Dreamhost calls domainers "squatters"

[silentg]

I just received the monthly dreamhost newsletter and Brett from Dreamhost calls domainers as squatters. They recently added cctlds to their registration list and to promote it he is dissing us.

Quote from newsletter

If you've tried to register one lately, you've probably come to realize what everyone else has known for the last five years: All the good .coms are taken.

Notice I said "taken" and not "in use". That's because domain squatters buy up what can be had for $9.95/year (or less in some cases) and just hang on to them indefinitely, hoping that someone will come along and offer to buy a domain from them later for hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

 

[DU]

This is the old hashed out many times, there two views of the definition of domain squatter. One would be someone owning a name they dont have a legal right to own. The other is more general, owning a domain just to flip it in the future. It would be nice if people just used it as the first type, but nothing will make both these two views go away. Yes this newsletter knows better, my guess is they think its a word the common folk understands, and sounds cool to use.

Squatters, I mean domainers/investors, want "investor" or "domainer" to be used

The Press wants "squatter" because it's COOLER.

If these don't work and we can't agree may I suggest the end user version:

Pond Scum

There. Problem solved.

Hands up if you're trying to "guess" the next big thing/trademarkable term?
Hey you, yes YOU... don't be shy... join in. You know you are! Yay! It's a party! Don't be left out!!

Of course, I'm not talking about you reading this.. just everyone ELSE. God, don't you feel this industry is filled with just a few bad eggs that RUIN it for ALL OF US? I mean.. we're just trying to earn a buck - I hate those squatters... where's the integrity?

:bah:

 

[alien51]

To be quite honest, i do think this whole 'business model' of domain flipping is really quite sad.

No matter how much we twist the semantics, the truth remains that simply grabbing something then reselling it at an inflated price to someone who wasn't quick enough to get it in the first place or someone who badly needs it -- is an exploitive business model that doesn't really create genuine value. A domain you own is said to be "valuable" only because so many people want to have it. And not because you actually created something with that domain that serves some valuable purpose in real life.

In short, domains become valuable because of supply and demand. And not because you made it useful as it is.

It's no different from a ticket scalper. You buy all the front seats on a ballgame or concert, but you really don't have any plans of watching. You are just keeping the tickets hoping to resell it to a desperate fan. The more desperate he is, the higher is your asking price.

I'm not trying to be judgmental. Cybersquatting or domaining, our business model is what it is. So i think there is really no point in being emotional with semantics, because words will not change the business model of domaining.

 

[DU]

To be quite honest, i do think this whole 'business model' of domain flipping is really quite sad.

No matter how much we twist the semantics, the truth remains that simply grabbing something then reselling it at an inflated price to someone who wasn't quick enough to get it in the first place or someone who badly needs it -- is an exploitive business model that doesn't really create genuine value.

Ding!

+1

I don't question the practice. All business is at some level exploitative. Domaining is a particularly obvious one. Not worse - just more obvious. I just find it amusing that people live in denial of this fact. :sold:

 

[ipodxpert]

to be quite honest, i do think this whole 'business model' of domain flipping is really quite sad.

No matter how much we twist the semantics, the truth remains that simply grabbing something then reselling it at an inflated price to someone who wasn't quick enough to get it in the first place or someone who badly needs it -- is an exploitive business model that doesn't really create genuine value. A domain you own is said to be "valuable" only because so many people want to have it. And not because you actually created something with that domain that serves some valuable purpose in real life.

In short, domains become valuable because of supply and demand. And not because you made it useful as it is.

It's no different from a ticket scalper. You buy all the front seats on a ballgame or concert, but you really don't have any plans of watching. You are just keeping the tickets hoping to resell it to a desperate fan. The more desperate he is, the higher is your asking price.

I'm not trying to be judgmental. Cybersquatting or domaining, our business model is what it is. So i think there is really no point in being emotional with semantics, because words will not change the business model of domaining.

+1

 

[bmugford]

No matter how much we twist the semantics, the truth remains that simply grabbing something then reselling it at an inflated price to someone who wasn't quick enough to get it in the first place or someone who badly needs it -- is an exploitive business model that doesn't really create genuine value.

Well, that is capitalism. The same thing could be said about any industry that involves products or services being sold for a profit.

Domainers are also not the only ones benefiting.

I have sold many domains to end users who have in turn launched successful businesses on those domains.

Brad

 

[johname]

/\ Agree with Brad.

I would have Zero problem being a legal ticket broker.

 

[Kate]

the truth remains that simply grabbing something then reselling it at an inflated price to someone who wasn't quick enough to get it in the first place or someone who badly needs it -- is an exploitive business model that doesn't really create genuine value.

Domainers are like people investing on the stock exchange. They speculate for their own benefit, but they don't really create value either. Other than bringing liquidity needed to the market maybe.
I don't think we are doing worse. Financial investments in the offline world are in fact often unethical and ruin the lives of human beings.
And there are many more people dabbling in stocks than domain names.

