real website... it's simply a stupid little directory, advert system or generic holding page.
Some of these things have been there for years.



Should this be permitted?



I've seen arguments supporting this type of thing (usually from people that themselves do it).
I've seen some wonderful analogies and justifications...

So I'll throw some fish into the same pond and see what happens.

It's the same as buying a patent.
Not true - Patents run out after a time.
Further, applying for the Patent is not the same as receiving the Patent.

It's the same as purchasing land.
Not true - in most countries, there are laws for development production. You are only able to retain the land if it is in use, even if it is arable land. If local developments are needed, or someone offers to bring benefits to the location through use of that land, then the owners are often offered an incentive to sell, or told to sell.
Additionally, under certain circumstances, it is possible for the local authorities to reclaim the land and disperse it as they see fit.

They're paying the Rent, so who cares.
Not true - if that was they case, there wouldn't already be Squatter laws regarding such occurrences in many countries.
Further, in countries such as the UK, there are organisations that control the Rent Rates - they stop Landlords overcharging tenants. As you cannot actually "own" the domain, only rent it, there should be similar!



Now, I'm not suggesting that the owners of these domains loose them outright.... nor should they suffer financial loss.
I do think that there ought to be strict guidelines governing the control of such domains and the usage of such.

I think, out of all the examples I can think of, the Patent Laws are the closest.


Initially obtaining the Domain ought to be at Rate One. (.com for 10)

Thereafter, re-paying should be at a lower cost, Rate Two. (Repurchase .com for 7)

If the domain is not being used, then it is returned to the DN Pool, (as happens when not re-registered).

If a Domain is not used for "legitimate" purposes, it has a certain Life-Span. After that time period has elapsed, if no legitimate usage has been applied, it should be returned to the Pool.

If a DN is owned, but not used, and it is requested by a third party, the Owner has the right to sell. The amount they are able to sell for should depend upon the DN and the time owned. If they have only owned it for a short period, they can charge at XXX times the rate they paid, (x20 the Value). If they have owned it for a moderate time, they can only charge XX times the rate they paid, (x13 the Value). If they have owned it for a long time, they only get X times the rate they paid, (x6 the Value).
Thus a .com charged at 10 to purchase could be sold for 200, 130 and 60 for each year farmed.
This is termed as Period Capping.

DN's that have reached the maximum Illegitimate rental period and returned to the pool cannot be re-applied for and used for "Farming" for at least 1 Year. This would be termed as the Safe Period.

Further, there should be a Rebirth Period. This means that if the Domain is left in the pool or purchased for legitimate usage and stays as such for 3 or more years, (exclusive of the Safe Period), then it can be considered as Re-Spawned and can start at the top values again for Farming.

If a company re-purchases the Domain for Farming a second time, (after waiting the safe period above), then they are limited to a lower Multiplier, (x 14, x9 and x4 respectively).
Thus a .com repurchased at 10 to could be sold for 140, 90 and 40 for each year farmed.
This would keep on applying... thus eventually there is no point in Farming a certain domain as it will end up providing no profit.

Have I covered the agreements?
Have I provided enough "fair" ideas?

At least with the above suggestions it enables the business minded folks who want to make money farming domain names the chance to do so, whilst ensuring that real business folk and web owners have the chance to get what would suit them the most.
No extortionate fees.
No stupid legal battles.
No more silly reasoning!


So go on... lets see who can bash me the hardest

Edited by Autocrat, 31 August 2007 - 03:35 PM.


#2 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5409 posts

Posted 31 August 2007 - 04:41 PM

I am not going to bash...

I own more domains than I have websites, I have bought domains from others for high prices, and I have continuously been trying to buy a couple of domains that fit one of my businesses. The domains I would like to buy currently hold nothing but a rat trap of ads. I had them professionally appraised and was willing to pay ten times appraised value but the current owner rejected the offers. *frustrating*

I think of domains as property, similar to real estate. I think that main street store front or office space should command a high price. I don't see anything wrong with holding main street real estate with the hope of future sale at a profit.

Here's how I think that domain ownership should be changed...

1) I believe that each person on the planet should be allowed to receive low cost registration for one domain.

2) After that the price should rise in proportion to the number of domains that you register. First $15/year, second $25, third $35, fourth $45. This would allow the limited resource to be spread around.

#3 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2007 - 05:41 PM

Interesting - I hadn't thought of "more ownership, more cost"... could be a nice touch!


