discuss If Domain Investors are Squatters Then Domain Registrars Are the Biggest Ones of All

TCK · May 15, 2019

This article is not about bashing domain investors or domain registrars. Rather it is about setting misconceptions straight and putting things in perspective.

What motivated this piece is an article on the Forbes website that was reported on by TheDomains. It was about a “leadership strategist” and writer who was starting a new consulting business.

Read the entire piece here

It was written with the end-user as the target audience. What are your thoughts?

JayT · May 17, 2019

Anyone that says ALL domainers are squatters is the type to think govt. should / would allow tax on air...it's really that misguided.

Eagle578 · May 18, 2019

Jv1999 said:
We are squatters, and glorifying what we do doesn't change that fact.

You can see it everyday, like someone grabbing a deleted .com like WhiteFencesAreGreat.com and then asking an end user to buy it for way higher the very next hour

I think if it were legal to capture air on earth, domainers would try to grab all the air and sell it to people to breathe... sure you can call it "capitalism" or the tragedy of the commons... But that doesn't make it right.

Like air, an obscure domain like WhiteFencesAreGreat.com would have been available for that one end user who was going to use it when the time came for him to search for it. But a domainer happened instead.

The dictionary definition of a squatter is the following:

"A person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building or unused land."

So, strictly speaking, the only squatters in the domain world would be those who succeed in stealing a domain, or acquiring a domain which has been stolen from someone. I'm not talking about catching a dropped domain, I mean illegally acquiring or buying an illegally held domain. That is wrong on any grounds, and most sensible people would put a stop to it if it is in their power to do so.

However, as @JayT mentioned, there is a category of people who would register or buy a domain which they know a person, company, etc. will want to buy very shortly, in order to sell it to them for a high profit margin once they do. Depending on the situation, that may be considered as morally wrong, and could be termed as squatting for that reason.

You are probably very familiar with it, but it's for the very reason above that many court cases are fought over domain names - i.e. domain owners being sued for assuming ownership of (or using) domains which infringe on copyright or trademark boundaries.

One of the key rules by which the courts determine their decision is... Was it acquired and used in good faith, or not?

If you want to have an interesting read about past domain lawsuits involving celebrities, search "Top five legal battles over celebrity domains." It will come up with a link to an article on Sedo's website.

JayT · May 18, 2019

On a similar topic, squatters should be held accountable a little more than they are...It's just hard to go after someone with nothing, or from anywhere in the world.

There are some very successful domainers that are some of the biggest squatters of all, and no1 barely ever calls them out.

Jv1999 · May 18, 2019

Eagle578 said:
The dictionary definition of a squatter is the following:

"A person who unlawfully occupies an uninhabited building or unused land."

So, strictly speaking, the only squatters in the domain world would be those who succeed in stealing a domain, or acquiring a domain which has been stolen from someone. I'm not talking about catching a dropped domain, I mean illegally acquiring or buying an illegally held domain. That is wrong on any grounds, and most sensible people would put a stop to it if it is in their power to do so.

However, as @JayT mentioned, there is a category of people who would register or buy a domain which they know a person, company, etc. will want to buy very shortly, in order to sell it to them for a high profit margin once they do. That is, in my humble opinion, morally wrong, and could be termed as squatting for that reason.

You are probably very familiar with it, but it's for the very reason above that many court cases are fought over domain names - i.e. domain owners being sued for assuming ownership of domains which infringe on copyright or trademark boundaries.

One of the key rules by which the courts determine their decision is... Was it acquired and used in good faith, or not?

If you want to have an interesting read about past domain lawsuits involving celebrities, search "Top five legal battles over celebrity domains."

It's not about what's legal or not. Just as many here believe sending any kind of outbound is "spam," even though it's not... same can be said about squatting.

Doesn't matter if it's legal, what matters is what most people consider it or feel it is.

