[Veltliner]

A cybersquatter registers a domain of a more or less well know business for himself, hoping to cash in big when that company wants their own brand name as domain name. Trademark law has been changed against this internet waylaying, and cybersquatters increasingly lose their domain baits against trademark owners.

But what those stinking parasites ("We need no stinking cybersquatters!") still do is registering a great variety of domain names which are NOT brand names, and get away with it, because no deep-pocketed corporation come after them.

Many of the taken domain names are not in use - or you have the same looking fake website "parked" there without any content, just advertising links (usually parked for free from the likes of Godaddy).

Inhumanity always had the dream to sell hot air.

With this internet domain trade, it has become true.

There are ways around this, and it's not too difficult.

Paying for a domain name is a no-no for any self-respecting person.

A good thing would be to air condition those parasite hot air deals by making the sale of a domain name for more than the usual registry fee illegal.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well someone's bitter they didn't get there first...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Paying for a domain name is a no-no for any self-respecting person.

What on earth? Paying for a domain name is a must for anybody who runs a business with an Internet presence.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

A good thing would be to air condition those parasite hot air deals by making the sale of a domain name for more than the usual registry fee illegal.

If you want to stop squatting, the better route in my estimation is just to make domain names prohibitively expensive to begin with. Trying to restrict the free market is heavy-handed and ultimately pointless (what, we're going to pay Internet police to investigate every domain purchase?). What would help is to make the purchase a serious decision rather than something that any eight-year-old with a lemonade stand wouldn't think twice about.

[besson3c]

What might also be a good way to deal with domain squatters is to give them a limited amount of time to use it for an actual website, rather than just a placeholder page. If the domain isn't being used, it goes back into the market.

[Brass]

The domain I wanted for a legitimate use is being squatted. The twit suggested he might consider $20,000 for it. Right, like I've got that kind of money to spend on a non-profit web site.

Idiots! Making money out of nothing, and depriving people that do have legitimate uses for these things.

[Mac Write]

Very few will agree with "if the site isn't developed you loose it". Allot of companies register domains for "projects underwraps" which can takes years to develop. Domain fees are fine. I am squatting as you call it on a few domains but I have plans for them, others are variations on my sites etc. Also putting ads on a domain can yield thousands a month in income without doing anything. a hot domain can just sit as a ad site and makes loads of money with no content, except ads.

The current system is fine. It's first come first serve.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Mac Write 

The current system is fine. It's first come first serve.

First-come-first-served has never been a good system in general. It's fantastic for scam artists (see: people who buy concert tickets or Wiis and sell them at horribly inflated prices), but counterproductive for most other purposes.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Paying for a domain name is a no-no for any self-respecting person.

A good thing would be to air condition those parasite hot air deals by making the sale of a domain name for more than the usual registry fee illegal.

A domain you wanted was already taken heh

So you either want the domain name for free or you figure capitalism is not a good idea and force people not to make a profit. What about domain owners that were not squatting but can make a profit by selling their domain to big companies

I wanted a domain name and of course it was taken, the silver lining in that mess was it forced me to think of a unique name that was better then my original so it worked out for the better and if you give it a little more thought you might come up with a better name.

Also did you try .us/.info/,name. I've virtually given up on the .com because everything is taken up.

[SirCastor]

I've had this conversation with my Boss a number of times. He eventually always brings up this, and he's right:
Domain names are real estate.

The highest percentage of people getting to a website is not by search through google or yahoo, it's by just typing something into the url, which in modern browsers will resolve to a TLD if it can. I suggest to you that this is not cybersquatting. Cybersquatting, as you mentioned, is the deliberate effort to register a domain name whom someone else is expected to register as part of their business.
The folks registering these domains are doing it because they can make money. Eventually someone like yourself will want the domain. Now they have a market for it, until that happens they can do simple redirects where they get paid-per-click. Some of these people are making Thousands of dollars with those clicks.

I don't like it either, but don't make out like it's some unethical action. This is legitimate business. I'm sorry you couldn't get the domain you wanted, find a different name for your website.

My boss own quite a few domain names. One, ut.net, he was offered $8000 out of the blue. A few people have taken it up to $15,000. We have no idea why.

I expect that we're going to see a severe rise in product names that are not real words. Most dictionary word domains are gone.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I've had this conversation with my Boss a number of times. He eventually always brings up this, and he's right:
Domain names are real estate.

And one some level this is why it doesn't bother me too much. Its also now a cottage industry. No longer the domain (no pun intended) of a few speculators or nerds grabbing some popular names. There are a bunch of companies that register en-mass whole swaths of domain names. They throw a search engine page on it there and make it appear legitimate. This is big business now, the day of the cybersquatter is quickly coming to an end.

[design219]

I had a client who wanted a certain domain that was squatted by some guy in England. He had a price of $2,000 for it. I offered $300, period, and he jumped on it.

I would tell the guy you have a non-profit site and you would like to BUY the domain, but don't pay $20,000. Make a legitimate offer and tell him it is the only one he will get from you, take it or leave it. He very well might jump at it. A bird in the hand sort of thing. Especially if his alimony payment is due.

A domain is a commodity. If this domain is so important, it should be work some money.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I've had this conversation with my Boss a number of times. He eventually always brings up this, and he's right:
Domain names are real estate.

Except that not many people own several thousand homes. I think ticket scalping is the most comparable industry.

[talisker]

I'm sure we'll all laugh about this in a few years time. I suspect the way we use the internet is in its infancy, and it'll change quite radically.

Having to type in a domain name seems a pretty primitive way of doing things. I suspect that over time search engines and portals will improve to such a degree that the address input field will disappear completely from browsers.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, and we'll have flying cars.

[Mediaman_12]

Originally Posted by talisker 

Having to type in a domain name seems a pretty primitive way of doing things. I suspect that over time search engines and portals will improve to such a degree that the address input field will disappear completely from browsers.

Not going to happen any time soon. How would this be able to tell weather you wanted to go to Apple UK or Apple UK
(bet the above really pisses off Apple in the States, but its a legitimate company ,has been running for years and had that domain for as long as I can remember)

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

A good thing would be to air condition those parasite hot air deals by making the sale of a domain name for more than the usual registry fee illegal.

That's called price controls and all it does is create shortages.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Except that not many people own several thousand homes. I think ticket scalping is the most comparable industry.

Thinking about it in terms of Homes is a limiting concept. Think more "Property". Especially Commercial and Industrial zoned property. There are tons, TONS of land/property investors. The industry is massive. You buy land, and you set a price, as the demand for the property increases, the value of the property increases.

I agree with you on the Scalping aspect, except this isn't illegal.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I agree with you on the Scalping aspect, except this isn't illegal.

Even scalping is not legal. Buy a ticket to a game or concert from one of those services (because its sold out) and you pay a fee that could be equal or a multiple of the face value of the ticket. what's the difference between paying 500 bucks to a service for a 100 dollar ticket or 500 bucks to some guy on the street? One is legal and the other isn't but I'm still getting ripped off.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Even scalping is not legal. Buy a ticket to a game or concert from one of those services (because its sold out) and you pay a fee that could be equal or a multiple of the face value of the ticket. what's the difference between paying 500 bucks to a service for a 100 dollar ticket or 500 bucks to some guy on the street? One is legal and the other isn't but I'm still getting ripped off.

You're working off the idea that a price set beyond the face value of the ticket means you're getting ripped off. Paying the cost of the ticket means that the seat in the hall or stadium is worth the price that you're paying. This is an example of opportunity cost. You forego the opportunity of waiting in the long line and paying the lower cost for the convenience of buying later but the cost of a higher price. Your sacrifice of money is correspondent to your desire to have the ticket. At some point the ticket only cost $100, but either through ignorance, lack of demand or some other thing which makes the ticket more valuable, you can only purchase it at the higher price.