As to...
" I don't see anything wrong with holding main street real estate with the hope of future sale at a profit. "

I'm not sure on this... as it isn't owned... but rented.
Basically, following that logic, we could end up with a lot of prime real estate being left empty and preventing potential legitimate busiesses because some tenants don't want to let the properties go as they are holding out for someone to purchase the current lease for a worthy sum... thats oneof the ways that entire neighbourhoods end up as dumps, rather than getting the busiesses in that make them high-value estates :)


But, I can see the other side of the arguement...
It does seem as a sound business modal and a means to make easy money...


Maybe a nominal fee for "empty ownerships" ?Something that would slowly decrease the potential profit value o retaining unused domains.
Add that to the ideas above and it really is a discouragemetn after seeral years (apparently some names have been held for over 7 years now!).

#4 saschaeh

saschaeh

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1026 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 12:33 PM

I like the idea of having the asking prices of the domian decrease over a period of time.

You purchase: hosting.com and ask 100k for it. Then after the first est. 12 months it will decrees by lets say 15% and then after 8 months it would decrease by a further percentage and so on. Like a sliding scale until it ends up back in the public pool. Actual numbers would need to be worked on but this kind of system could work.

#5 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 01:31 PM

I don't see how it is going to change anytime in the future. The only possibility I see is that they open up top-level-domains for everybody and then you can buy http://keyword1.keyword2/ for even more diversity. However, that's just opening the gates for real abuse (eg buy the top level domain ".cmo" or ".co").

We should keep in mind that though the prices are fairly high, they have not - by far, in my opinion - reached a level where the economic demand would actually stop. A good domain can be worth a lot of money. If your business is worth a good location (domain), you should be willing to buy it. You could even "rent" a good location, if you can't buy it (eg buy ads on expensive domain names, site-targeting). Downtown NY is filled and expensive, you could still try other large towns (TLDs other than .com) or even try to get customers in the "boondocks" (obscure domain names). Good domain names are still available, some even still unregistered (I see several of those every week).

Also, think about it, the idea of forcing people to develop domains sounds good at first, but how hard is it to create a website that makes money? It's certainly a bit harder than putting a generic parking page on, but still much less expensive than creating a good website. Where do you draw the line? If I put up a "digg-style" user-generated-site on a generic domain like "rumcakes.com" (just to pick one), would that be developed? How about a clone of wikipedia content mixed up with a live news feed coming in from a selection of RSS feeds? How about a plain static homepage with 10 pages about rumcakes (you could have an intern do that in a week, it would cost much less than a days income)? The bottom line: you can't draw a line. A website is a website. You can't police quality.

The only thing that can be policed are trademarks (eg deliberate typos, grabbing trademarks for new TLDs, etc) - and I hope more and more trademark owners are going to police that in the future.

John

#6 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 02:21 PM

Okay - to clarify...

It is not that people are "farming" these tings that causes the major problems/ire etc.

It is that they can keep hold of them for no real use.

I can understand the farming for cash / profit... but I do think it should have some sort of rules for it- as the prices are often excessive.


As for arguemets regarding alternatives... yes that can work - sometimes.

It depends on the nature of the business as to what they can get away with.

#7 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 04:03 PM

I think the problem with that idea is that once keeping names without an active website is prohibited, people will just put a website up and keep the name. It doesn't change very much. Making a website is a matter of a few hours (manually) or a few mouse clicks (automated). If the domain is worth enough, you could even hire a professional design team to set up a self-updating site that looks better than 99% of the amateur sites (who would judge the merits of a website?) out there.. and still make a big profit when selling it.

The problem is that good domain names are a very limited resource and the commercial demand is sometimes extremely high.

If you're interested in the situation, make the best of it and grab some good names for youself :D.

John

#8 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5409 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 04:37 PM

I look at it this way... everything has its price.

If somebody owns a domain that you want then you can pay their price or pick a new domain and try to get it. Our complaints here will not change a thing. The fact that you offered them good money for it is really a loss that they are willing to pass up. They obviously think that the property is worth more.

You and I arrived late to the game. Somebody has domains that we want. I've paid a lot for a couple domains and there are others that I want that I've not yet decided to pay the asking price. I've moved onto an alternative on one project and the other..... well... I am busy with plenty of other things.

#9 Ron Carnell

Ron Carnell

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Invited Users For Labs
  • 2062 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 04:40 PM

... but I do think it should have some sort of rules for it- as the prices are often excessive.

