Domain for sale: Y2KInvesting.com
Tim May
> I am auctioning the domain name
> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
I bid $18.
More than it's worth, but what the hell.
--Tim May
--
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..." (BaAuH2O)
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
zac_w...@my-deja.com
auctions.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/auction-glance/Y03X1259389X8463634/
This is THE domain name for capturing the
attention of the entire world for the most
important investment opportunity in history.
There is no reserve price, and the minimum bid is
set to $1000. This is far lower than the highest
amount I have been offered for the domain name. I
decided to run the auction this way to be sure the
domain is sold.
A complete search of the Federal Trademark
database at www.trademarks.com found no prior
claim, so there is no possibility of trademark
infringement.
Cheers,
Zac Walton
wal...@post.harvard.edu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jim String
>"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
Duh, www.y2kinvesting.com is a host name. y2kinvesting.com would be
the domain name.
I dunno, if you are using mail-from authentication I could probably
just take it from you. Domain speculators usually aren't very smart.
Internet vermin, if you know what I mean.
I bid $5.
Best,
Jim
dotter
>
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:29:43 GMT, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I am auctioning the domain name
> >"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
> >
> >auctions.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/auction-glance/Y03X1259389X8463634/
> >
> >This is THE domain name for capturing the
> >attention of the entire world for the most
> >important investment opportunity in history.
> >
> >There is no reserve price, and the minimum bid is
> >set to $1000. This is far lower than the highest
> >amount I have been offered for the domain name. I
> >decided to run the auction this way to be sure the
> >domain is sold.
> >
> >A complete search of the Federal Trademark
> >database at www.trademarks.com found no prior
> >claim, so there is no possibility of trademark
> >infringement.
>
> affixed a "TM" (rather than an "(R)") and have a prior usage claim?
>
> I'm neither a lawyer or a psychic, but even *I* considered the possibility.
> There's also the possibility that someone *else* has registered "y2k" with the
> feds. In fact, now that I think about it, I seem to recall a thread here some
> months back discussing the fact that someone *had* registered the trademark.
>
> Then again, there's the other question that springs to my non-lawyer mind: what
> if the feds say that it's not registerable as a trademark because it's already
> in common usage? Might they say something akin to, "I'm sorry, Mr.
> Veezelfeeber, but the InterNIC registry has had an entry for that word that
> pre-exists your claim to have originated it. And, just as a courtesy, we
> checked to see if the holder of that domain might be willing to convey the
> trademark to you, but alas, he never took the time to register it with us,
> apparently preferring to let it slip into the public domain."?
>
> >Cheers,
> >Zac Walton
> >wal...@post.harvard.edu
>
> Hahvahd, eh? Do they approve of your use of subsidized resources to attempt to
> market domain names?
>
> --
> This is not a real email address, nor a real name, so
> don't reply via email.
>
> "Years don't roll over"
> "Ambiguity propagates"
> "WWSD"
Ohh no... well.. if someone registered the trademark, don't mention Y2K
unless you give them credit... ok..
- dotter
Miguel Cruz
> In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I am auctioning the domain name
>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>
I bid $3.
miguel
Richard J. Sexton
Provider 3 bids 400 quatloos.
--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>> I am auctioning the domain name
:>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
:>I bid $18.
:>More than it's worth, but what the hell.
Did Zac already pay the $70?
If not, why not register y2k-investing or y2kinvestments or ......
Am I missing something obvious?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel
Louis Boyd
>
>
> >In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >> I am auctioning the domain name
> >> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
> >
> >
> >I bid $18.
> >
> >More than it's worth, but what the hell.
>
> since the InterNIC will only register the top and second-level parts) just to
> spite him. <g>
>
> Well golly gee, guess what? *He* registered *that* name too!
>
> I wonder how the buyers of "y2kinvesting.com" and "y2k-investing.com" would feel
> towards each other?
>
I believe www.investingy2k.com is available. Covering all the
combinations would cause a rich man to go broke.
--
Lou Boyd
FCSA-GOA-NRA-JPFO
Article II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed.
Tim May
post...@dissensoftware.com (Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:00:37 -0700 tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
>
> :>In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :>> I am auctioning the domain name
> :>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>
> :>I bid $18.
>
> :>More than it's worth, but what the hell.
>
> Did Zac already pay the $70?
>
> If not, why not register y2k-investing or y2kinvestments or ......
>
> Am I missing something obvious?
>
Yes, you are missing something obvious.
But we'll forgive you, as your ".il" domain may mean you are not a native
speaker of English.
D. Scott Secor - Millennial Infarction Mitigator
Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
news:tcmay-28079...@dyn-207-111-241-126.sjc.got.net...
<snip>
> Yes, you are missing something obvious.
>
> But we'll forgive you, as your ".il" domain may mean you are not a native
> speaker of English.
