[edw519]

They provide no value to anyone and hold intellectual property hostage for nothing other than their own personal gain.

What you call "enterprising" I call "pigs feeding at the trough".

Maybe they should find a way to provide value to someone else instead of domain squatting. Now, THERE'S your waste of energy.

[BitGeek]

They are providing value- they risked their own capital to speculate on a domain name that might be valuable in the future... just like anyone who buys swampland hoping to drain it. They took risk, they identified a customer for their property, etc. All these things add value.

They aren't holding intellectual property hostage. And by the way, when is personal gain evil? Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit other people, rather than yourself:?

They are providing added value, they registered a domain that someone else didn't think of.

The problem here is, that you regret not registering it, and so you, rather than accepting blame for your own failure, are blaming the person who was smarter or faster than you.

Back in the 1990s, I looked up USWeb.com. I almost registered it, but was on the fence, then went back three days later to register it and found that it had been taken the day after I thought of it-- and that company became a big company eventually before the bust.

Were they holding my intellectual property hostage? No.

Where does this sense of entitlement come from? IT reminds me of people who build a house in a neighborhood and then complain because a walmart gets built nearby... as if they think they somehow have property rights in the land that walmart bought. LOL.

[michael_nielsen]

You assert three times that they are providing value, but never explain how they are adding value. Can you please provide a concrete example of how this adds value?

[corentin]

Well, they provide protection against other domain squatters! :)

"It's a nice domain name you have there; it would be bad if something happened to it..."

[mdemare]

The domain could be taken by a competitor, not in order to use it, but to prevent you from using it.

Or it could be taken by somebody for whom the domain name also made sense. For example, someone who sells paintings of octopusses.

Also, by keeping the domain name available to you, they provide a service to you at no present cost.

[dreish]

Would you complain if someone opened an outdoor testing facility for smelly firecrackers next to your house?

LOL right back at ya, especially if you think J. Random Shopper has enough time or interest to keep track of "bad PR", and somehow that will solve your problems for you. It doesn't work that way, which is why we reality-based types have zoning ordinances.

[edw519]

Hi BitGeek,

Safe to say you and I don't see things the same way. When I read this post, I felt so compelled to respond that I slowed down and then realized that you are the same person I "debated" with just the other day in the Crappy Programmer thread. You referred to the work of Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (Structured Programming) as "idiocy" and presumed to know what I thought (which included a "borderline" personal attack). I responded to your last post here

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=83191

but never heard from you again.

You did not know what I was thinking then and you do not now. Here IS what I think...

"Do you go to work each day primarily to benefit other people, rather than yourself:?"

Both. I don't give away my work for free, but the day I begin doing what I do WITHOUT providing (highly demanded) value for others is the day I hang it up.

"The problem here is, that you regret not registering it, and so you, rather than accepting blame for your own failure, are blaming the person who was smarter or faster than you."

To use a phrase you like, "LOL!" I regret nothing. I accept blame for nothing. I failed at nothing. I blame no one for being smarter or faster than I. I provide value. They don't. That's all I said. That's all I meant.

"Where does this sense of entitlement come from?"

I'd respond to this remark if I had any idea what you were talking about.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion and I imagine we'll get to see more of it here. I suspect though, from your point of view, you will get lots of "debate" from others here. Don't expect too many people to see things your way, and don't ever presume to know what someone else is thinking. There are better ways to show your underwear.

Or maybe you just like to argue. Fine. But I have much better outlets for my "energy".

[falsestprophet]

No. They are speculating, which does not generate wealth.

[byrneseyeview]

Really? It's obvious to me (and you) that sex.com is worth more than american-rivet-supply-corporation.net, but the question of how much more the first is worth is one that should have ramifications -- for example, if sex.com just goes to the first person to register it, it may end up as a popular, disappointing sexual education site -- if it goes to whoever pays the most, it's going to do whatever earns the most.

If someone else has a better use for octopart.cn, they'll buy it; if the Octoparts are the best possible users, they'll pay for it. If octopart.cn is worth more than X, where X is what they pay to get it, they're still ahead (just less so than they could be). If not, octopart.cn is overpriced from their perspective, and will end up going to whoever thinks it's cheap.

[dreish]

That's not a very effective defense of domain squatting. The idealistic sex educator should just as rationally say, "I'm not making $1.5m off this site, so I should accept that bid and sell it, and use the money to get my important message out some other more efficient way."

The domain squatter serves no beneficial function at all to society, so nothing is lost by banning that behavior except a sliver of economic freedom. If economic freedom is a very high priority for you, of course you're going to be against regulating the registration of domain names. You're entitled to your principles, but don't expect everyone else to share them.

[byrneseyeview]

"The domain squatter serves no beneficial function at all to society, so nothing is lost by banning that behavior except a sliver of economic freedom."

I like how you glide right past the argument I made. You note that you disagree, and then note that you disagree, but I see no refutation, so I'll illustrate it again: toilet-seat.com gets registered by a loving toilet-seat fanatic. He posts pictures of all the awesome toilet seats he's seen, and writes a fantastically detailed blog about the aesthetics of toilet seats. He is in the 99th percentile for Adsense users, earning upwards of $10 a month.

He realizes, however, that Global Toilet Seats, Inc, a massive conglomerate, could earn $500,000 a year more from their Internet operations, just by buying his URL. They offer him $5 million to give up his hobby site. He'd rather have $5 million than the URL. They'd rather have the URL than the $5 million.

You'd rather both sides walk away sad, because you can't see the value in reselling a domain to whoever can use it best, given that this sometimes benefits whoever thought of a good domain name first.

"You're entitled to your principles, but don't expect everyone else to share them."

I don't! That's why I argue them with examples, rather than. Um. Flatly stating that I'm right. I know of plenty of economic libertarians who do just say "Not allowing people to sell domain names they own violates freedom of contract," as if that settles it. But the people they're arguing with largely disbelieve in freedom of contract, so it's a wash.

Duelnode, we need you: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/10/duelnod...

[dreish]

I realize I'm howling in the wind by replying 13 days after the fact, but I just noticed this.

I would view the sale of "sex.com", at whatever price, to be a good and natural example of free markets tending to reallocate resources for near-optimum utility. I believe I read your parent post correctly as claiming that domain squatters serve a beneficial function by auctioning off domains to high bidders rather than letting fast-moving hobbyists set up disappointing web sites at those domains, and pointed out that the hobbyist could sell the domain just as well as a squatter could -- thus the squatter doesn't provide any added value for society as a whole.

So no, I would not "rather both sides walk away sad", and likewise I would not agree with most of your characterization of my comment. I'm sorry I was not more clear.

[dreish]

It can generate wealth in markets where accurate prices lead to more efficient allocation of the resources needed to produce the good in question.

That's great for physical commodities, but it doesn't take a genius to see that this doesn't do any good with domain names. It takes a committed libertarian to fail to see that, though.

[noonespecial]

A libertarian would think this kind of thing is repugnent as well. The difference is that a libertartian's first response would not be "we should pass a law forbidding this..."

[Kaizyn]

You mean just as speculating in the mortgage securities market has led to economic prosperity? Oh wait...

[falsestprophet]

Investing is not speculating.

[curi]

Speculating in physical goods does generate wealth.