There are rules, and they're actually pretty simple: Don't pay more than you think it's worth. It's called Supply and Demand and, while not quite perfect, it almost always works best without government intervention.

#10 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 September 2007 - 06:15 PM

LOL
Unfortunatly, thats not quite true (otherwise imagine the prices for housing :D )

I do take the point though - I'm thinking more of "boundries for practice" etc.... not Rules that prevent.

If the domains where coming back into the pool, or there wasn't a shortage of them - it would be bearable - but the simple fact that some domains have been farmed for years on end, and offered at such pathetically high yields...

I guess it curently works more along the lines of Art and Collectables rather than real estate or properties.

#11 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5409 posts

Posted 30 September 2007 - 07:32 PM

Read these... shows why some nice domains are being held... they get type in traffic that makes a few bucks per day... why sell when you can make a few bucks per day while waiting for the big kill?

http://www.dnforum.c...read-98209.html

#12 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 01 October 2007 - 02:56 AM

I have more domains than websites.

Some I registered with a specific purpose in mind (ie a genuine site) but never got round to doing it (yet), another was a real site, but went down whilst in a depressive state, never brought it back up yet.
Yet another domain is just for testing on. Im tempted to buy even more, I dont really find it a problem to find good domain names.... Obviously the most likely candidates are already taken (like single words etc) but there always seems to be plenty of things not taken if you us your imagination.

The main bugbear I have with people having hundreds of domains sitting parked (ie large scale parkers/scrapers) is the fact they are polluting the internet, and the search results with rubbish.

I would love the domain buying situation to stay exactly as it is for the small fry (say people with less than 20 domains or some other reasonable figure per physical address) but as the number of owned domains increases I would like to see prices increase.

At present, buying in bulk means you get domains cheaper... So the unethical get a great deal on buying several hundred or even thousand domains that they stick scraper sites on or ad sites on whilst waiting for the purchase offers to come in.

If prices increased every 50 domains purchased, then it would become less and less attractive for a person to purchase more domains for these purposes. Even if it was only done every 500 domains, to target the worst offenders... It would be a start...

There should also be a ability for registrars to ban people from purchasing domains, should they be found guilty of repeated serious offences (huge amounts of spamming from all their domains, deliberately distributing viruses, illegal sites (child porn, warez etc)), repeated cyber squating etc. Policing would be a problem though.

#13 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 October 2007 - 10:03 AM

Well - by the looks of it, it seems to boil down to ethics... those that take the view for own gain, and those that view of communial gain.

I suppose, to be fair, there isn't a right or wrong on this... it's down to personal preference and business practice.

Still - that a side... I think I will compile the ideas/thoughts and make something a little more structured from it all.

#14 Feydakin

Feydakin

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 03:52 PM

I don't see how you could possibly make this an "ethics" issue since no one is actually breaking any laws.. Simply playing with the options available..

I'm personally not a huge fan of sitting on domains for 10 years and not developing them in any fashion, but it is allowed under the current structure.. And it's exactly what many of us predicted would happen many years ago.. But I also own domains with plans to develop them, but there is nothing on them.. Not even MFA junk, they simply don't resolve.. I also have sites that haven't been used for years, but I have no intention of letting them go..

As I think of good ideas, and names to back them up I will continue to buy them up..

#15 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5409 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 04:39 PM

As I think of good ideas, and names to back them up I will continue to buy them up..

I agree, and I am sure that you would gladly sell one to me if I offered you a high enough price.

People need to realized that they can't get control of domains like beer.com, weather.com and sports.com for a registration fee of $12. That is the price of being late to the game.

Domains like these do sell every day. If the domain that you want is taken and you have not tried to buy it straight from the owner... you need to give that a shot. You can even hire a professional to represent you.

Edited by EGOL, 07 October 2007 - 04:41 PM.


#16 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:02 PM

Okay - this will be strong and harsh as it seems that waht I say/type isn't actually read.

So, I'll re-state the first bits clearly:

1) It is not the business view that I have a problem with - it makes fine business sense and I can appreciate the spirit some of the endevours where undertaken.
2) It is not that some domains are taken and have not been used for fruition - smetimes developement takes time, things go a miss, or the project never gets the go ahead.
3) It is not the ethics of it that I oppose, (though I do dislike the practice, it is established and well handled).


So - to try saying it in another matter...

