Definition of "Domain Squatter" from Reputation.com

[MeanerDomainer]

They used to be reputationdefender.com until fairly recently. They have apparently acquired reputation.com.

They have the following helpful definition:

Domain Squatter
The definition of domain squatter is one who purchases domain names with the intent to sell them later to individuals or companies for a profit. Domain squatters will buy an un-owned domain name hoping that a company or individual will later find it pertinent to their business or simply important to own. The domain squatter can then sell the URL for a profit.

Not sure if related to their discovery that reputation.com was taken and subsequent purchase of said name....:D

This is, of course, nothing new. I just find it interesting that they use this specific definition in spite of the fact that they should know perfectly well how things work.

Edit: And for the home-schooled crowd, I am not agreeing with or endorsing their definition.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

So, then, is a land owner who owns a tract of unimproved land (with the intention of selling or developing it later) called a "Land Squatter"?

Interesting perception held by reputation dawt com.

I would think that a true land squatter would be someone who pitches a tent on someone else's land.

*

 

[DU]

*

So, then, is a land owner who owns a tract of unimproved land (with the intention of selling or developing it later) called a "Land Squatter"?

Interesting perception held by reputation dawt com.

I would think that a true land squatter would be someone who pitches a tent on someone else's land.

*

Analogies between domains and real-estate/property don't always hold up.

As far as I am aware, the term domain squatting has been used since inception to refer to people that hold a domain without any intention of developing and as a method to gain payment from someone who wants it.

I don't know why domainers get so defensive. Nowhere in the definition does it say ILLEGAL or WRONG. To many people it IS unethical.

All that changed was the ACPA tried to re-define the word to fit into criminal law so domainers hang to that saying "I'm no a squatter I am an investor"... often pointing out that "Windows" and "PlayStation" and "Blackberry" are generic..

Investing? Squatting?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

 

[nowhammies]

Squatting implies an act where the individual is using the property of another. Domain squatter makes sense only in the context of trademarked names, and then only clearly trademarked names. Like CocaCola.com, that would be squatting IMO. Buying a generic term with no clear TM attached is not domain squatting by any stretch of the imagination. It's pretty poor research on reputation - dt - com's part.

 

[exsedo]

From domaintools whois:-

Reputation.com, inc owns about 721 other domains.

They either have a massive amount of developed sites or its a case of the Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[DU]

Buying a generic term with no clear TM attached is not domain squatting by any stretch of the imagination. It's pretty poor research on reputation - dt - com's part.

Unfortunately you need to stretch your imagination a little to match that of IP Lawyers, UDRP panelists...etc

From domaintools whois:-

Reputation.com, inc owns about 721 other domains.

They either have a massive amount of developed sites or its a case of the Pot calling the kettle black.

They called themselves a domain squatter. It's a case of the Pot calling themselves a Pot. They didn't mention a kettle

 

[DomainOutlaw]

Lol, I like how the assume that internet real-estate is saved for only those who need it at any given time.

 

[Kate]

They used to be reputationdefender.com until fairly recently. They have apparently acquired reputation.com.

They bought from a squatter huh ? :hi:

 

[enlytend]

Before anyone gets all upset about this, consider the source .

 

[DU]

They bought from a squatter huh ? :hi:

Probably.

 

[alien51]

Domain Squatter
The definition of domain squatter is one who purchases domain names with the intent to sell them later to individuals or companies for a profit. Domain squatters will buy an un-owned domain name hoping that a company or individual will later find it pertinent to their business or simply important to own. The domain squatter can then sell the URL for a profit.

If that is the definition, then I don't see anything wrong or immoral with that practice. The definition above did say "un-owned" domain name. So if the domain is "un-owned", it "can" mean that nobody is interested in it. So why would it be immoral to buy something that nobody wants, then fear that someone else in the future might think it would be a nice name for his own business????

I think when the term domain "squatter" was invented, they were really referring to DOMAIN SCALPERS.

A "scalper" is someone who EXPLOITS an existing demand using unfair advantage by being the first one to grab the merchandise with no real intention of consuming it, but simply holding the merchandise hostage and asking RANSOM MONEY from the real people who have legitimate use for the merchandise.

SCALPING always has malicious intent involved for profit.

But the keyword here is "intent". If people know your motives, then malicious activity can be speculated. So for domainers to avoid being accused of being a domain scalper, you probably have to lie to people about your intentions, and put some kind of "front" to make it look like you are going to "develop" the domain, then simply say you later cancelled the idea when somebody came up and offered you money to buy you out.

 

[DU]

Squatting, Scalping, Domaining, Investing, its all the same, really.

For fun, a poem:

"“You are sad,” the Knight said in an anxious tone: “Let me sing you a song to comfort you.”

“Is it very long?” Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.

“It's long,” said the Knight, “but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it - either it brings the tears to their eyes, or else -”

“Or else what?” said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

“Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’”

“Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

“No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That's what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”

“Then I ought to have said ‘That's what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.

“No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways And Means’: but that's only what it's called, you know!”

“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’: and the tune's my own invention.”

 

[Ben42]

Domain Squatter still sounds better to me than Cyber Squatter.

 

[MeanerDomainer]

Domain Squatter still sounds better to me than Cyber Squatter.

Perhaps it does sound a bit better, but maybe only because you have not heard it used as many times in a negative context. Either way, neither is good because of the word "squatter".

Squatter/squatting implies using/occupying something belonging to someone else wihtout the permission of the righful property owner.

Such inaccurate "definitions" are not helpful for the image of domaining.

 

[nowhammies]

Perhaps it does sound a bit better, but maybe only because you have not heard it used as many times in a negative context. Either way, neither is good because of the word "squatter".

Squatter/squatting implies using/occupying something belonging to someone else wihtout the permission of the righful property owner.

Such inaccurate "definitions" are not helpful for the image of domaining.

Exactly right. Their definition is incorrect.

 

[Dave_Z]

I don't know why domainers get so defensive.

Ah, it's the negative connotation or meaning attached to the word squatter. It isn't exactly a positive word just from the definition itself, and surely lots of people want to stay away it.

If the original definition of squatter were followed and maybe thought about, how can one "squat" something another person or entity doesn't own? It's a bit more applicable to intellectual property like trademarks, of course.

If we're to follow along those lines, anyway, which some IP lawyers, UDRP panelists, etc. perhaps unfortunately don't and tend to stretch things further as implied. It happens.

Anyway, there's really no ultimate source that everyone follows. Just depends what can be agreed upon...or not.

 

[lincolndsp]

yes, it's kind of unplesant to hear that but who cares.

if you own a valuable domain the right buyer who understands its value will come and appreciate its value and possibly buy it regardless of what pissed off crowd says.

 

[exsedo]

It's rather sad that someone has enough intelligence to buy a domain name, put up a website on it, and then host a stupid article like that.

With that kind of reasoning, virtually anyone who owns anything is a squatter.

 

[enlytend]

It's how some people see the industry - old story, we've gone there before.

I guess "Joe Public" might be influenced by it, but "Joe Public" is visiting that site because they heard a commercial and want to empty their checkbook in a futile attempt to bury a couple of bad Yelp reviews, not to read something buried in the site's glossary. Seriously: Who reads the glossary?

This thread is just going to make the statement more visible in the search engines - they'll be secretly thanking us for the backlink.

 

[the_poet]

Long live ignorance!