Hey, wait a minute! I was born and raised in IL (Illinois). Aside from
most Chicagoans, the vast majority of us spoke English .. at least as a
second language. ;-)
Ciao,
--
D. Scott Secor, Year 2000 Institute & Board of Inquiry, Mpls., MN USA
Give me your tired, your poor, your clue-impaired masses yearning to be
"compliant" ... URL: http://y2k.board.org/ Alias: http://thrill.to/2000/
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7ptfh8....@molly.hh.org>, pla...@not.replyable.com
(Jim String) wrote:
> In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >I am auctioning the domain name
> >"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>
> Duh, www.y2kinvesting.com is a host name. y2kinvesting.com would be
> the domain name.
>
> I dunno, if you are using mail-from authentication I could probably
> just take it from you. Domain speculators usually aren't very smart.
> Internet vermin, if you know what I mean.
Well, is this what the "moral high ground" is? Transfering
domains for money is stupid, but theft by fraud and impersonation
is good?
Nice to know. Should I be on the lookout for my domains being
taken from me by people who deem me equally "verminous?"
> I bid $5.
Why? Why *not* just steal it, if the current registrant is so
"stupid" and "verminous" as to actually want money to change the
registered owner?
> Best,
> Jim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN59KDbztfgpKlX7qEQKfDACff96N/RCje2j3MvVtAFCEvrk94moAnRCr
vMre4Ofhm2wCdBq96QQfeF20
=X862
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
dennis shea
>
> Jim String <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote:
> > In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> I am auctioning the domain name
> >> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
> >
>
> I bid $3.
>
I was gonna bid $3, but i've decided to invest in dehydrated water
instead.
dennis
Miguel Cruz
>>>> I am auctioning the domain name
>>>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>>>
>>> I bid $5.
>>
>> I bid $3.
>
> instead.
Not a bad idea. Come January 1, when all the regular water has disappeared
because nobody thought to hire Y2K consultants to verify the compliance of
water molecules by putting little "Y2K OK" stickers on each one for $250 a
pop, you'll be laughing.
miguel
Jim String
>In article <MVDn3.33647$lP6.1...@news3.giganews.com>,
>>>> I am auctioning the domain name
>>>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>>>
>>> I bid $5.
>>
>>I bid $3.
>
Nod, nod. You can't eat quatloos.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
Captain Nerd wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <slrn7ptfh8....@molly.hh.org>, pla...@not.replyable.com
>(Jim String) wrote:
>
>> In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >I am auctioning the domain name
>> >"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>>
>> Duh, www.y2kinvesting.com is a host name. y2kinvesting.com would be
>> the domain name.
>>
>> I dunno, if you are using mail-from authentication I could probably
>> just take it from you. Domain speculators usually aren't very smart.
>> Internet vermin, if you know what I mean.
>
>
> Well, is this what the "moral high ground" is? Transfering
> domains for money is stupid, but theft by fraud and impersonation
> is good?
>
> Nice to know. Should I be on the lookout for my domains being
> taken from me by people who deem me equally "verminous?"
>
>
>> I bid $5.
>
> Why? Why *not* just steal it, if the current registrant is so
> "stupid" and "verminous" as to actually want money to change the
> registered owner?
You are mistaking law and normal morality with Internet justice. Tell me,
are you one of the speculators who jam up the internic with speculative
registration spam? Do you pay for the domains or just register again
when the domain goes on hold for nonpayment, making honest folks like me
wait a long time for my legitimate registrations to go through?
You are mistaken sir, screwing with speculators' mail-from auth is both
right and just. If I was bored I'd probably do it just on general principles
but I can't seem to get too interested today.
What's the deal with flaming me anyway? I merely noted that mail-from auth
is insecure and made a cash money offer. Learn a little more about the
Internet and IP networking and maybe you'll eventually figure out why
domain speculators are regarded with nearly the same disgust as email
and Usenet spammers.
Best,
Jim
Frank Ney
ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) to write:
>Provider 3 bids 400 quatloos.
Provider 1 bids 600 quatloos.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B LPWV NRA(L) ProvNRA GOA CCRKBA JPFO
--
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to
tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about
as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.12
GAT d- s:+ a35 C$ L++>++++$ P+ W++ N++ o-- K- w>--- O(++) M-
PS+++ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+ b+++ DI+++ UF++ D++ G e+*
h* r++ y?*
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Robin Hood
naaa....
I'll bid a you get a BIG rubber dick up your ass for the domain and
the SPAM!
Robin Hood.
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 02:29:43 GMT, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I am auctioning the domain name
>"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>For information go to:
>
>auctions.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/auction-glance/Y03X1259389X8463634/
>
>This is THE domain name for capturing the
>attention of the entire world for the most
>important investment opportunity in history.
>
>There is no reserve price, and the minimum bid is
>set to $1000. This is far lower than the highest
>amount I have been offered for the domain name. I
>decided to run the auction this way to be sure the
>domain is sold.
>
>A complete search of the Federal Trademark
>database at www.trademarks.com found no prior
>claim, so there is no possibility of trademark
>infringement.