After a hard day of work, you turn on your TV, plonk down in your favourite seat and flick over to the News channel you preffer.

The Big Breaking Story for this evening is that Corporation X is causing over 50,000 people to basically be homeless.

Corporation X owns several large plots of land ideal for real estate developement and housing complex's - yet though they have owned these lands for some time, they have not produced any strucutres, made any moves for developement apart from adding a few road side billboards.

Though several local and international companies have made offers for all or parts of those lands, all offers ahve been refused.
Some offers where considered, those being in excess of 100 Times the lands retail worth - yet even these were turned down.



That is a direct analogy - perfectly comparable.


I'm not going to ask what your thoughts/responses are to that idea - as I'm going to believe that it would at least lean ever so slightly towards shock, anger or disgust - as I would suspect most people would respond.
It is the busiesses entitlement and right to do such a thing - up to a point - then the law/goverment would intervene!


In all other aspects of business there are rules, guidelines and laws.
How long can you have a Patent for?
How long is a TradeMark Registered once a company no loger runs?
How long is Copyright in effect if someone has died?

Yet none of these thigs are in place for DN.

I am not stating that such practices are wrong or illegitimate - I've even made suggestions on ensuring that such practices can continue - for a time and within certain bounds.

#17 Feydakin

Feydakin

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:23 PM

I agree, and I am sure that you would gladly sell one to me if I offered you a high enough price.


I'd probably sell one to you for a pretty low price too - money is tight these days :)

#18 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5409 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:51 PM

I'm not going to ask what your thoughts/responses are to that idea

I do agree with you... my replies are simply how we have to deal with it. I paid more for a domain than anything that I have ever bought except my house. There is another that I want that is nothing but ads right now and they want even more for it. I've made several offers - the last one many times the appraisal - but they hold fast to their price. Maybe someday I can justify their price - but they will probably want more for it then.

#19 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2039 posts

Posted 07 October 2007 - 06:53 PM

that Corporation X is causing over 50,000 people to basically be homeless.

Corporation X owns several large plots of land ideal for real estate developement and housing complex's


Well put. The only difference with domain names is that human lives are not at stake or made to suffer so we tend to not see it as "immoral" and we more or less say "Damn! Someone is sitting on all those good names!" "Wish that were me (being bad)"

Edited by bobbb, 08 October 2007 - 02:02 AM.


#20 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2039 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 02:05 AM

Here's a similar case where tickets for shows sell out in about 10 minutes but are then on sale on Ebay or by scalpers. Same scenario here where no one gets hurt. Can anyone get intense about this? ...unless you wanted a ticket. Ticketmaster is suing.

Ticketmaster Claims Hacking Over Ticket Resale Site. http://it.slashdot.o...7/10/07/2332237

And from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.c...ss/06money.html

#21 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 02:52 AM

A lot of the domain squatters delberately register mis-spellings of domains, or similar domains (ie using I instead of L etc) in order to directly profit from a popular existing domain/trademark etc.
That to me seems unethical, especially when they are doing so to profit not only by the parked site, but the hope the owner of the domain will purchase it from them at a high price.

It appears to be quite costly to do a domain name dispute, effectively stopping the small guys and gals from disputing these domains, unless they pay the dispute fees, which are expensive.

I even came across one parked site that tried to install a virus recently, and a whois on the server showed that they had thousands of sites on that server, probably all parked..... Wish I wrote the i.p down, was tired at the time, and forgot...

Perhaps if the domain people were to investigate *all* domains registered by a company or individual when a complaint came in, and if they found evidence of them purchasing multiple mispellings in breach of the domain regs they should just return all the domains to the public domain, and ban that purchaser from buying any future domains for x period of time.

#22 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 03:30 AM

A lot of the domain squatters delberately register mis-spellings of domains, or similar domains (ie using I instead of L etc) in order to directly profit from a popular existing domain/trademark etc. That to me seems unethical,

That is unethical, and in case the name is a registered trademark, also illegal. However, most serious people who deal with domain names are well aware of this and know that if they were to get caught doing that, they would likely end up paying much more than what they earned from the domain (and have to hand over the name for free). They certainly do not want to run into a situation like that. I believe there are even services available that will check your collection of domain names (if you have more than a handful) for possible trademark issues so that those names can be purged from their inventory. No serious investor wants to run into a situation like that.