The same is the case with domain names, and frankly most any other good in a capatilist society. ICANN has tried to balance demand of TLDs by providing other TLDs, but so far it hasn't much worked. I think it'll be a while before .tv, .name, .info and all that other junk will really be in general users' vantage point.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well someone's bitter they didn't get there first...

This reply tells more about you than about the topic.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What on earth? Paying for a domain name is a must for anybody who runs a business with an Internet presence.


If you want to stop squatting, the better route in my estimation is just to make domain names prohibitively expensive to begin with. Trying to restrict the free market is heavy-handed and ultimately pointless (what, we're going to pay Internet police to investigate every domain purchase?). What would help is to make the purchase a serious decision rather than something that any eight-year-old with a lemonade stand wouldn't think twice about.

Sure one needs to pay for web presence.

But Imean paying a web host, and probably paying a designer to create it.

Also to pay registration fees to aquire a name and the private registration fee.

But not pay money to some parasite who possibly registered a few thousand domains. That's not free market, that's inhibiting the market.

Give me one example where parasites are advantageous for a free market. (real examples, not those ocean fish who swim between the jaws of predators and clean their teeth).

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What might also be a good way to deal with domain squatters is to give them a limited amount of time to use it for an actual website, rather than just a placeholder page. If the domain isn't being used, it goes back into the market.

Good idea!

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Brass 

The domain I wanted for a legitimate use is being squatted. The twit suggested he might consider $20,000 for it. Right, like I've got that kind of money to spend on a non-profit web site.

Idiots! Making money out of nothing, and depriving people that do have legitimate uses for these things.

Exactly! That's what I mean!

Those parasites do not produce anything, but actually inhibit the free market.

They are the internet equivalent of medieval waylayers.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Mac Write 

Very few will agree with "if the site isn't developed you loose it". Allot of companies register domains for "projects underwraps" which can takes years to develop. Domain fees are fine. I am squatting as you call it on a few domains but I have plans for them, others are variations on my sites etc. Also putting ads on a domain can yield thousands a month in income without doing anything. a hot domain can just sit as a ad site and makes loads of money with no content, except ads.

The current system is fine. It's first come first serve.

If you have registered the domains to use them for yourself, then you are not squatting.

It is perfectly clear that certain website projects can take years to be completed.

But in this case you are not offering this site/these sites for sale.

Cybersquatters only register domains by the hundreds and thousands, and never even think of using them. They only want to rip off real business owners.

If you had a business called, for example, "Web Spiders Search Engines", and some loony registered this website, together with a thousand others, and then wanted 20 000$ Dollars from you (who would be, in this example, the registered owner of this search engine), why should you pay a parasite? You'd rather invest this money in your company.

And I bet those parasites don't even pay taxes on those gains.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

First-come-first-served has never been a good system in general. It's fantastic for scam artists (see: people who buy concert tickets or Wiis and sell them at horribly inflated prices), but counterproductive for most other purposes.

Bravo!

First come-first serve-system always turns into a system, where those coming later (by being born later than others, for example) have much less rights than those coming earlier.

This is not a system you can build a healthy economy on.

It is the perfect scamster system.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

And one some level this is why it doesn't bother me too much. Its also now a cottage industry. No longer the domain (no pun intended) of a few speculators or nerds grabbing some popular names. There are a bunch of companies that register en-mass whole swaths of domain names. They throw a search engine page on it there and make it appear legitimate. This is big business now, the day of the cybersquatter is quickly coming to an end.

The fact that those scams now increase to corporate dimensions doesn't make them less cybersquatting.

I have no trouble getting around domain names that are already taken.

I just saw, that in 90% of the cases where I couldn't get a certain domain name, it was not another business owner who used it (perfectly alright), or no site set up yet at all. it was mostly a "this domain is for sale" site.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I've had this conversation with my Boss a number of times. He eventually always brings up this, and he's right:
Domain names are real estate.

I think he wasn't aware of the possible sarcasm of his remark.

It is a bit like real estate, but not as bad as it used to be.

You know how real estate gets owned first?

You go to a piece of land, and if someone's already there, you kill him. Don't say this is overstated. Look at the history of Euopean land owners. Their titles go back into medieval times often, and usually a lot of people died, when the first of a family "got" the land.

Or what happened here? We all know what happened to the native population here?

I will stop here, as I don't want to raise any policitical discussion.

But to pinpoint it:

Cybersquatting, the taking of domain space, is, fortunately, not as bad as the same thing happening in real estate.

[besson3c]

I wonder how many defenders of the current system don't really understand the nature of cybersquatting, or else haven't experienced this problem first hand?

Do you support spammers? Aren't they just trying to advertise their business just like anybody else? Prior to when spam actually became illegal, did you have a problem with spammers?

What is legal or illegal does not necessarily reflect what is actually best for business in the area of technology. Our legal system has historically been very slow to respond to the pace of changing technology. Even though CAN-SPAM is pretty much ineffective, I'm amazed it took us this long to even *try* to repair this damage and the literally millions of dollars it has cost businesses.

We recently spent about half a million dollars on new mail relays, and you can be sure that the vast majority of this crap is spam. I throw this out there just to illustrate that processing spam is not cheap, there is no bottomless pit as far as the amount of spam that can be clogged through the pipes.

Maybe comparing spam to cybersquatters isn't a completely fair comparison, but they seem of a similar breed to me - doing shady exploitative crap to make a buck.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

But not pay money to some parasite who possibly registered a few thousand domains. That's not free market, that's inhibiting the market.

That's true, but even if ICANN were the kind of organization that is willing to get off its ass and do things — which it is not — this law would be incredibly difficult to enforce. The time and money needed (for which we would obviously be footing the bill) would probably be enough to offset any benefit to the market.

Beyond that, although I know a squatter when I see one, it's difficult to define one precisely enough that I would feel comfortable creating a law against it. Is somebody who sets up a MFA parking page using the domain? They certainly could be making darn good money from it.

[Brass]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's true, but even if ICANN were the kind of organization that is willing to get off its ass and do things — which it is not — this law would be incredibly difficult to enforce. The time and money needed (for which we would obviously be footing the bill) would probably be enough to offset any benefit to the market.

Beyond that, although I know a squatter when I see one, it's difficult to define one precisely enough that I would feel comfortable creating a law against it. Is somebody who sets up a MFA parking page using the domain? They certainly could be making darn good money from it.

Such a law would be quite easy to enforce, I think. All domain name transactions must already pass though authorised "registrars". All that has to happen for such laws to be enforced is to set a maximum domain name price (eg, 5 times the usual registration price), then force all domain name purchase transactions to be paid through the authorised registrar.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Brass 

Such a law would be quite easy to enforce, I think. All domain name transactions must already pass though authorised "registrars". All that has to happen for such laws to be enforced is to set a maximum domain name price (eg, 5 times the usual registration price), then force all domain name purchase transactions to be paid through the authorised registrar.

I like this solution! Without the possibility of making an obscene profit, this ought to take the wind out of sails of the squatters.

Domains are priced so affordable as to create a level playing field, squatting ruins this, this proposal fixes the problem.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

This reply tells more about you than about the topic.

That I have a sense of humour?

[Captain Obvious]

God stop being such a whiny little girl.

If you own no preexisiting copyright or trademark associated with that domain you have no more right to it than anyone else. It doesn't matter that you have a better use for it than the squatter it is still not substantial enough reason for you to have it given to you for ten bucks rather than ten thousand when it is someone else's property.

