Dynadot

opinion Vote for if a domain investor, owner or trader is domain squatter

Namecheap
Impact
672

redemo

Established Member
Impact
2,099
A squatter is somebody who occupies something that they don't legally own according to the law in that country or virtual realm. If you use the word squatter to describe somebody who occupies something which they legally own according to the law in that country or virtual realm then you need English language lessons.
 
Impact
37,004
Impact
672
A squatter is somebody who occupies something that they don't legally own according to the law in that country or virtual realm. If you use the word squatter to describe somebody who occupies something which they legally own according to the law in that country or virtual realm then you need English language lessons.
I didn't named domainers squatters buddy. I quoted the twitter account owner only
 
It depends. You can just look at the daily handregs and see how many clearly target TM holders.

Those type of domain registrations give a bad name to everyone in the field.

There is certainly a difference between domain investing and squatting, which people outside the field don't always understand.

Brad
 
Last edited:
Impact
209
Dumb dumbs on Hackernews routinely use the term in every thread related to domain names.

Click here if you want to pull your eyeballs out at next level stupidity:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=domain+squatter+site:ycombinator.com

To them a "domain squatter" is simply the owner of a name they want and think they have a divine right to because they were the last person to think of it.
 

VadimK

Top Contributor
Impact
2,080
If you own 1, 10 or 100 apartments - are you a squatter? Of course not. You are a businessman or investor, or landlord or realtor or all at the same - call it however you like, but it's anything but the squatting. Then why would you be a squatter by owning 10, 100 or 1000 domain names, even if your sole purpose is to sell them?

The squatting really starts when you register the name with a clear intention of profiting out of the same or very similar existing name of any company, and it's damaging their business in any way. That's how I would say, it's purely my definition of cybersquatting.
 
Impact
37,004
If you own 1, 10 or 100 apartments - are you a squatter? Of course not. You are a businessman or investor, or landlord or realtor or all at the same - call it however you like, but it's anything but the squatting. Then why would you be a squatter by owning 10, 100 or 1000 domain names, even if your sole purpose is to sell them?

The squatting really starts when you register the name with a clear intention of profiting out of the same or very similar existing name of any company, and it's damaging their business in any way. That's how I would say, it's purely my definition of cybersquatting.

You're making sense. Stop it.

Most of the people calling us squatters are envious, spoiled millennial's used to getting whatever they want.

Boomers just don't understand why you won't take $100 which is 10x what godady charges.
 
Last edited:

equity78

Top Member
TheDomains Staff
TLDInvestors.com
Impact
25,247
It depends. You can just look at the daily handregs and see how many clearly target TM holders.

Those type of domain registrations give a bad name to everyone in the field.

There is certainly a difference between domain investing and squatting, which people outside the field don't always understand.

Brad
You are 100% correct Brad but that crowd they consider you a squatter, if they wanted Brad.com and you owned it and were selling it you are a squatter to them.
 

equity78

Top Member
TheDomains Staff
TLDInvestors.com
Impact
25,247
If you own 1, 10 or 100 apartments - are you a squatter? Of course not. You are a businessman or investor, or landlord or realtor or all at the same - call it however you like, but it's anything but the squatting. Then why would you be a squatter by owning 10, 100 or 1000 domain names, even if your sole purpose is to sell them?

The squatting really starts when you register the name with a clear intention of profiting out of the same or very similar existing name of any company, and it's damaging their business in any way. That's how I would say, it's purely my definition of cybersquatting.

A good number of that crowd consider them squatters too, they are against rent. I am talking the economic definition, they see people who don't create something as scum.

In economics, economic rent is any payment (in the context of a market transaction) to an owner or factor of production in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production.
 

equity78

Top Member
TheDomains Staff
TLDInvestors.com
Impact
25,247
Dumb dumbs on Hackernews routinely use the term in every thread related to domain names.

Click here if you want to pull your eyeballs out at next level stupidity:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=domain+squatter+site:ycombinator.com

To them a "domain squatter" is simply the owner of a name they want and think they have a divine right to because they were the last person to think of it.

Exactly I have been in forums where they called for domain owners to be thrown off cliffs.
 
Unfortunately, most of the members in that Twitter thread consider landowners squatters too if they buy lots of land and don't use, rent, or sell it.

See one of the tweets below:
Yep it's just words, meaningless words. Anyone can say that. I can say it's a net positive for the world cause it won't be developed and won't harm the environment....

I didn't research that statement but it sounds good doesn't it 😅.
 

DomainBarracksRob

Top Contributor
Impact
6,761
Unfortunately, most of the members in that Twitter thread consider landowners squatters too if they buy lots of land and don't use, rent, or sell it.

See one of the tweets below:

This guy is a pissy little Chode.

Complaining about spending money on his business to make his business more money.

All he did is just show all the real companies out there that he’s not up to par with them because every real company already knows how this works and how this is he’s just a little whiny brat complaining that everything’s not given to him.

BooHoo

It’s not even about squatting or investors at this point he honestly just thinks that the ability to buy more than one domain unless you’re not using it should not exist to begin with whether you’re illegally squatting on one with a trademark in bad faith or if you rightfully have ownership of the name no TM and and held it for years he was openly verbal about that. He’s but hurt did things cost more than he’s willing to pay it’s that simple and he thinks just because something started out at whatever price he should have it now go ask him if the original owner of a Babe Ruth rookie card should just GIVE it to him for his original COST price at market because he wants it now….lmao 🤣 smfh
 

redemo

Established Member
Impact
2,099
You are 100% correct Brad but that crowd they consider you a squatter, if they wanted Brad.com and you owned it and were selling it you are a squatter to them.
I dont actually care if somebody thinks I'm a domain name squatter. Let them quack about it, take legal action or better still English language lessons.
 

redemo

Established Member
Impact
2,099
I think it's important to understand and use words in their correct context. You cannot call someone a murderer unless they have murdered someone according to the law, same as you cannot call someone a deserter unless they have contravined military rules in departing from their duties or unit. Calling someone a squatter is a provable accusation - but it has nothing to do with opinions or polls.
 

lock

FREE.MARKETING
Impact
6,537
Call it what ever you like but if want to know difference it is down to ethics. What is done with domain . A domainer comes up with idea first finds something with traffic or is influenced to search. A squat would be to register inside information or personal names of the target that want it protected.
 
Last edited:
The interpretive precedence of fools needs to be combatted every time if there is any hope to correct the erring public eye in the slightest.

It is interesting to note the double standards involved. The tweeter builds a platform for digital nomads, and at the same time condemns an established OG nomad line of work - domain aftermarket services.

He decides that the legal definition of "cybersquatting" is too narrow and should involve any domain registrant that holds a domain without using it for something "legitimate". Basically what he dislikes on uninformed grounds should be removed from the face of the earth.

Can you say marshal law, lynch-mobs, and discrimination based on ignorance?

The rent-seeker, parasite argument is bullshit.

The aftermarket and it's players are crucial for domain availability. As long as sellers are not targeting TM:s it's not squatting, of course.

They just refuse to understand this. And we are talking intelligent people that understand complex concepts, it's not that.

Scary.
 
Last edited:
Name Worth
Top Bottom