If Cybersquatting wasn't illegal would it be ethical?

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2006-01-01 08:03pm

Self explanatory.

Just a random thought that came into my mind as I was browsing the net today.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2006-01-01 08:10pm

It's illegal? Then how come I still see cybersquatters everywhere?
And I'd say no.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2006-01-01 08:12pm

Pu-239 wrote:It's illegal? Then how come I still see cybersquatters everywhere?
And I'd say no.

Yeah it's illegal. Doesn't mean that people won't do it anyway...

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2006-01-01 08:26pm

Excuse my ignorance, but what is cybersquatting?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2006-01-01 08:27pm

Xess wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what is cybersquatting?

You buy up internet domain names and then sit on them in the hopes that some big company will REALLY want that name at some point and will pay you a nice chunk of change to have it.

Kwizard · Post by **Kwizard** » 2006-01-01 08:39pm

As it is by definition a selfish pursuit of money at the cost and inconvenience of others, it's definitely unethical.

Xess · Post by **Xess** » 2006-01-01 08:49pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Xess wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but what is cybersquatting?
You buy up internet domain names and then sit on them in the hopes that some big company will REALLY want that name at some point and will pay you a nice chunk of change to have it.

I see. Then yes I would say it is unethical, it's greed at the cost of others.

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2006-01-01 09:32pm

Unethical but funny. Even better was Pope-squatting, when people bought domain names guessing which name the Benny would choose. Some guy got it right, dunno what he might have got out of it...

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-01 09:47pm

Sriad wrote:Unethical but funny. Even better was Pope-squatting, when people bought domain names guessing which name the Benny would choose. Some guy got it right, dunno what he might have got out of it...

He apparently likes to collect cyber domains. He doesn't plan to "disrespect" the pope. I can't see the thrill of it myself, but to each his own.

Of course if I had the cyber domain for the pope I would have sold it to someone who wants to pay big bucks for it, be it the RCC or a porn company.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2006-01-01 10:24pm

Also it has political motives as well. Many buy domain names that the KKK/Nazis or Gay and Lesbian Groups, or witchcraft and wiccans or really any kind of group good or bad, right or wrong that is outside the mainstream.

This is done to deny said group a easily recognizable domain name and to "educate" the public against them.

The Aliens · Post by **The Aliens** » 2006-01-01 10:35pm

The OP is a bit flawed- it implies that cybersquatting is considered unethical only because it's illegal. It's unethical because it forces corporations and other groups to pay more than they should for a service that should be available to them, not because it was arbitrarily deemed illegal. The ethics of cyberquatting are not influenced by its legality.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-01-01 10:41pm

Invictus ChiKen wrote:Also it has political motives as well. Many buy domain names that the KKK/Nazis or Gay and Lesbian Groups, or witchcraft and wiccans or really any kind of group good or bad, right or wrong that is outside the mainstream.

This is done to deny said group a easily recognizable domain name and to "educate" the public against them.

Example: http://www.creationtheory.org/. 'Cybersquatting' is not necessarily about greed and money.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2006-01-01 10:44pm

Winston Blake wrote: Example: http://www.creationtheory.org/. 'Cybersquatting' is not necessarily about greed and money.

I don't really consider Mike's site cybersquatting. Now if you had a site called teachingsofBuddha.org and post tons of bible teachings going against Siddhartha then I'd call that cybersquatting.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-01-01 11:55pm

And he is teaching about Creation Theory, and using it, not just 'space holder for money!'

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2006-01-02 12:17am

Considering the previous site that existed there (can be viewed at archive.org), I doubt that the owners had the funds to take any legal action.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-02 12:19am

The Aliens wrote:The OP is a bit flawed- it implies that cybersquatting is considered unethical only because it's illegal. It's unethical because it forces corporations and other groups to pay more than they should for a service that should be available to them, not because it was arbitrarily deemed illegal. The ethics of cyberquatting are not influenced by its legality.

I don't see why a corporation or individual should be entitled to any particular domain name.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-02 12:22am

What company requires a certain domain name that badly? You can easily change it by adding a "_" or something.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-01-02 12:59am

Solauren wrote:And he is teaching about Creation Theory, and using it, not just 'space holder for money!'

That's what i was saying, sitting on a domain name somebody else probably wants doesn't have to be about money. I was responding to this:

Invictus ChiKen wrote:This is done to deny said group a easily recognizable domain name and to "educate" the public against them.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2006-01-02 01:22am

I believe the legal defination of Cybersquatting is that the cybersquatter has to buy the domain with the intent of forcing another party to pay him money for it.

In some cases though, merely offering to sell the domain to someone that wants to buy it could be considered cybersquatting. Example being someone that bought the domain mikerowesoft.com and Microsoft came along and demanded that he hand the domain over. He refused and offered to sell the domain. Microsoft subsequently went to court with a Cybersquatting complaint (because the guy offered to sell the domain). I believe MS eventually settled.

Post by **RogueIce** » 2006-01-02 01:23am

How do they define it (if it's illegal)? It was like some fracas I saw about some guy who had sting.com some time ago. He had the name because that was his game ID or somesuch, but Sting wanted it and sued him over it.

Is there some clause about what content one has on said site?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-01-02 01:24am

Surlethe wrote:
The Aliens wrote:The OP is a bit flawed- it implies that cybersquatting is considered unethical only because it's illegal. It's unethical because it forces corporations and other groups to pay more than they should for a service that should be available to them, not because it was arbitrarily deemed illegal. The ethics of cyberquatting are not influenced by its legality.
I don't see why a corporation or individual should be entitled to any particular domain name.

Agreed. If someone is buisness savvy enough to get a domain name that a major company or other group would want to use for the sole purpose of making money off of it, I see no ethical problems. It's no different than buying a piece of land that may one day become prime real estate.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2006-01-02 01:28am

Flagg wrote:
Surlethe wrote:
The Aliens wrote:The OP is a bit flawed- it implies that cybersquatting is considered unethical only because it's illegal. It's unethical because it forces corporations and other groups to pay more than they should for a service that should be available to them, not because it was arbitrarily deemed illegal. The ethics of cyberquatting are not influenced by its legality.
I don't see why a corporation or individual should be entitled to any particular domain name.
Agreed. If someone is buisness savvy enough to get a domain name that a major company or other group would want to use for the sole purpose of making money off of it, I see no ethical problems. It's no different than buying a piece of land that may one day become prime real estate.

It all has to do with Trademarks.

Suppose you bought coca-cola.com. Coke owns the trademark on coca-cola.com, you see nothing wrong with buying a domain that has a trademarked name, and forcing the trademark owner to pay you large sums of money to get it?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-01-02 02:33am

Maybe I'm missing something, but buying a commodity you expect to increase in value isn't unethical: it's business. What, exactly, is unethical about buying many permutations of a new movie title, in the hopes of profiting from it?

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2006-01-02 02:43am

Stark wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but buying a commodity you expect to increase in value isn't unethical: it's business. What, exactly, is unethical about buying many permutations of a new movie title, in the hopes of profiting from it?

Maybe because someone else owns the trademark on those names, and is acutally making use of the name for a purpose other than sitting on it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-01-02 03:19am

The law already protects domain names related to business names (at least in Australia), so if a company is too stupid to buy domains related to their products - which they know about before anyone else - why can't someone profit from this?

Using the movie example, if a movie 'Joe Bob' is announced and the production company doen't already own a convienient domain, why should anyone be stopped from purchasing 'joebob' and 'joebobmovie' etc? Do you believe a company should be granted control over all permutations of all of its products and trademarks, even if someone already owns it?