They are as much a parasite as you are a beggar.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Brass 

Such a law would be quite easy to enforce, I think. All domain name transactions must already pass though authorised "registrars". All that has to happen for such laws to be enforced is to set a maximum domain name price (eg, 5 times the usual registration price), then force all domain name purchase transactions to be paid through the authorised registrar.

OK, so I'll sell you my domain name for $50, but I'll only accept offers from existing customers of my $5,000 socks. Or will I be forced to sell the domain name to the first guy who offers me $50?

Once again, half-hearted socialism is not the answer to a capitalist problem. Besides the fact that the law would have to be ridiculously restrictive and convoluted in order to make it even slightly difficult for domain sellers to tapdance through the loopholes, this would also put the kibosh on totally legitimate transactions. Take for example iphone.com: Do you think that guy would have sold such a profitable domain name to Apple for only $50? Under your proposal, it would have been completely impossible for Apple to buy the iPhone domain! Ditto for other sites like johnkerry.com.

And if you did close the obvious loopholes, no Web site could ever be sold for more than $50, even if it's freakin' YouTube!

[talisker]

[QUOTE=Mediaman_12;3469044]Not going to happen any time soon. How would this be able to tell weather you wanted to go to Apple UK or Apple UK QUOTE]

I imagine what will happen is that browsers and search engines / portals will become sufficiently powerful and integrated to make the whole concept of domain names irrelevant.

You want to go to Apple's UK site? You type in Apple - the browser knows from your preferences / location / past history you're likely to mean Apple, as it relates to computers, and you want the UK site, or maybe some Apple related news. So it gives you these as options and you select which one you want. Obviously, you can still save it as a favourite for future use.

You won't even know what the site is actually called. Just like you don't care what a site's IP address is anymore. Or what someone's phone number is, once their names in your mobile phone. Or where iPhoto stores its files etc.

I'm sure anyone can come up with several stumbling blocks to this approach. I can think of several myself. But I'm still sure it'll happen in a few years, once people cleverer than me work out the details.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Once again, half-hearted socialism is not the answer to a capitalist problem.

Agreed Forcing speculators to sell at set price is well unAmerican and goes against the grain of capitalism.

[SirCastor]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Domains are priced so affordable as to create a level playing field, squatting ruins this, this proposal fixes the problem.

I disagree. This makes it sound as though there's some all-powerful registrar over-seer who sets the maximum price domains can be sold at to make things fair. There isn't. Domain prices are low because there's significant competition in the registrar industry. I remember when you could only buy domains from Network Solutions. Then they were $35 a pop. Before that they were $100, and if you go back far enough, they were free to register.

Domains aren't priced affordable for the convenience of the consumer. They're priced low because of competition. That's exactly how it's supposed to work in capitalism.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

God stop being such a whiny little girl.

If you own no preexisiting copyright or trademark associated with that domain you have no more right to it than anyone else. It doesn't matter that you have a better use for it than the squatter it is still not substantial enough reason for you to have it given to you for ten bucks rather than ten thousand when it is someone else's property.

They are as much a parasite as you are a beggar.

You are as much lacking arguments as you are a fool, and your rudeness will not create around you any illusion of knowledge, as much as you might need it.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SirCastor 

I disagree. This makes it sound as though there's some all-powerful registrar over-seer who sets the maximum price domains can be sold at to make things fair. There isn't. Domain prices are low because there's significant competition in the registrar industry. I remember when you could only buy domains from Network Solutions. Then they were $35 a pop. Before that they were $100, and if you go back far enough, they were free to register.

Domains aren't priced affordable for the convenience of the consumer. They're priced low because of competition. That's exactly how it's supposed to work in capitalism.

Actually, you would not need any registrar or overseer. You just set the value of a domain name as not highter than the registration fee. So, if the market sets the registration fee at 10$, plus 8$ for private registration, that's the value of the domain name.

So the actual value of a domain name would be zero.

