

Domain squatter wants $150,000 for Ebola.com - jamessun
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/14/the-merchant-of-disease-who-wants-six-figures-for-ebola-com/

======
cheald
This is a pretty bad article. It seems like a hit piece trying to paint the
guy as a war profiteer, because...ebola? I have no real love for domain
squatters, but the guy isn't any worse because he happens to own a domain name
related to a disease that is in the news. Lines like:

> _Doesn’t he know that Ebola has killed more than 4,000 people in West
> Africa, has breached the United States, and that international health
> officials now warn of state collapse and widespread chaos? Doesn’t that tug
> at his heart strings?_

just make me roll my eyes. The idea that he should be so _very ashamed_ of
himself for owning ebola.com (and should then obviously give it out of
contrition and the goodness of his heart to...someone else) is odious.

Who should _legitimately_ own ebola.com? Ebola, Inc? Pfizer? It's difficult to
make an argument that it should be owned by the government, since we have the
entire .gov tld for that purpose.

~~~
rabbyte
The true irony is that immediately after "Doesn't that tug at his heart
strings?" is an advertisement. If it's not okay for Schultz to capitalize on
the popularity of ebola then why is it okay for the washing post to capitalize
on both the popularity of ebola and the supposedly despicable thing Schultz is
doing?

------
alistairSH
Meh, somebody has to own ebola.com and birdflu.com.

And whoever buys ebola.com for $150,000 is doing it because it's profitable
for them. Maybe the manufacturer of ZMapp wants the domain to sell their
medications? Why shouldn't Schultz make a profit selling it?

How is this any different than a real estate investor? I could buy several
acres in Detroit and sit on it for a while, hoping the city rebounds and I can
sell for a profit. Does that make me evil too?

~~~
KC8ZKF
Or buy a patent. Sit on it for a while, hoping the technology becomes
valuable. Profit.

~~~
alistairSH
I realize that's probably said tongue-in-cheek, but I agree with the
statement. The problem with patent trolls isn't that they exist. The problem
is that patents are being granted for things that are obvious (Do X, but now
on a PC!). And, the courts appear to be correcting that problem.

------
spobin
Domain names are a market just like any other. If someone buys a domain name
to make money from affiliate links that's their choice, I don't have a problem
with that. Don't like it? Come up with a more profitable use for the domain
name and buy it from them.

------
aasarava
What the article doesn't address is whether this guy's business actually makes
any money. It might make sense as a good bet if he paid $9.99 for birdflu.com,
but $20,000? Has he actually resold any of his domains for large sums?

~~~
cheald
And if he does, so what? Who exactly is harmed by it?

As best I can tell, it's just moral outrage at someone who dared to capitalize
on public awareness of ebola, written by someone who is capitalizing on public
awareness of ebola by writing stories like this in order to garner a few ad
dollars.

~~~
aasarava
Oh I wasn't making any judgement on the business itself. Just pointing out
that, if anything, he probably hasn't profited as handsomely as the article
implies.

~~~
cheald
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to attack you - I was more piggybacking on your
comment. Sorry I came across that way!

