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/

 

[JB Lions]

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.

Try the other way around. You think it was some coincidence they bought that name? Of all the names somebody could register, and they already had their own business name, they get the name of another autism charity, by accident? And in a new gtld at that?

 

[Keith]

Try the other way around. You think it was some coincidence they bought that name? Of all the names somebody could register, and they already had their own business name, they get the name of another autism charity, by accident?

You may want to start searching keyword rocks.com. Then search the first keyword.rocks. Now should all those .com owners be awarded the .rocks? That's the rub with having hundreds of extensions. Operating as a charity affords you no more rights than a hard working domainer.

 

[Jasonn]

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/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.

i stay away from disease names. it just gives me a bad feeling.

 

[Keith]

i stay away from disease names. it just gives me a bad feeling.

So you don't want cancer.org for $xxx...

 

[Jasonn]

So you don't want cancer.org for $xxx...

i can't feel right making bank off cancer.

 

[Keith]

i can't feel right making bank off cancer.

So you don't sell to endusers?

I assume you have no problem selling a domain to a legitimate user, but if that user wants it to use it for fundraising or a noble cause you turn a cheek?

Truth is, generic keywords are in demand, no matter the extension. This is just how this game works.

 

[FPForum]

So you don't sell to endusers?

I assume you have no problem selling a domain to a legitimate user, but if that user wants it to use it for fundraising or a noble cause you turn a cheek?

Truth is, generic keywords are in demand, no matter the extension. This is just how this game works.

He said he wouldn't feel right banking off of it. That doesn't mean he would just turn a cheek..maybe he would give it to them as a kind gesture or write it off as a donation and get some tax credit for it to cover the honest sales made throughout the year.. If I owned a domain like Cancer.org and could have proof the name was going to the American Cancer Association, then I might do that knowing I'm contributing to a good cause and the person taking over the name is going to do something real with it.. Not to mention, the possible press coverage you could get by making such a gesture (this is what the guy with the CaitlynJenner domain did)

I guess some people are more greedy than others and will try to make a dime off anything they can, even if it means taking money from people who are running a charity. Don't get me wrong, some charities are just as bad as some domainers and take most of the money they get donated for themselves. That's why some obvious back checking and verifying would need to be done. Just remember, you can't take that money with you once you head for the promise land. Morals, Greed, and other factors always come into play in this type of situation. Some people won't mess with these types of names because they believe it's morally wrong (or they don't karma coming back and biting them in the butt) and others will have no morals and think nothing is wrong with it. Depending on your beliefs, you may want to pray for those people.

 

[Keith]

He said he wouldn't feel right banking off of it. That doesn't mean he would just turn a cheek..maybe he would give it to them as a kind gesture or write it off as a donation and get some tax credit for it to cover the honest sales made throughout the year.. If I owned a domain like Cancer.org and could have proof the name was going to the American Cancer Association, then I might do that knowing I'm contributing to a good cause and the person taking over the name is going to do something real with it.. Not to mention, the possible press coverage you could get by making such a gesture (this is what the guy with the CaitlynJenner domain did)

I guess some people are more greedy than others and will try to make a dime off anything they can, even if it means taking money from people who are running a charity. Don't get me wrong, some charities are just as bad as some domainers and take most of the money they get donated for themselves. That's why some obvious back checking and verifying would need to be done. Just remember, you can't take that money with you once you head for the promise land. Morals, Greed, and other factors always come into play in this type of situation. Some people won't mess with these types of names because they believe it's morally wrong (or they don't karma coming back and biting them in the butt) and others will have no morals and think nothing is wrong with it. Depending on your beliefs, you may want to pray for those people.

I want aids.com because I can do positive things with it. It's parked so the owner should do the right thing and sell to me for my budget, $100. Wrong!

Now substitute "aids" for keyword and ".com" for .whatever. Good can come of any domain but that doesn't give specific individuals or companies grandfathered rights.

 

[S-B]

I guess some people are more greedy than others and will try to make a dime off anything they can, even if it means taking money from people who are running a charity.

Some people won't mess with these types of names because they believe it's morally wrong (or they don't karma coming back and biting them in the butt) and others will have no morals and think nothing is wrong with it.

+1

 

[Keith]

+1

But you can't verbalize your position.

The seller sold a generic domain to an enduser. The category of domain is irrelevant. If you're against this sala then you're against profiting from buying and selling of all domains.

 

[JB Lions]

But you can't verbalize your position.

The seller sold a generic domain to an enduser. The category of domain is irrelevant. If you're against this sala then you're against profiting from buying and selling of all domains.

Not generic if you're talking about the subject of this thread.

 

[Keith]

Not generic.

"Autism" isn't generic? After the dot is irrelevant.

 

[JB Lions]

"Autism" isn't generic? After the dot is irrelevant.

Autism Rocks isn't. Let me give you another example, coupon sites.

Fatwallet.com big coupon site. The words Coupon and Cabin are generic by themselves. CouponCabin.com is a well known coupon code site.

If Fatwallet.com bought Coupon.Cabin and sold it to them, they bought the name by mistake? Or did they buy it with a specific enduser in mind?

"After the dot is irrelevant."

