TheVerge.com is apparently on the Verge of calling anyone who owns a domain name and is looking to sell it a Cybersquatter and somehow is calling on the next President of the United States to outlaw the practice of buying a domain name and selling it.
The story is about Rand Paul purchase of RandPaul.com for $100k yesterday calling payment of $100K “Ransom”
“Rand Paul’s presidential campaign has already suffered an unfortunate outlay: a $100,980 ransom check for RandPaul.com.”
“Domain squatting, for those unfamiliar, is the art of sitting on potentially juicy domains, like pizza.com, and then selling them at astronomical prices — sometimes for millions of dollars.”
“The only thing more offensive than domain squatting is its other official name: “cybersquatting” (as in, for example, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act).
No matter who wins in 2016, we hope their first act as president will be to eradicate this cyberjargon from cyberexistence.”
The Verge is getting plenty of push back in the comments to the article, actually finding no support for its ridiculous post.
The article was Written by T.C Sottek who is a “Senior News Editor at The Verge, responsible for reading the entire internet on a daily basis.”
Hum
Maybe in reading the entire internet maybe Mr. Scottek should have read the the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and learn what type’s of domain name fall within the law and which do not
Hint: Pizza.com does not
Before becoming a writer and Editor Mr. Scottek “worked in the nation’s capital as an advocate for the National Park System”
I think that is called a lobbyist.
Hum
So Mr. Scottek position is pretty clear:
Investing a domain name is just plain wrong and makes you a cybersquatter.
However being an “advocate” as opposed to a Lobbyist is a good thing and improves the life of the citizenry.
Got it.
Kudos to Rand Paul for buying the domain and not claiming he had a right to it.
Mr. Scottek needs more tutorial on the workings of the internet.
Sardonic. Love it! 😉
Jon
I don’t think Rand could have gotten the domain he is not the only one in the world with that name, and it wasn’t parked it was being used in a way it could not be legally taken.
Anyway Mr. Paul is a Republican
Taking someone property and giving it to another person is much more of a Democratic party idea
)):
I guess RandPaul is our Domain new Friend.
The problem with “The Verge” argument — some of the most coveted domains are owned by Fortune 500 companies and other companies with valuations well over $1 Billion: “Internet.org”, “Social.com”, “Fun.com”, “Go.com”, “Data.com” , “MI.com”, “Loan.com” and hundreds more. Are these companies also “CyberSquatters”?
I agree with the Verge. This domain sale was ransom.
Matt
Just so I understand your position
So I looked at a Condo in NYC at the Time Warner Center when it was not yet complete, I’m thinking like 2002
Long story short the condo I could have bought back them for $2M the owner is now holding for $10M Ransom
That is what you would call it right?
No that’s not what I meant. I’m just commenting on their “ransom” statement. I think that whoever had it held out for a higher amount because there is a popular “Rand Paul” out there. That’s like you owning a small business and wanting to sell it for $1m, but then you realize Google approaches you to acquire it and you increase your price to $10m knowing they will likely buy it. It’s not illegal, but IMO it’s not ethical. It’s not something I’d ever do.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, Ron Paul tried to acquire his domain via UDRP and had a ton of criticism. Not to mention he also lost didn’t he? I don’t remember all the facts, but if that was the case then ofcourse Rand Paul wouldn’t make the same mistake.
You would’ve done well in Communist Russia.
And the example you gave that’s not the definition of ransom.
Simply this is called supply and demand. If it was ransom then stock investors, commodity speculators and real estate developers would all be in jail for squeezing the maximum from interested parties.
In this case, there’s only one .com domain and numerous individuals matching it. One of those is a very important person who probably will collect many, many times in campaign contributions using that domain! If he’s successful, then it would be an excellent asset 4 years later when running again!
It does beg the question how savvy and future looking this candidate will be, since he did not acquire this domain much earlier when a minor politician or in medical school. Prices go up when you’re aiming for the most powerful office in the world.
As for the seller, he was risking that Rand didn’t go with one of the new gTLDs or alter his name to maybe JedPaul.com or HaroldPaul.com, and then get a domain for just $10.