I think the bad reputation of "domainers" mostly comes from those situations though, especially when the web was young and enforced laws were rare, giving the impression that it was ok to infringe on trademarks (it wasn't and still isn't). The large-scale domain investors have no interest in doing anything illegal and it would be a shame to throw them into the same pot as those who practice trademark-infringement on purpose...

Funny enough, so many of the names from Web 2.0 seem to have been born because of already registered names which were not trademarked e.g., flickr.com which came after flicker.com. Sometimes it's not so simple :)

John

#23 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2007 - 05:04 AM

LOL - makes me giggle that Trademarks evokedsuch a response, yet the buggers preventing smaller businesses from getting an associated name didn't seem to warrant such words as "moral" :)

It is a badly looked after area IMO - and it is that which really gets me.
The fact that for jsut about anything else you have to be careful and to some respects have a little honour (even if it is forced upon you), yet something like this isn't.

I liked the Tickets example - isn't scalping considered illegal?
I thought in most T&'s for Ticket sale providers it states no re-sale etc.
???


Could you imagine the reaction if that was introduced to DN's... I think there would be an awful lot of screams...
*closes eyes, imagines the waves of financial horror, smiles*

I don't think we should stop people from doing it.... jsut prevent it from being a noon-stop thing.... cap the totals that can be asked for or limit the time they can be retained.


Of course, thoe more wily ones or those with more money could "front" it and use sub businesses etc... and the parent company would still own X amount of domains at the same time... but they would still either be limited in how much they could make or how long they have to make that moey (more incentive for them to seek biuyers or agree an offer :) Would make companies like Sedo work a damn site harder too.

#24 kensplace

kensplace

    Time Traveler Member

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1497 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 06:37 AM

What about the fella that has the deal with the goverment that controls the cm domain, to redirect all sites to his parking pages, whether they are infringing on existing domains or trademarks - they argue that as the redirect all traffic that does not have a registered cm domain, and do not discriminate that they are ok to infringe on misspellings of all domains and trademarks that they fancy.

everyone try typing their domain name in, but change the .com to .cm and its a safe bet you will get a parked page owned by the same person.... That has to be the biggest scale of mass infringements I have seen, and he doesnt seem to get in trouble over it.

Edited by kensplace, 08 October 2007 - 06:40 AM.


#25 DCrx

DCrx

    Hall of Fame

  • 1000 Post Club
  • 1283 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 07:13 AM

I hadn't really considered the topic in this thread or what implications there might be. However I just read a post you might be interested in: Parked Domains Will Make Google Irrelevant

Hopefully it adds something to the discussion.

#26 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2007 - 08:33 AM

Well I commented :)

Damn good find there ... DCrx ... - and quite relevant in certain aspects... it sems that money is the only important factor for most peole these days, which sucks IMO.

If Google has opted for the Money over Relevance... then I think they ave shortened their life span considerably.

#27 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 11:11 AM

... yet the buggers preventing smaller businesses from getting an associated name didn't seem to warrant such words as "moral"

But there's a difference between the two...

As a business, you don't NEED a great domain name, just like you don't NEED to have a giant store in downtown Manhattan. Sure it might help, but you don't need it, especially if it will not give you the returns that you need to be able to pay for it.

A great generic domain name is an investment that can either generate regular income (through a site or through advertising) or it can just gain value over time and be resold at a higher price. It doesn't harm anyone if that domain name is not used, it doesn't harm a small business if they can't get it because it's too expensive.

As a small business, if you can't get the name of your dreams you just have to be cre8tive. Look at this forum's domain name - it's not "webforum.com", it's "cre8asiteforums.com". I bet Kim didn't have to buy it from anyone but the registrar -- and if the name were already taken, she would have just picked something else. Be creative :).

John

#28 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2007 - 12:51 PM

I disagree.

There are plenty of businesses are are still going on line, even after being around for years on end.
Yet they are unable to get their business name as a DN due to it going years ago (legitimately or not).
They are unable to get associative names or those that would fit the image/brand either.

It is these cases I'm thinking of... not the "oh, but I want that name as it's good".
Further - what you describe will only work for a certain type of business. I do not care what you say/think... a well established law firm cannot use "wesue4u.com" - it is not going to fit their image.

Further, finding names that fit takes time/effort... or requires re-structuring their marketing/advertising/image.
These equate to money - and small businesses tend to lack this (which is a main reason for being small and not medium, large or huge).

#29 jdickson

jdickson

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 02:31 PM

I was recently able to "haggle" a domain from a squatter down from $8900 to $300.