PS: Actuall, cybersquatting has big costs for companies who usually want a domain name somewhat connected to their business name. The surge in awful company names like "Accenture" is directly connected to the amount of domain names occupied by cyber squatters. (of course, real words are more and more in short supply, too, as the trademark registers get larger and larger and more and more words are being registered as trademarks).

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

OK, so I'll sell you my domain name for $50, but I'll only accept offers from existing customers of my $5,000 socks. Or will I be forced to sell the domain name to the first guy who offers me $50?

Once again, half-hearted socialism is not the answer to a capitalist problem. Besides the fact that the law would have to be ridiculously restrictive and convoluted in order to make it even slightly difficult for domain sellers to tapdance through the loopholes, this would also put the kibosh on totally legitimate transactions. Take for example iphone.com: Do you think that guy would have sold such a profitable domain name to Apple for only $50? Under your proposal, it would have been completely impossible for Apple to buy the iPhone domain! Ditto for other sites like johnkerry.com.

And if you did close the obvious loopholes, no Web site could ever be sold for more than $50, even if it's freakin' YouTube!

Don't forget, YouTube wasn't worth anything before someone set up the videosharing there.

That's the deal with brand names. They are getting a value through the quality of the products and services connected to it.

A major corporate CEO said, that if he had to choose between the real property of his corporation (production sites, stores, equipment, offices, etc.) and just the brand name, he would choose the brand name. While there is definitely a spin to this, it shows that names only become an asset through the promise you hear, when you hear the name.

Who the hell would listen up when the name "Tom Cruise" was mentioned, if Tome Cruise was a plumber in Connecticut?

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Agreed Forcing speculators to sell at set price is well unAmerican and goes against the grain of capitalism.

America has a good sense against intrusion of its privacy by the government.

But intensive government action is not needed.

Just a few rules.

After all, you wouldn't call the rules for car traffic unnecessary government action.

So, a few good rules for internet traffic would be helpful.

The rule, that if you don't use a domain for five years, you lose it, should be enough, and it would free a lot of domain names.

But it looks like that, after the housing bubble, we have a domain name bubble. I can hardly imagine that someone couldn't think up a domain name and avoid paying 1000, 2000, 20 000 or more dollars for a domain name.

Companies actually don't buy any doman names anyway. They simple go through a process which takes the squatted brand name domain name away from the cybersquatter. That's where trademark law has gone.

And if they don't succeed, like the software company with their product shopzone, who couldn't get shopzone.com, they will very likely not pay a fantasy amount for that domain.

After all, most people who need that software, will find it through google.

I don't think there will be much legal action against non-brand name cybersquatting, simply because there are no big commercial interests behind it.

Those who pay 2000 Dollars for a domain name pay a fool's fee. The creative use of hyphens opens up a lot of possibilities, and makes effective cybersquatting in that relation expensive.

So, no socialist intrusion necessary. But still: " Cybersquatters are parasites". They do not produce anything, they just raise the costs for others. Like real estate house flippers (who are now flipping out, 34% of Florida's foreclosures come from non-owner occupied houses).

[Veltliner]

More difficult is the problem of "vacuuming" web traffic away from busy sites.

Imagine you own a site called Bluecomputers.com. And someone comes and registers Blucomputers.com and Bluecomputer.com. With typos and memory errors it has been shown that sites lose traffic.

But that's now called web piracy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Don't forget, YouTube wasn't worth anything before someone set up the videosharing there.

That's right. And afterward, it was worth a lot. But it wouldn't be if domain names couldn't be sold for more than $50 or so.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Good idea!

No, bad idea. What defines a placeholder page ? This is too vague to be of any good.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

But it wouldn't be if domain names couldn't be sold for more than $50 or so.

I agree, let's put some socialist-communist controls in place to regulate the marketplace. Brilliant.