For example, in U.S. gas stations, you'll often see the gas price "x.57" or "2.57" but there are two extra columns after the "7" that are superscripted and smaller that say "99." That means they're actually charging $2.5799 per galon, which is basically $2.58. Gas stations often compete over each other for lowest priced gas, so that 1 cent makes a big difference.

You wouldn't see the "99" unless you actually drove into the gas station. But the "lower" price attracts people in.

Lots of people say such pricing is "misrepresentation" / "false advertising" / "misleading." But the legal definition of advertising misrepresentation is when you omit or add a "material fact." And this wouldn't count as that because you can clearly see the "99" if you drive in...

So just like that.

Eagle578 · May 18, 2019

Jv1999 said:
It's not about what's legal or not. Just as many here believe sending any kind of outbound is "spam," even though it's not... same can be said about squatting.

Doesn't matter if it's legal, what matters is what most people consider it or feel it is.

For example, in U.S. gas stations, you'll often see the gas price "x.57" or "2.57" but there are two extra columns after the "7" that are superscripted and smaller that say "99." That means they're actually charging $2.5799 per galon, which is basically $2.58. Gas stations often compete over each other for lowest priced gas, so that 1 cent makes a big difference.

You wouldn't see the "99" unless you actually drove into the gas station. But the "lower" price attracts people in.

Lots of people say such pricing is "misrepresentation" / "false advertising" / "misleading." But the legal definition of advertising misrepresentation is when you omit or add a "material fact." And this wouldn't count as that because you can clearly see the "99" if you drive in...

So just like that.

My friend, if you say that we cannot base our viewpoints on the foundational meaning of words, then that makes the whole discussion moot. Not only that, but English as a whole has lost its meaning.

The point that both of us are actually getting at is exactly what I said before - that the term "squatter" or "cybersquatter" is mainly applicable on moral grounds. Where we see fit to place the boundary is the difference. But, that should still come back to what the term means as per definition - otherwise we are saying that we disregard meaning and define ourselves by feelings instead... Which being the case, places us in a whirlpool of opinions, as what one person considers wrong isn't considered wrong by another.

Overall, I believe domaining (when done within the boundaries which I mentioned in my previous post) is as legitimate a business as buying and selling property or goods are. The only difference is that property as a free resource ceased a long time ago... But domains, very recently, and still in the process.

JayT · May 18, 2019

Me? I think we're getting too mixed up in semantics. If they register before with inside info, or after, trademark or not, I think it's all squatting. Sure we can break it down, i just don't see a reason, as their intent and method is all the same. Like you even said, it's really comes down to intent and even morals. Some don't even know it's wrong. I just said, some domainers are clearly registering domains with trademark etc. Again, some do this habitually, and for a long time. I call them squatters, you can call it whatever.

I am not trying to say most domainers do this, but there are some that get away with it. Them getting away with it gives these other people calling us ALL squatters something to work with.

NameLlama · May 18, 2019

All youd need is to look aat the REPORTED SALES sections
https://www.namepros.com/threads/report-completed-domain-name-sales-here.83628/page-711#post-7237729
Name like Musicfunnel, BetCash.co, AIBotz.com, and such
https://www.namepros.com/threads/report-completed-domain-name-sales-here.83628/page-710
Name like Outlierbeauty, Astralfreight, EthosMarketing, ignyte.co, Variance.app
Tell me domainers not just sitting on domain for one guy buyer??

NameLlama · May 18, 2019

Jv1999 said:
Like air, an obscure domain like WhiteFencesAreGreat.com would have been available for that one end user who was going to use it when the time came for him to search for it. But a domainer happened instead.

Really nailing it there,

Eagle578 · May 18, 2019

NameLlama said:
Tell me domainers not just sitting on domain for one guy buyer??

Absolutely, it does happen, and I would agree that it could be termed as squatting.

Grego85 · May 20, 2019

Say what you want about the new gtlds. At least those registries don't view their customers as squatters.

If its fair to say a certain tld will go under and stop operating (as absurd as that is)
then it is fair to say that .com investors may have worse problems down the road.