It's no different from a ticket scalper. You buy all the front seats on a ballgame or concert, but you really don't have any plans of watching. You are just keeping the tickets hoping to resell it to a desperate fan. The more desperate he is, the higher is your asking price.

It is different. You can't buy all domain names, because the supply is virtually infinite.
That's why it is allowed to speculate on domain names, but not on toll-free numbers for example.
Domains are not a 'scarce' resource, only the quality is scarce.

 

[equity78]

Wait how can you be +1 for the post of Alien which is anti domain selling and then want to sell me Freelancing.tv for $2500 ?

Please people make up your mind. Either you have an understanding of history that just about every race of people, resource and product has been exploited, manipulated, and was agenda driven and someone else profited or just say I wasn't there to get the great domains so I hate or am jealous of the people that have them. Can't play it both ways imo, its not right for people to have more food than others, there are a number of people starving, I would first take my moral outrage to people who are gluttons and overeat while others starve way before I would ever to get to domaining.

 

[accent]

One of the attractions of domains to me is that there is essentially no environmental effect. No Third World people are trapped in sweatshops creating domains, there's no carbon, landfills or oil spills.

Buy stocks and you support businesses whose ethics you do not control, or even know much about. Buy commodities and you help tear down the Rainforest and displace local people. With bonds you loan your money to the same business guys, true also with banks. Buy Real Estate and you could be involved with the bulldozing of the planet and mortgage hustling. On and on, if you are concerned with the effects it is difficult to find places to invest.

But they will say "Real Estate Investor" and "Domain Squatter". If domains become established items of wealth in the future I expect the language will change. In a generation or two.

 

[Dave_Z]

In fairness and so far, I haven't seen anyone in Dreamhost's blog rail against "squatters"...yet.

 

[DU]

Please people make up your mind. Either you have an understanding of history that just about every race of people, resource and product has been exploited, manipulated, and was agenda driven and someone else profited or just say I wasn't there to get the great domains so I hate or am jealous of the people that have them. Can't play it both ways imo, its not right for people to have more food than others, there are a number of people starving, I would first take my moral outrage to people who are gluttons and overeat while others starve way before I would ever to get to domaining.

The post it was stated that the business model was exploitative practice. It added that he was not judging people engaged in the business model. He ended that you shouldn't get upset with semantics.

At no point did he say the business was unethical and one shouldn't partake in it.

Many people work for unethical companies. Many people invest in unethical companies. Many people own an iPad/iPhone. Whatever your personal tolerance level is.. and whatever the law says... its ok.

The difference between domaining and many other businesses is that there is very little value add. In fact, there is none. The notion that others benefit from the domainer is total bull - the domainer provides nothing, adds nothing. The company could have done it on their own. Some service have been created - but many of these are a chicken-egg scenario. Why do we need SEO and Search wizards? To game the system! Why do we need to game the system? Because the system is gamed.

There are many side effects - incorrect information, outdated information, a wasteland of resources, a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of IP infringement (see auto blogging, article spinning, database copying, data selling, ad infinitum). These don't have obvious impacts but they are real. Ever had a post stolen? Ever have your blog stolen? It's annoying. I think it's awful when a domainer puts up a mini-site on "alternative cancer treatments and success stories for people diagnosed with terminal cancer" to make a dollar, for example. You don't think your $5 /month adsense didn't upset someone?

Still. No problem if someone does it - however, I've always said that the time will come when a lawsuit is filed for improperly maintained data on a site attempting to look professional - i.e. being a con job.

There is a DISTINCT lack of regulation (vs poor regulation) of the industry.

I still haven't said you shouldn't do it.

I have no idea where jealousy came into the discussion - not one person mentioned anything about not having/having decent domains. The point I'm making is that people think domaining is some kind of value add business when it's nothing of the sort. It's a speculative, profitable venture based on finding the limits of screwing someone. Welcome to the real world. It can suck sometimes.

Greed happens in many flavors at many levels - its hard to define glutton because it is highly dependent on the viewers perspective. I think a person can't look much further than themself really. If you're happy with where you are? You can tell everyone else to eff off. For some people that's a ham sandwich, for some it's the ham roast, and for some it's the whole damn hog.

 

[cache]

no one should use dreamhost, period. The worst company on the planet.

 

[DU]

no one should use dreamhost, period. The worst company on the planet.

I thought Monsanto had that honor? Followed quickly by Halliburton.

 

[DubDubDubDot]

no one should use dreamhost, period. The worst company on the planet.

Care to explain?

 

[twomoon]

the domainer provides nothing, adds nothing.

Can't agree with you on this point.

Domainer is a sort of "gold-seeker" or "silver-seeker". He is finding good domains and offer them to the companies (end users), who could benefit from these domains.


Fisher go to the ocean and fishing, then he sell fish on the fish market or directly to the restaurants.

and

Domainer go to the expired domains auction, then he sell domains on the forums/auctions or directly to the endusers.


We are domain fishers

 

[lincolndsp]

it all shows how their company is retarded.
Do all these domainer haters know howmuch it cost for us resellers to get any particular domain? really funny to receive $100, $200 offers from JOe and Mia end-users for the domains acquired for $2000-$3000

 

[Krossat]

damn their blog post is even more flaming. Look at this:

blog.dreamhost.com/2011/06/07/whats-in-a-name

 

[enlytend]

It never ceases to amaze me how thin skinned many domainers are! It's a WORD - Dreamhost is marketing to a particular audience (in this case, people who are frustrated with the shortage of good reg-fee .com's), they're going to use language that connects emotionally with that audience. "Buy now!", "Lose weight fast!", "Limited time offer", "squatters" - it's marketing. Get over it!

The difference between domaining and many other businesses is that there is very little value add. In fact, there is none. The notion that others benefit from the domainer is total bull - the domainer provides nothing, adds nothing. The company could have done it on their own.

Very true. Not statement of judgement, just honest self-awareness. I've sold domains for a profit, presumably so have most of the people in this forum, but seriously - what COULDN'T the buyer have done themselves? Done a search at a registrar? Looked through an expiring domain list? Contacted a domain holder through whois with an offer? We just got there first.

There are many side effects - incorrect information, outdated information, a wasteland of resources, a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of IP infringement

And given these "side effects", is it really so surprising that the industry has earned itself some negative rep? We don't ALL do those things, some of us don't do ANY of those things, but a few well-publicized bad apples taint the entire bunch.

Maybe Dreamhost doesn't like domainers - that's their perogative. But even while they try to spin crap like .name ($12.95), .net.co ($19.95) and .bz ($24.95) they still offer domainer-friendly hosting plans ... and if they made an amazing offer for a .com that was for sale, would any of us turn them down? That's business.

 

[tristanperry]

Meh. DreamHost are an awful host; I wouldn't listen to what they say and take it to heart.

Plus this is mostly just a sales technique, IMO.

In the blog post he says:

"So, effective today, we’re now handling registrations for 21 TOTAL TLDs! One of them is bound to topple .com."

The owner is annoying, but he's not stupid. The idea that more TLDs = less competition for .coms was shown to be false many years ago.

There's been plently of 'new and exciting' (HAH) TLDs and ccTLDs but the vast majority fail very quickly. And those that don't fail still don't compete seriously with .com.

Hence what I quoted above is clearly not true. Hence I do think it's just a sales technique - i.e. people will naively believe it to be true, and buy more domains from DreamHost. DH get more money, whilst the people buying the domains in these other TLDs lose out.

But yeah, DreamHost are a crap host and shouldn't be listened to. They're just trying to get publicity to sell more domains.

 

[alien51]

Domainers are like people investing on the stock exchange. They speculate for their own benefit, but they don't really create value either. Other than bringing liquidity needed to the market maybe.

Stock market shares don't have any "end-user" value like domains. Stocks (in the practical sense) are meant to be traded. If you own 3,000 shares of Walmart, you can't use it for anything else. Until you sell it.

Domains, on the other hand, were invented to be used for websites that create value for people who visit those websites. They are not meant to be traded like baseball cards. Baseball cards don't have any end-user value either.

In fairness and so far, I haven't seen anyone in Dreamhost's blog rail against "squatters"...yet.

I would presume they delete the flames. I would. It's bad business to display customer complaints and rants inside your own store. lol

Why do we need SEO and Search wizards? To game the system! Why do we need to game the system? Because the system is gamed.

And it creates an arms race.

If you know your competitors are "gaming" the system (emphasis on quotation marks-- i'm not referring to black hat) using their SEO wizardry, you are then forced to do the same. Because if you don't, you become irrelevant. People won't find you on Google.

Fisher go to the ocean and fishing, then he sell fish on the fish market or directly to the restaurants.

Not everyone can fish in the ocean. You need a boat. You need haulers. And it requires some skill to catch fish.

But registering a domain can be done within seconds, by just about anyone with standard I.Q. you can say you need zero effort to do so. Why would anyone need to have someone register a name for 7 dollars at Godaddy, and resell it to you for 50 bucks?

I think what the "end-users" are complaining, is that if you really don't need it, don't get it.

But of course in the world of domaining, we have to "pretend" that we need the domain. After a week, we "suddenly lose interest" so we put the domain up for resale (with a higher price tag of course). Or you can skip all the BS altogether and just be your plain in-your-face domain scalper ("Hey buddy, i got your domain first. You now have to pry them away from my Wolverine claws for 3,000 grand").

Do all these domainer haters know howmuch it cost for us resellers to get any particular domain? really funny to receive $100, $200 offers from JOe and Mia end-users for the domains acquired for $2000-$3000

Ruport Murdock paid $580 million USD to buy MySpace. So it would also be really funny that he gets a lowball $80 million USD offers.

But MySpace is now junk. Who would buy it for more than $580 million so he can profit? And Murdoch is bleeding money annually in keeping MySpace paying employees, servers, electricity, etc. waiting for a white knight to pay him premium.

But what does it cost per year to keep an unsold $3000-value domain??? Just 7 bucks with a Godaddy coupon. And if you have a nice paying day job other than domaining, you can probably renew that domain over your entire lifetime evenif no buyer shows up.