-t

[himself]

It wasn't the YouTube "domain" that was sold, it was the entire entity -- the company, the technology and everything else, including ownership of the domain and the webspace -- that was sold.

And setting a limit on the price someone could re-sell a domain for won't work, it's an artificial restriction. The domain could be listed as being limited to $50 by the registrar, but there is nothing stopping a squatter from taking an agreed upon $20,000 payoff from the buyer for the domain, that the registrar will never know about.

The idea of domains expiring after a period of non-use sounds like the best resolution, and even then it would be hard to distinguish between a truly inactive domain and an inactive domain that is dressed up to look like it's active. What criteria would determine whether it is inactive or not? Traffic? Last administrative login? Anonymous complaints? It would be extremely hard to manage.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's right. And afterward, it was worth a lot. But it wouldn't be if domain names couldn't be sold for more than $50 or so.

You would need to sell the actual business "YouTube". YouTube isn't just a web address. And if you sell the business, the address comes with it (as a trade mark).

Cybersquatters do not have any business for sale when they sell an address for thousands (if they find someone nutty enough buy it).

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

No, bad idea. What defines a placeholder page ? This is too vague to be of any good.

-t

It can be defined.

Look at this page.

f46.com: The Best Search Links on the Net

It only consists of links. I bet the person running this page has the exactly same page loaded up to a thousand different addresses.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by himself 

It wasn't the YouTube "domain" that was sold, it was the entire entity -- the company, the technology and everything else, including ownership of the domain and the webspace -- that was sold.

And setting a limit on the price someone could re-sell a domain for won't work, it's an artificial restriction. The domain could be listed as being limited to $50 by the registrar, but there is nothing stopping a squatter from taking an agreed upon $20,000 payoff from the buyer for the domain, that the registrar will never know about.

The idea of domains expiring after a period of non-use sounds like the best resolution, and even then it would be hard to distinguish between a truly inactive domain and an inactive domain that is dressed up to look like it's active. What criteria would determine whether it is inactive or not? Traffic? Last administrative login? Anonymous complaints? It would be extremely hard to manage.

You gave a good answer to your own question: it's about the business coming with the address, not about the address alone.

An address would be of value, if it was a trademark. A trademark needs to have a product or service come with it, or it is an empty shells. To sell an address alone is selling an empty shell.

Non-use of a domain could be defined as a page, that has no content, like the one I mentioned above. It has only links, and it is highly unlikely anybody would ever go to this page, as there's nothing there but links to other pages.

There are some addresses with the same no-content link display, but they are pirating on traffic intensive sites. Such a site is either a pirate site, or a cybersquatter site.

That could serve as an idea how to write rules.

I say rules, not socialist ruling in.

After all, America has seen that good rules increase the chance to develop a healthy business. If you study the times of the robber barons and railway empires, you will see that 50% of the nation's wealth was in the hands of 1% of the population.

Ask any economist, and he will tell you this is unhealthy for a healthy economy, where inventive individuals create new businesses after new ideas.

Same goes for the domain name trade (but it is, of course, far less damaging than the railway empire times)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

You would need to sell the actual business "YouTube". YouTube isn't just a web address. And if you sell the business, the address comes with it (as a trade mark).

Excellent. So like I said, sell the domain name for $50 as a bonus to somebody who buys my $10,000 pair of socks. If you're allowed to transfer a domain as part of a financial transaction, the maximum price for that transaction is the maximum price for the domain as well.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Non-use of a domain could be defined as a page, that has no content, like the one I mentioned above.

Even if we accept that this is legitimate grounds for taking away somebody's property (I don't agree, and lots of non-squatting sites are left blank for a spell), it's trivial to generate thousands of spam pages on a Web site. Seriously, you should read up on black-hat techniques before you declare that you've figured out how to beat them.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

It has only links, and it is highly unlikely anybody would ever go to this page, as there's nothing there but links to other pages.

So popular gateway sites like Dmoz would lose their domains under your proposal?