Autism.rocks sold for 100,000 at SEDO.

[Fancy.domains]

Hello,

The domain Autism.rocks was recently sold at SEDO for a mind-blowing $100,000.

Read more here: http://domainnamewire.com/2015/06/23/whoa-autism-rocks-sells-for-100000/

 

[sofiapartner]

Any moral issue here or no? $100K.

 

[mis_chiff]

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

 

[S-B]

Any moral issue here or no? $100K.

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

 

[Fancy.domains]

Hello,

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

 

[S-B]

Hello,

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

It's extortion not a donation.

 

[Fancy.domains]

It's extortion not a donation.

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

 

[Jasonn]

agreed.

 

[RJ]

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.

 

[JB Lions]

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.

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

 

[RU]

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/

 

[Keith]

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

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

 

[S-B]

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

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

 

[Keith]

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

What values though?

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

 

[S-B]

What values though?

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

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

 

[Keith]

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

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!

 

[JB Lions]

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

He'll be alright.

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

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.

 

[S-B]

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.



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?

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.

 

[JB Lions]

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.

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.

There is no TM infringement here or cyber squatting.

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.

 

[S-B]

Selling ToyMax.com to Toy Max is not that?

You have to draw the line somewhere.