Domain-squatting parasites not interested in haggling, apparently.(jwz.org)
jwz.org
Domain-squatting parasites not interested in haggling, apparently.
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/domain-squatting-parasites-not-interested-in-haggling-apparently/
11 comments
> I dont get how the guy is a parasite. He has a product and this guy wants it.
The reason he is a "parasite" is that he adds no value and charges money for it. His "product" consists of laying claim to something, then charging a lot of money to someone else for it.
The squatter didn't create anything and doesn't increase the value of anything, he just holds it waiting for someone who is willing to pay for it. He didn't even buy something someone else created.
This is similar to patent trolls, with the exception that it's possible there is a real innovation in a patent, and that the existence of the troll gives incentive for innovators to create knowledge that benefits society.
The closest you can get to arguing a domain squatter adds value is that he prevents someone who doesn't value the domain as highly from getting it, keeping it available for someone who will pay more for it - but surely some low-value user of the domain would be willing to sell for a price similar to what the squatter asks.
No value add, taking resources (dollars) from productive market participants = parasite.
The reason he is a "parasite" is that he adds no value and charges money for it. His "product" consists of laying claim to something, then charging a lot of money to someone else for it.
The squatter didn't create anything and doesn't increase the value of anything, he just holds it waiting for someone who is willing to pay for it. He didn't even buy something someone else created.
This is similar to patent trolls, with the exception that it's possible there is a real innovation in a patent, and that the existence of the troll gives incentive for innovators to create knowledge that benefits society.
The closest you can get to arguing a domain squatter adds value is that he prevents someone who doesn't value the domain as highly from getting it, keeping it available for someone who will pay more for it - but surely some low-value user of the domain would be willing to sell for a price similar to what the squatter asks.
No value add, taking resources (dollars) from productive market participants = parasite.
> His "product" consists of laying claim to something, then charging a lot of money to someone else for it.
Which is the exact same model behind the real estate market (excluding property flips).
I hate domain squatters as much as the next guy, but it's as viable a business model as buying up land 30 miles from a big city and waiting 20 years for the value to appreciate and then selling it for a huge profit. How is that any different? Seems to be an acceptable practice in today's society, no one labels them parasites.
Which is the exact same model behind the real estate market (excluding property flips).
I hate domain squatters as much as the next guy, but it's as viable a business model as buying up land 30 miles from a big city and waiting 20 years for the value to appreciate and then selling it for a huge profit. How is that any different? Seems to be an acceptable practice in today's society, no one labels them parasites.
There are two differences with real estate:
- real estate "squatters" provide liquidity for property owners (this is theoretically possible in domains, but I've never heard it claimed to be a common case)
- lack of homesteading
When "new territory" opened up (in the US), people could be granted chunks of land if they improved the land, making productive use of the property for some time (homesteading). They could then file a claim for the land and have it deeded to them for continued ownership, resale, etc.
That initial productive use is lacking in domain squatting. No one has "improved" the claimed domain name or made productive use of it. The squatter has only filed a claim for it, hoping for a profit.
- real estate "squatters" provide liquidity for property owners (this is theoretically possible in domains, but I've never heard it claimed to be a common case)
- lack of homesteading
When "new territory" opened up (in the US), people could be granted chunks of land if they improved the land, making productive use of the property for some time (homesteading). They could then file a claim for the land and have it deeded to them for continued ownership, resale, etc.
That initial productive use is lacking in domain squatting. No one has "improved" the claimed domain name or made productive use of it. The squatter has only filed a claim for it, hoping for a profit.
what qualifies as an improvement? links? the ocassional post? a pic of gramdma? who gets to decide? you? or should we have a government agency for that?
what if they want it for just email? what if they had plans for it but life happened and they didn't get around to it?
if it wasn't a .com would there be all this stink?
like i said below a domain is not a physical asset. it's 0's and 1's. it's vapor. the value of that domain exists in peoples minds. it is not like land at all.
what if they want it for just email? what if they had plans for it but life happened and they didn't get around to it?
if it wasn't a .com would there be all this stink?
like i said below a domain is not a physical asset. it's 0's and 1's. it's vapor. the value of that domain exists in peoples minds. it is not like land at all.
What resource??? It's a domain name. Several ASCII characters slapped together. He laid claim to text? We're not talking about something physical...
I think that some people consider domain squatting parasitic because it creates little or no value and takes a corresponding level of effort.
The analogy would be bridge with a toll booth vs a gate in a natural mountain pass with a toll booth.
In both cases there is a service (passage from one area to another) for a fee. However the former is providing a service, the later is removing an intentionally created obstruction.
The only value I can see it providing is that the system places a valuation on domains based which prevents desirable ones from being bought by people who don't "seriously" want them. However that logic is shaky (transfer domain from non-serious to serious) and the value is questionable.
The analogy would be bridge with a toll booth vs a gate in a natural mountain pass with a toll booth.
In both cases there is a service (passage from one area to another) for a fee. However the former is providing a service, the later is removing an intentionally created obstruction.
The only value I can see it providing is that the system places a valuation on domains based which prevents desirable ones from being bought by people who don't "seriously" want them. However that logic is shaky (transfer domain from non-serious to serious) and the value is questionable.
jwz is just clueless about the current domain market. Offering $200 for dnacafe.com is a slap in the face and shows he doesn't know the market at all. It is not even worth my time to do a transfer/escrow for $200.
There are already tons of local businesses called DNA Cafe, and so the domain is worth at least $5k.
There are already tons of local businesses called DNA Cafe, and so the domain is worth at least $5k.
The post is part tongue-in-cheek. You can't call him clueless just because the domain is only worth $200 to him.
I agree that he is being snarky, but if he wasn't famous, the post would just come across as another clown on the internet trying to get something for nothing.
Most half-decent domains were registered back in the mid to late Nineties, at the then normal price of around $100 per year, renewal prices only came down to their current levels a few years later. Pretty much any decent domain registered in the past ten years would have been acquired through a drop-catching service for at least $69, probably much more if more than one person wanted it and an auction ensued.
When you come up with a great name for your business, it is natural to be disappointed when you discover that someone thought of it before you and registered the .COM.
It is, however, a sign of stupidity to then allow your disappointment to grow into anger and decide that the owner is a squatter, to allow your anger to distort reality.
.COM domains have always been first-come-first-served, so, by definition, a domain owner cannot be squatting unless someone has a trademark that pre-dates its registration.
Many .COM domains are openly offered for lower prices on any of the hundreds of online marketplaces but if a domain has NOT been listed for sale and you want that one specific domain, you want someone else to give you their property which they have been renewing for years, a low-ball offer like $250 is ridiculous.
Think about it: most domains were originally registered, purchased or bought at auction for a lot of money because someone, much like yourself, had an idea for it. Like most ideas, it didn't happen but the owner continued paying the annual renewals, aware that the name had value. The chances are that the owner has been paying annual renewals on at least a few dozen names, because most idea guys have dozens of ideas over the years.
Now, in mid-2011, you come along, all excited because the same idea has now occurred to you ten years later, and you say "Gee, thanks for keeping this lovely domain for me, here's a couple of hundred bucks, bye!".
If he doesn't jump at the chance to let you cherry-pick the best of his domains for probably less than he originally paid, he's suddenly a "domain-squatting parasite"?
Should he spend his valuable time "haggling" with some idiot who has no idea of the actual value of a good domain?
Or should he just wait for a real business person to come along, someone who understands and is willing to invest in a good name, someone who, unlike the no-clue, cheap-ass kid, will probably be organised enough to actually complete their project and use the domain?
If you are serious about your business and manage to find, as late as 2011, the perfect name for under ten grand, be glad that it has been kept for you by someone that is actually willing to name a price.
When you come up with a great name for your business, it is natural to be disappointed when you discover that someone thought of it before you and registered the .COM.
It is, however, a sign of stupidity to then allow your disappointment to grow into anger and decide that the owner is a squatter, to allow your anger to distort reality.
.COM domains have always been first-come-first-served, so, by definition, a domain owner cannot be squatting unless someone has a trademark that pre-dates its registration.
Many .COM domains are openly offered for lower prices on any of the hundreds of online marketplaces but if a domain has NOT been listed for sale and you want that one specific domain, you want someone else to give you their property which they have been renewing for years, a low-ball offer like $250 is ridiculous.
Think about it: most domains were originally registered, purchased or bought at auction for a lot of money because someone, much like yourself, had an idea for it. Like most ideas, it didn't happen but the owner continued paying the annual renewals, aware that the name had value. The chances are that the owner has been paying annual renewals on at least a few dozen names, because most idea guys have dozens of ideas over the years.
Now, in mid-2011, you come along, all excited because the same idea has now occurred to you ten years later, and you say "Gee, thanks for keeping this lovely domain for me, here's a couple of hundred bucks, bye!".
If he doesn't jump at the chance to let you cherry-pick the best of his domains for probably less than he originally paid, he's suddenly a "domain-squatting parasite"?
Should he spend his valuable time "haggling" with some idiot who has no idea of the actual value of a good domain?
Or should he just wait for a real business person to come along, someone who understands and is willing to invest in a good name, someone who, unlike the no-clue, cheap-ass kid, will probably be organised enough to actually complete their project and use the domain?
If you are serious about your business and manage to find, as late as 2011, the perfect name for under ten grand, be glad that it has been kept for you by someone that is actually willing to name a price.
well at least there is one logical person here.
You would be amazed by how many down-votes my attempt to describe the realities of the situation has gotten.
This is one of those taboo subjects about which people are in serious denial.
This is one of those taboo subjects about which people are in serious denial.
I'm annoyed by domain squatters as much as the next guy - but how is this different than owning any other property? Do you hate the land owner that sits on vacant land waiting for it to appreciate?
I wouldn't have a problem with domain squatters if they paid taxes commensurate to the value of their domains, I think that is the difference between them and land owners.
They do pay taxes. When they sell the name they pay taxes on the profit they make on the sale.
The price of the property.
The price for a domain name have basically been too cheap.
The price for a domain name have basically been too cheap.
That would be correct if a domain investor had hand-registered its entire portfolio, not if he buys and sell domains in the aftermarket.
although this probably wouldn't be true for dnacafe.com, if the reg fees were like 25 bucks a year instead of like 7 or whatever people with reseller accounts pay you'd see a lot less of people trying to own every single combination of two dictionary words. and the increased prices wouldn't be much of a burden on very many people/business.
Not true. Many people grabbed names way back when the reg fees were $70 (you had to get 2 years at $35 through Network Solutions). Back then it wasn't obvious that these names would be worth much. Or more people would have done that. That's not the case with this name of course. Of course you can grab more names at a lower price. But you still have to spend time deciding what names to grab.
The best way to get a response from someone you're trying to do business with is to laugh at them and then low ball them. Definitely.
Probably the point was he didn't want to do business with them (at least not anymore after being asked outrageous 10,000$ for the domain).
I worked with a domain squatter at a previous job. Seemed to be a completely slimy business. He would scour the GoDaddy domain aftermarket and after purchase usually throw up a "<site here> is closed for business, but we are working with investors to get things back online shortly" sort of page in an effort to extort more out of the people.
there are just some ways I dont want to make money...
there are just some ways I dont want to make money...
Maybe I'm jaded, but that doesn't sound very slimy to me.
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. I`m sure this will come back to bit him/her in the ass. DNACafe really isn't that great of a domain name, definitely not $10k worth of greatness.
To anyone here who has been/is a domain squatter - how many offers do you typically pass up on per domain (I'm sure it varies, so generalize)? Is there some sort of offer that you could not pass up on? Do you think this guy would even pass up on $1k. I don't understand the mentality behind it all.
To anyone here who has been/is a domain squatter - how many offers do you typically pass up on per domain (I'm sure it varies, so generalize)? Is there some sort of offer that you could not pass up on? Do you think this guy would even pass up on $1k. I don't understand the mentality behind it all.
I work with some domainers and they generally price domains by looking at the amount of traffic the domain gets and human factors (such as how short it is, how general the terms are, how hot the industry that it relates to is). As you can imagine, some domains get hundreds of offers, others get none. There are no real hard and fast rules about when to give up and sell a domain below the price you wanted.
Squatter is a derogatory term which has played well in the media. It implies no right to the property. That isn't the case with most domains. You register the name, you pay for it. It's your name. The usage of squatting got it's start basically with people doing typos or grabbing famous names (panavision.com) who basically had no right at all to a famous trademark and were trying to extort money. It simply doesn't apply to a name like dnacafe.com in this particular situation. There is of course a company called dnamededcafe.com and it would be possible to start a cafe somewhere called dnacafe.com that has no affiliation with dnalounge.com. And dnalounge.com clearly calls itself dna lounge in it's logo. Not dna cafe.
Squatter is a derogatory term, and I would lump in anyone who intentionally buys a domain with no intent to use it other than to sell it at an increased profit margin. I guess you and me differ here, you may think it's okay and perhaps it's the market at play, but I think it's just sleazy way to make money. Squatting has made it nearly impossible to come up with a decent brand. This is just my opinion, you don't have to agree with it and you're well within your right to squat on domains, but you can't really argue semantics here when it's entirely opinionated.
You're assuming that if the "squatter" hadn't bought the name it would be available for you to use exactly when you wanted to use it. It's also possible that someone would buy it and use it for a business or personal use and then it would actually either not be available at all at any price for you or you'd have to pay more money for the name then a squatter would have charged.
Here's another different example. Someone buys up land near a proposed hiway exit. And then they hold out until a fast food chain wants to buy the land for the restaurant and pay the price that a large corporation can pay for that type of land. Somebody made money on that transaction. But the small restaurant is upset because "all the good land is taken by squatters and I can't locate my restaurant there because I can't pay the price what gives them the right to charge me all that money.".
Does that make sense?
Here's another different example. Someone buys up land near a proposed hiway exit. And then they hold out until a fast food chain wants to buy the land for the restaurant and pay the price that a large corporation can pay for that type of land. Somebody made money on that transaction. But the small restaurant is upset because "all the good land is taken by squatters and I can't locate my restaurant there because I can't pay the price what gives them the right to charge me all that money.".
Does that make sense?
Yea and explorers made it hard to come up with new countries
Wake up
Could someone define the term: domain-squatting parasites
I own a few domain names that I had really big plans for--but just haven't gotten around to developing them (so they're parked at the moment).
Does that make me a domain-squatting parasite? I sure hope not!
I own a few domain names that I had really big plans for--but just haven't gotten around to developing them (so they're parked at the moment).
Does that make me a domain-squatting parasite? I sure hope not!
I'd imagine every person that is using the phrase "domain-squatting parasite" in this thread has a couple, if not a handful of domains, that they aren't using right now and would charge a premium for if they were asked to sell. hypocritical to say the least.
Are you the same a strong that was squatting on frederics.com a typo of Fredericks of Hollywood, a domain you used to advertise products of competitors to Fredericks? Are you the same a strong that was sqautting on TrumpCardCasino.com which you used to divert traffic intended for trump to slot site advertising the services of competitors to Trump? Both of these names were taken away from you by way of legal proceedings initiated by the respective trademark holders. It is actions like these that define cybersquatting and label you, and those like you, as domain squatting parasites. Whos the real hypocrit
[deleted]
Yes, domain-squatting parasites are the worth scum ever.
By the way, to french-speaking people: I've bought quite a few nice french-sounding SEO-optimized domain names and am willing to sell some of them for less than $10000 :-)
By the way, to french-speaking people: I've bought quite a few nice french-sounding SEO-optimized domain names and am willing to sell some of them for less than $10000 :-)
dnacafe.com wasn't registered until 2007. dnalounge.com was registered way back in 1995. Either dnacafe.com was registered and dropped (and jamie could have grabbed it using the proper techniques) or it was always available. (I don't have time to check the whois history.)
People who don't own a particular domain name that they want seem to feel entitled to that name at the price they determine is acceptable. This defies everything out there about a free market system.
People who don't own a particular domain name that they want seem to feel entitled to that name at the price they determine is acceptable. This defies everything out there about a free market system.
[deleted](1)
Or is it just because the guy wouldn't sell it for $200 that he's a parasite?