
Domain-squatting parasites not interested in haggling, apparently. - pavel_lishin
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/08/domain-squatting-parasites-not-interested-in-haggling-apparently/
======
theguvernor
I dont get how the guy is a parasite. He has a product and this guy wants it.
An offer is made and if no agreement can be reached then it doesn't happen.
It's called the free-market.

Or is it just because the guy wouldn't sell it for $200 that he's a parasite?

~~~
kbutler
> 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.

~~~
nicksergeant
> 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.

~~~
kbutler
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.

~~~
theguvernor
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.

------
jcampbell1
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.

~~~
kevindication
The post is part tongue-in-cheek. You can't call him clueless just because the
domain is only worth $200 to him.

~~~
jcampbell1
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.

------
WordSkill
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.

~~~
theguvernor
well at least there is one logical person here.

~~~
WordSkill
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.

------
plusbryan
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?

~~~
ThomPete
The price of the property.

The price for a domain name have basically been too cheap.

~~~
markmccraw
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.

~~~
larrys
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.

------
citricsquid
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.

~~~
td
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).

------
S_A_P
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...

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
Maybe I'm jaded, but that doesn't sound very slimy to me.

------
mattwdelong
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.

~~~
larrys
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.

~~~
mattwdelong
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.

~~~
larrys
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?

------
bhartzer
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!

~~~
astrong
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.

~~~
squatter
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

------
toumhi
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 :-)

------
larrys
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.