And that's such a ridiculous statement. Like I said earlier, if their name was Autism Today, they wouldn't have bought Autism Rocks. It's completely relevant with these new extensions, it's not neutral like a .com is.

 

[Keith]

I'm off to bed.

Clearly autismrocks.com with their almost $100 million budget, as JB pointed out, knew it was wrong to spend $1000 at an attempted reverse domain hijacking. That should speak volumes about what's really the right way to operate when doing business

 

[FPForum]

I want aids.com because I can do positive things with it. It's parked so the owner should do the right thing and sell to me for my budget, $100. Wrong!

Now substitute "aids" for keyword and ".com" for .whatever. Good can come of any domain but that doesn't give specific individuals or companies grandfathered rights.

You're not a charity, and certainly not one that could be verified. Therefor, if I owned that domain then I certainly wouldn't be giving it to you. On the other hand, If you were a verified aids charity and I could sell it to you for what I paid for it and write that off, that might be a different story. Aids isn't the best example though because it's not only a disease, the term 'aids' is actually used for a number of things (unlike the Cancer example you gave earlier)

Charities are not companies. You're comparing apples to oranges there. In fact, the category of the domain is EXTREMELY relevant, especially when you're comparing companies to organizations..lol

 

[JB Lions]

I'm off to bed.

Clearly autismrocks.com with their almost $100 million budget, as JB pointed out, knew it was wrong to spend $1000 at an attempted reverse domain hijacking. That should speak volumes about what's really the right way to operate when doing business

You're talking about a company that didn't even know how Sedo works. Not everybody knows domaining and stuff like reverse domain hijacking.

 

[Keith]

Autism Rocks isn't. Let me give you another example, coupon sites.

Fatwallet.com big coupon site. The words Coupon and Cabin are generic by themselves. CouponCabin.com is a well known coupon code site.

If Fatwallet.com bought Coupon.Cabin and sold it to them, they bought the name by mistake? Or did they buy it with a specific enduser in mind?

"After the dot is irrelevant."

And that's such a ridiculous statement. Like I said earlier, if their name was Autism Today, they wouldn't have bought Autism Rocks. It's completely relevant with these new extensions, it's not neutral like a .com is.

Now your you're taking a direct competitor and mixing them in to try to justify your position. Surely you being as smart as you are realize the poor angle you're taking.

 

[JB Lions]

Now your you're taking a direct competitor and mixing them in to try to justify your position. Surely you being as smart as you are realize the poor angle you're taking.

My point makes sense, feel free to take it apart. So causes in the same vertical aren't competitors? Is the keyword autism not available in many new extensions, most likely cheaper than 100K?

 

[Keith]

You're not a charity, and certainly not one that could be verified. Therefor, if I owned that domain then I certainly wouldn't be giving it to you. On the other hand, If you were a verified aids charity and I could sell it to you for what I paid for it and write that off, that might be a different story. Aids isn't the best example though because it's not only a disease (unlike the Cancer example you gave earlier)

Charities are not companies. You're comparing apples to oranges there. In fact, the category of the domain is EXTREMELY relevant, especially when you're comparing companies to organizations..lol

Charities are not companies? Oh lord...

 

[Keith]

My point makes sense, feel free to take it apart.

I took it apart.

You're acting as if the seller of autism.rocks operates an existing charity that competes with autismrocks.com. That's on par with the example you gave. It's simply not the case here, unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[JB Lions]

I took it apart.

You're acting as if the seller of autism.rocks operates an existing charity that competes with autismrocks.com. That's on par with the example you gave. It's simply not the case here, unless you can prove otherwise.

This isn't a competitor to you werockforautism.org/ ?

 

[FPForum]

Charities are not companies? Oh lord...

Most charities aren't. Although, as I mentioned in my post above, some charities are just as crooked as some domainers (the same could even be said about churches. You probably think those are all businesses too, huh?). In fact, according to a 2012 study I had read, the average compensation for a small-medium charity CEO in 2012 was barely over $100k (large charities were a little over $200k). Certainly nothing close to what CEO's for COMPANIES earn each year. So yes, there is definitely a difference there. Lots of people who work in the oil fields make more than $100k/yr, and they are nowhere near the CEO level.

I think it's time you went to bed, lol.

 

[Keith]

This isn't a competitor to you werockforautism.org/ ?

If that's the seller of autism.rocks then that cements it even more. 2 orgs operating under similar names. This transaction is simply business as usual. And if it's a shady transaction or poor business, one of these operational websites should be suing the other for exclusive naming rights. Not happening right?!

 

[JB Lions]

If that's the seller of autism.rocks then that cements it even more. 2 orgs operating under similar names. This transaction is simply business as usual. And if it's a shady transaction or poor business, one of these operational websites should be suing the other for exclusive naming rights. Not happening right?!

It is, it's mentioned on the blog linked in the first post of this thread.

I also said: "The only way we would know if it was or not, is to know the intention of the purchase."

So there is no way to know that. Not sure why they would buy it to build out when they have an existing site on a .org and building it out would just cause confusion with the .com.

I'm sure they're both happy with the sale.

 

[frostify]

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

I agree with you on that one. It should be given (by the registry) to a charitable foundation or something along those lines IMO.