Hell, you could even say that what the registry says goes (they control the extension), in that case, .com investors ARE cyber squatters. Some future you have going there.

TCK · May 21, 2019

Grego85 said:
Hell, you could even say that what the registry says goes (they control the extension), in that case, .com investors ARE cyber squatters. Some future you have going there.

Do you think that by the same token the domain registrars are squatters? Or do they participate in the domain aftermarket ethically and legitimately?

Grego85 · May 21, 2019

TCK said:
Do you think that by the same token the domain registrars are squatters? Or do they participate in the domain aftermarket ethically and legitimately?

Only when they auction off expired domains as pre-release. I don't believe registrars should be able to do that. Expired domains should have to go through the drop process. That is actually legit squatting IMO.

TCK · May 21, 2019

Grego85 said:
That is actually legit squatting IMO.

Interesting. What is your definition of 'squatting'?

Grego85 · May 21, 2019

^ selling off a domain they don't legitimately own. They were used as a registar to register a domain, when that registration lapses, it should go through the drop process. Why should they have a right to auction off that asset that they really never owned, just because they were the registrar used in the first place. It might not be the exact definition of squatting, but pretty close. At least domainers actually purchase the domain legitimately and actually own it.

And I'm aware that the registrar has to renew the domain after expiration to satisfy the grace period, but that rule in no way was meant to allow the registrars to auction off free assets. The domain was first paid for by the user, and the registrar is reimbursed if the domain gets through the grace period. No risk for them, just free money. Its not right. AND it weakens true competition amongst domainers.

Eagle578 · May 21, 2019

Does a domain not go through the drop process anyway, and the bidding is just based on the assumption that the registrar will catch the domain? Or do they somehow still retain control of the domain, even when it has slipped through the previous owner's hands?

Grego85 · May 21, 2019

^ Godaddy makes a fortune just auctioning off expired domains that they don't even legitimately own.

repairmate · Sep 14, 2022

JayT said:
Someone can register iphonerepair.com and some will view them as a squatter, others not. (they are squatting in case you don't read the rest...)

Apple certainly will, we saw they didn't even want individuals repairing iphones, but they lost that battle.

Still, apple owns the rights to 'iphone'. iphonerepair.com might be the best repair shop ever, working for almost nothing, and fixing iphones. By doing so, barely hurting apple. iphonerepair.com in effect would be working to the benefit of the majority.

Apple would like people to just buy a new phone, or repair at their store for a high premium. That's not how free markets and capitalism works tho.

So while in effect the intent and results of owning iphonerepair.com are for the greater good, a necessarily solution, you just can't brand with their name. iphonerepair.com will lose any battle.

Still, a lot of what people call 'squatting' are domainers owning BEFORE the existence of company, and these people are wrong too, perhaps MORE in the wrong than a real squatter! That's the frustrating part - their entitlement and outspokenness (as we see in article). I will even call a lot of it FAKE NEWS, and a bigger threat than people realize.

So here we have the problem of a very few cases (true squatting) giving some people (like article author) some grounds to call all domains squatters. Even people here on the forum struggle figuring out if they're squatting or not. If you THINK you might be squatter, you are :p

repairmate australia

satsdifference.com · Sep 15, 2022

it was available!

time to say it.
wipeout WIPO
national.

discuss If Domain Investors are Squatters Then Domain Registrars Are the Biggest Ones of All

Top Member

Restricted (85-100%)

Established Member

Restricted (85-100%)

Hopeless Fighter: Desolate Knight of Exo TowersTop Member

Established Member

Restricted (85-100%)

Account Closed (Disallowed)

Account Closed (Disallowed)

Established Member

Sweet.DomainsTop Member

Top Member

Sweet.DomainsTop Member

Top Member

Sweet.DomainsTop Member

Established Member

Sweet.DomainsTop Member

New Member

Love God Love LifeRestricted (85-100%)

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement