New Yorker Article Refers to Domain Investors as "Squatters"

[Ms Domainer]

*

...and refers to Donuts Incorporated as "Domain Investors." Rich, isn't it?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/08/web-domains-great-internet-land-grab.html

My response (which I also posted on Facebook):

Investors who invest in generic domains are NOT squatters. Squatters buy/register others' trademarked terms (or typos of TMs) and monetize them via parking pages, attempted sales to TM holders, or even scams.

On the other hand, bona fide domain investors concentrate on acquiring generic terms and/or potential brandable domains (No TMs). Yes, we buy and sell domains, but most of us steer away from obvious trademark infringement, and we criticize our peers who squat on TMs.

A "squatter" is defined as someone who moves in a property that he or she does not own. But you wouldn't call a real estate investor a squatter -- he or she has paid for the property and the deed has been transferred; so it is when we buy a domain, either through a registrar or on the secondary market. Just as real estate investment is viewed as an honest way to make money, so is domain investment.

The owner of PetAdoptions.com is NOT a squatter; this is a generic term. He just got there before the rest of you were even aware of the internet, and he is not obligated to hand over his valuable property to "a poor college student who needs this domain for my homework" (Yes, I have heard this when receiving low ball offers for valuable names).

Please do your research before you slap a negative label on a hard-working group of business people who happen to see the future more clearly than the rest of the population.

By the way, you can still snag that "short, crisp Web address" for cheap, but that's a trade secret, and I'm not telling.​

So there.

:bah:

I also posted this on The New Yorker site.

*

 

[ninjadomain]

I wonder how many domains they have that they aren't even using.

 

[HeyNow]

* ...and we criticize our peers who squat on TMs.

Not really.

You forgot about typosquatters,

http://www.dmueller.com/tag/typosquatting/

and the groupie-like publishers that heralded the perpetrator(s), including the major players that invited the perpetrator to be a keynote speaker at a domain conference.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/06-03-09.htm

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/10-16-08-2.htm

To a great extent, that New Yorker article you reference is correct. Our industry is full of jerks, and they are held in high esteem by other jerks.

 

[Ms Domainer]

Not really.

You forgot about typosquatters,

http://www.dmueller.com/tag/typosquatting/

and the groupie-like publishers that heralded the perpetrator(s), including the major players that invited the perpetrator to be a keynote speaker at a domain conference.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2009/dailyposts/06-03-09.htm

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2008/dailyposts/10-16-08-2.htm

To a great extent, that New Yorker article you reference is correct. Our industry is full of jerks, and they are held in high esteem by other jerks.

*

Old articles, four and five years old.

Still, there are plenty of jerks in this field and every other field and I have no problem with journalists rooting them out.

But the writer of this article calls all domain investors "squatters," and it simply isn't true.

*

 

[HeyNow]

*

Old articles, four and five years old.

Still, there are plenty of jerks in this field and every other field and I have no problem with journalists rooting them out.

But the writer of this article calls all domain investors "squatters," and it simply isn't true.

*

You're right, it simply isn't true. However, don't expect mainstream media NOT to generalize, when domain history is replete with examples of bottom-feeders, squatters, ethically-challenged domain journalists, auction fraudsters including shill-bidding on a massive scale, and clueless domain newbies who frequent the forums asking dumbass questions like, "If I register Pepsi-dot-whatever, will I get in trouble?"

Then the mainstream media sees domain convention organizers choose keynote speakers who are documented squatters. So don't expect the New Yorker to highlight unknowns like you and I and other decent domain speculators who lurk in these forums. When our industry shuns the creeps instead of idolizing them, then perhaps the New Yorker will take notice.

 

[Ms Domainer]

You're right, it simply isn't true. However, don't expect mainstream media NOT to generalize, when domain history is replete with examples of bottom-feeders, squatters, ethically-challenged domain journalists, auction fraudsters including shill-bidding on a massive scale, and clueless domain newbies who frequent the forums asking dumbass questions like, "If I register Pepsi-dot-whatever, will I get in trouble?"

Then the mainstream media sees domain convention organizers choose keynote speakers who are documented squatters. So don't expect the New Yorker to highlight unknowns like you and I and other decent domain speculators who lurk in these forums. When our industry shuns the creeps instead of idolizing them, then perhaps the New Yorker will take notice.

*

Good point, HeyNow.

*