#30 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 October 2007 - 05:34 PM

Bonus!

Well - I'veread through... and I think I owe an apology... as it must seem like I keep throwing my toys out of my pram :s

I still stand by my view - but I do accept that;
1) it's not liekly to change
2) it is more than well established
3) it is a good idea for making simple money
4) there are always going to be rangles over DNs

Dpesn't mean I condone it... nor will I do it myself... but practicing it in small doses I think is bareable... it's those with hundreds that should be looked at.

Thanks for not throwing my toys back at me :D

#31 JohnMu

JohnMu

    Honored One Who Served Moderator Alumni

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 3518 posts

Posted 08 October 2007 - 08:55 PM

I agree with most of your points, but ... (sorry :)) I don't quite agree that it's "simple money" (assuming you meant domain names), at least not any more.

Finding a good domain name that costs you significantly less than you can earn from it using simple methods is hard, it takes a lot of experience. It looks easy enough, especially if you have a good name and a good monetization strategy -- but the devil's in the details :D.

I doubt it will get easier in the future, so if you're interested in doing something in that area now is a better time than tomorrow (last year, or 10 years ago would have been better, sigh).

John

#32 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 October 2007 - 07:57 AM

...JohnMu...
I wouldn't call it simple money - I won't call it anything as Iwill never do it :)
It is simple money in the fact that if you get a domain that is "similar" to an existing one - or you use one ofthe many scripts out there for advert fed page creations... you can ahe a simple site up within 3 hours that has adverts form multiple sources.
You can make pennies a day!

Then all you have to do is have multiple hosting accouts and base them from the first one... done... in a day you can ahe over 20 advert sites up and runnning.

Thats the "simple money" I was refering to.

#33 Feydakin

Feydakin

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 09 October 2007 - 09:24 PM

There are plenty of businesses are are still going on line, even after being around for years on end.
Yet they are unable to get their business name as a DN due to it going years ago (legitimately or not).
They are unable to get associative names or those that would fit the image/brand either.



I disagree with this.. If you own a business and have a legitimate trademark, it's pretty straight forward thing to take the domain back from the squatter.. Happens all the time..

#34 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 October 2007 - 04:28 AM

Note I said
"... (legitimately or not). ..."

In the UK, there is the BBC - who wanted bbc.com years ago - they couldn't because I think some Canadian company had it for their business.
The BBC sent nasty letters and threatened to sue etc. - no go! As it was a legitimate ownership.
In the end, I thik they paid out big time for it.

Some ofe the "Farming" sites are also what could be termed as "legitimate", as they re registered with a matching name, and some of the owners were savvy enough to actual use Trade As and run multiple sites/businesses(farms) that way - so without a lot of wrangling, you will not get anythig apart from empty pockets :)


All in all, it's just a bit sucky for those new to the net or to business... then again... how many busiesses have the same name the world over?

So, they either go for an alternative ext/tld, use a hyphen, or alter waht they want (and hope one of the other choices is free).

#35 Feydakin

Feydakin

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 October 2007 - 07:01 AM

New businesses, or those slow to adopt, are always at a disadvantage.. So I'm not sure that there is a way to balance that out with some new domain law anyway.. I would like to see more foreclosure and abandonment rules in place for domains.. We have them in real life.. Leave a building vacant long enough and the city will come by and tell you to fix it up / use it or sell it or they will take it from you and sell it themselves to someone else..

As long as the domainers want to continue to claim that domains are real property like land we may as well use that against them and hold them to real property rules..

There is also a nice new business model on the grow that does nothing but come up with new names.. It has been that way in the real world for decades with product naming and research companies, they are just starting to branch out in to domain and virtual property names..

#36 Guest_Autocrat_*

Guest_Autocrat_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 October 2007 - 07:42 AM

Thats basically the view point I have.

I'm not saying "don't allow it"... just "provide some general limits/regulations" for it.

And the last part... you say their are "name Inventors" comming in? ot suprising... wonder how long before they are charging 500+ for their services.

#37 Feydakin

Feydakin

    Whirl Wind Member

  • Members
  • 51 posts

Posted 10 October 2007 - 06:41 PM

$500 won't get you a meeting with the really good ones, just like anything else.. There was a interview a while with the company that came up with the name PODS for the moving / storage company by the same name.. Took them months to find that name and it wasn't cheap.. But like many great names, once you get it it's obviously the right name..



RSS Feed

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users