[DNS] Cybersquatting

[DNS] Cybersquatting

From: Dassa <dassa§dhs.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:36:04 +1000
Comments inline again as appropriate.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org 
|> [mailto:dns-bounces+dassa=dhs.org&#167;dotau.org] On Behalf Of 
|> Bennett Oprysa
|> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 10:19 PM
|> To: .au DNS Discussion List
|> Subject: Re: [DNS] Cybersquatting
|> > I prefer the following definition:
|> > Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular Internet
|> address--usually a
|> > company name--with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner.
|> That's fine.
|> > The Internet address may be a company name, it may be a 
|> trademark or 
|> > it
|> may be
|> > a more generic word, the rightful owner is someone who intends to 
|> > develop
|> the
|> > name in conjunction with a close and substantial connection to 
|> > themselves, their interests or business.
|> That's rubbish, there can be no rightful owner of a generic word.

What do you think most trademarked or business names are?  The rightful owner
of any possible domain name is an entity which intends to use the domain name
as it was intended, not for speculation or cybersquatting.

|> >
|> > As such, domain speculation falls under the definition I use for 
|> > cybersquatting.
|> You are wrong.

In your opinion.  Which is fine.  We are all entitled to an opinion.

|> > I would prefer not to see anyone allowed to register a domain name 
|> > they
|> don't
|> > intend to use at some point.
|> that's you preferance, and it's an idiotic one.

Why is it that both you and Vic fall back on abuse when someone disagrees with
you?  I suspect it is for similar reasons, I'll leave it up to readers to
formulate their own opinions on it.
|> > Domain speculation has the same kind of victims as does 
|> > cybersquatting,
|> even
|> > more actually, cybersquatting is targetted whilst 
|> speculation throws a 
|> > net
|> Excuse me, are you telling me that someone registering your 
|> name or your company name and then forcing you to buy it 
|> from them by possibly puting up defamatory content or 
|> pointing it to a competitor of yours is just as bad as 
|> someone registering a generic domain like fancycars.com 
|> without any intention of using it?
|> How unbelievably ridiculous!

Not all cybersquatters do those things to get buyers, some speculators have
been known to employ those or similar tactics.  They both register domain
names in the hopes they can sell them off to make a profit.  I don't see a lot
of difference between them.  One is more targetted than the other, that is the
only difference I see, there are victims in both types of transactions but the
cybersquatters normally go after the bigger players and they have fought back
and now there is legislation that protects them.  Small business or
individuals aren't as protected from either speculators or cybersquatters.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch 

PS...you may bluster and abuse all you like but until you put forward reasoned
arguments to support your claims it doesn't win anyone over.
Received on Tue Sep 27 2005 - 12:36:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC