Autism.rocks sold for 100,000 at SEDO.

Any moral issue here or no? $100K.

mind blowing is right...wonder if the person who bought it, knows anything about it?
I'll just leave it at that!

sofiapartner said:

Any moral issue here or no? $100K.

Click to expand...

I don't believe in selling those kind of names. They should be owned by those who intend on doing good.

Hello,

Seems to have been sold to one autism charity to another one. Maybe it (at least partly) can be considered as a donation??!

kohsamui said:

Hello,

Seems to have been sold to one autism charity to another one. Maybe it (at least partly) can be considered as a donation??!

Click to expand...

It's extortion not a donation.

Shane Bellone said:

It's extortion not a donation.

Click to expand...

Thanks... I'm Swedish, I don't know such fancy english words

agreed.

That's an extremely nice sale for a .ROCKS domain. The buyer obviously had the disposable income and wanted this specific domain--most charities would have probably settled for something cheaper. I'm interested to see what they do with it.

RJ said:

That's an extremely nice sale for a .ROCKS domain. The buyer obviously had the disposable income and wanted this specific domain--most charities would have probably settled for something cheaper. I'm interested to see what they do with it.

Click to expand...

The .com owner basically bought their own name - http://autismrocks.com/

Might just redirect it to the .com.

At first the name didn't make much sense to me, disorder + rocks but checking the site and you can see what they're doing with it.

Don't think it says much about .rocks, if their name was AutismToday.com, then they would have gotten Autism.Today

domaininvesting.com/autism-rocks-seller-comments-on-100k-sale/
thedomains.com/2015/06/23/autism-rocks-sells-for-10x-more-than-the-com-did-last-year-sedo-sucks/

Shane Bellone said:

I don't believe in selling those kind of names. They should be owned by those who intend on doing good.

Click to expand...

You don't believe in selling high value keywords? The extension sucks but still...

And how about that Ebola.com sale? Blue string should've gifted it

Keith said:

You don't believe in selling high value keywords? The extension sucks but still...

And how about that Ebola.com sale? Blue string should've gifted it

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it should be illegal. I'm saying it's against my values. Plain and simple.

Shane Bellone said:

I'm not saying it should be illegal. I'm saying it's against my values. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

What values though?

We own donations.com. Should we reject an offer from Red Cross?

Keith said:

What values though?

We own donations.com. Should we reject an offer from Red Cross?

Click to expand...

We obviously don't share the same moral principles. No reason to argue over it. You do you and I'll do me.

Shane Bellone said:

We obviously don't share the same moral principles. No reason to argue over it. You do you and I'll do me.

Click to expand...

I'm asking you why it's immoral in any way to buy a one word generic domain and sell it? Isn't that what domaining is all about?

There is no TM infringement here or cyber squatting. If you're going to publicly state that you're somehow better than the seller of this domain, please share why. This sale is no different than Rick and co selling meet.me to meetme.com for $450k. Tell us and them why it's immoral!

Guy is worth 94 million - http://economia.icaew.com/news/september-2014/accountancy-rich-list-75-50

He'll be alright.

Shane Bellone said:

We obviously don't share the same moral principles. No reason to argue over it. You do you and I'll do me.

Click to expand...

Is it charity/cause that you have a problem with in general? Or charity/cause with a specific name, in this case, them buying their own name from somebody else? Or just general issues with selling somebody their own name. In another thread I mentioned some of that and you replied with:

"God, those filthy endusers! We don't want any of those around these parts..."

So I'm guessing it's just the charity/cause stuff?

Generally I'm fine with it. I've sold some fight + disease names, like Fight Diabetes. It would be nice for it to be an enduser to do something with. I wouldn't get names of cause company names, tms etc, that I have a problem with.

Keith said:

I'm asking you why it's immoral in any way to buy a one word generic domain and sell it? Isn't that what domaining is all about?

There is no TM infringement here or cyber squatting. If you're going to publicly state that you're somehow better than the seller of this domain, please share why. This sale is no different than Rick and co selling meet.me to meetme.com for $450k. Tell us and them why it's immoral!

Click to expand...

JB Lions said:

Guy is worth 94 million - http://economia.icaew.com/news/september-2014/accountancy-rich-list-75-50

He'll be alright.



Is it charity/cause that you have a problem with in general? Or charity/cause with a specific name, in this case, them buying their own name from somebody else? Or just general issues with selling somebody their own name. In another thread I mentioned some of that and you replied with:

"God, those filthy endusers! We don't want any of those around these parts..."

So I'm guessing it's just the charity stuff?

Click to expand...

Yes, I have a problem with people selling charity/cause domains. In my opinion, people should not profit at the expense of others. Plain and simple.

Shane Bellone said:

Yes, I have a problem with people selling charity/cause domains. In my opinion, people should not profit at the expense of others. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Selling ToyMax.com to Toy Max is not that? And a lot of cause/charities do exactly that. In affiliate marketing the charity/cause angle was the one most rife with adware. They were happy with stealing from other affiliates. You would have to check out each company you're selling it to.

Keith said:

There is no TM infringement here or cyber squatting.

Click to expand...

In this case, they might have known about Austism Rocks. I'm sure cause type groups are aware of other cause groups in the same category and their idea was the same of the company they sold it too, I'm not sure if that's a coincidence.

JB Lions said:

Selling ToyMax.com to Toy Max is not that?

Click to expand...

You have to draw the line somewhere.

JB Lions said:

Selling ToyMax.com to Toy Max is not that? And a lot of cause/charities do exactly that. In affiliate marketing the charity/cause angle was the one most rife with adware.



In this case, they might have known about Austism Rocks. I'm sure cause type groups are aware of other cause groups in the same category and their idea was the same of the company they sold it too, I'm not sure if that's a coincidence.

Click to expand...

So any 2 word .com that ends in "rocks" is entitled to own whatever.rocks? It doesn't work that way but it's a great reason why these new extensions are BS.

Shane Bellone said:

Yes, I have a problem with people selling charity/cause domains. In my opinion, people should not profit at the expense of others. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Domaining is all about profiting at the expense of others. In fact, that's what business is all about. Next time you buy food think of the statement you just made.

Keith said:

So any 2 word .com that ends in "rocks" is entitled to own whatever.rocks? It doesn't work that way but it's a great reason why these new extensions are BS.

Click to expand...

I never mentioned entitled, I said it's not out of the realm they bought the name knowing another autism charity was using it already.

You said it wasn't cybersquatting

"Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet address--usually a company name--with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner."

The only way we would know if it was or not, is to know the intention of the purchase.

JB Lions said:

I never mentioned entitled, I said it's not out of the realm they bought the name knowing another autism charity was using it already.

You said it wasn't cybersquatting
"Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet address--usually a company name--with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner."

Click to expand...

Where was the outrage when meet.me was sold to meetme.com? Owning a .com even if it's a legit business does not give you rights to your generic equivalent in all extensions.

Keith said:

Where was the outrage when meet.me was sold to meetme.com? Owning a .com even if it's a legit business does not give you rights to your generic equivalent in all extensions.

Click to expand...

The 2 words on their own are generic, the phrase not so much. I've never heard anybody say Autism Rocks in my life until I read about the story. It usually sucks, not rocks.

JB Lions said:

The 2 words on their own are generic, the phrase not so much.

Click to expand...

You really can't cross the dot. Once you do that it's open season for all kinds of infringements. So autismrocks.com is just that. They are not the generic word "autism" plus extension .rocks.