>
Dr John Stockton
1999 07:20:37 in news:comp.software.year-2000, Jim String
<pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote:
>In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>I am auctioning the domain name
>>"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
>
>the domain name.
>
>I dunno, if you are using mail-from authentication I could probably
>just take it from you. Domain speculators usually aren't very smart.
>Internet vermin, if you know what I mean.
Please be careful with your Newsgroups lines when following-up, folks,
and exclude any groups for which you do not *know* for sure that the
post will be on-topic.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL: http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
Dates - miscdate.htm Year 2000 - date2000.htm Critical Dates - critdate.htm
Y2k for beginners - year2000.txt UK mini-FAQ - y2k-mfaq.txt Don't Mail News
Scott
Frank Ney wrote:
>
> On 28 Jul 1999 10:09:47 -0400, an orbiting mind control laser caused
> ric...@ns1.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton) to write:
>
> >Provider 3 bids 400 quatloos.
>
> Provider 1 bids 600 quatloos.
"Damn it, Jim - I'm a doctor, not a speculator..."
<snip>
B Poulton
dennis shea <denn...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I was gonna bid $3, but i've decided to invest in dehydrated water
>instead.
>dennis
On Jay Leno's Headline news Monday night he showed an ad for a company
selling dehydrated water. Couldn't see it well enough to determine if it
was a gag gift but with all the suckers out there you never know.
--
bpoulton at vcn.bc.ca (Bob Poulton) Remove the 'trythis.' to reply.
(for Usenet only) (if I remember to stick it in)
When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle. It makes the neighbours dog run
to the end of his chain and gag himself.
--
x
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7pv169....@molly.hh.org>, pla...@not.replyable.com
(Jim String) wrote:
> In article <cptnerd-2807...@cj430422-a.alex1.va.home.com>,
> Captain Nerd wrote:
>
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >In article <slrn7ptfh8....@molly.hh.org>, pla...@not.replyable.com
> >(Jim String) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >I am auctioning the domain name
> >> >"www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
> >>
> >> Duh, www.y2kinvesting.com is a host name. y2kinvesting.com would be
> >> the domain name.
> >>
> >> I dunno, if you are using mail-from authentication I could probably
> >> just take it from you. Domain speculators usually aren't very smart.
> >> Internet vermin, if you know what I mean.
> >
> >
> > Well, is this what the "moral high ground" is? Transfering
> > domains for money is stupid, but theft by fraud and impersonation
> > is good?
> >
> > Nice to know. Should I be on the lookout for my domains being
> > taken from me by people who deem me equally "verminous?"
> >
> >
> >> I bid $5.
> >
> > Why? Why *not* just steal it, if the current registrant is so
> > "stupid" and "verminous" as to actually want money to change the
> > registered owner?
>
> You are mistaking law and normal morality with Internet justice. Tell me,
> are you one of the speculators who jam up the internic with speculative
> registration spam?
I am the registered organization for a bunch of domain names. I
also am partner in a web-hosting company.
What is "registration spam," and what differentiates it from other
"non-spam" registrations?
Do you pay for the domains
I have paid for every domain I registered, with my own credit cards.
In fact, I'm just now finishing paying the credit cards off.
or just register again
> when the domain goes on hold for nonpayment, making honest folks like me
> wait a long time for my legitimate registrations to go through?
How do you know which domains I registered, and what makes you think
you have any more right to them than I do? Internic has always been
"first come, first served," until the trademark lawyers started
butting in.
> You are mistaken sir, screwing with speculators' mail-from auth is both
> right and just. If I was bored I'd probably do it just on general principles
> but I can't seem to get too interested today.
Again, what "moral principles" are being violated, other than an
interest in commerce involving a type of property you don't want
to see bought or sold?
Keep in mind, my own morals were set long before "Star Trek: The
Next Generation", and since I'm old and stupid, you'll have to
use small words. "It's wrong because I say so" isn't an acceptable
reason.
> What's the deal with flaming me anyway? I merely noted that mail-from auth
> is insecure and made a cash money offer.
I seem to see the words "Domain speculators usually aren't that
smart", and the phrase "verminous, really" used as well. This
by you is not a flame?
Learn a little more about the
> Internet and IP networking and maybe you'll eventually figure out why
> domain speculators are regarded with nearly the same disgust as email
> and Usenet spammers.
Go teach your gramma to suck eggs, sprout. I've had various internet
accounts since January '89. I was here before they started charging
for domains, I was here before there were ISPs, I was here when an
entire day's newsfeed (including the alt.* groups) was a couple dozen
megabytes. When the "high-speed" backbone was a bunch of 56Kbit/sec
leased lines. WHen you had to be a student at a university, or
an employee of a DOD contractor (I was the latter) to get on the
net. I got on-line just a few months after the "great Usenet
renaming", when we got the "big 7+" newsgroups out of the former
"net.*" heirarchy.
Again, explain in reeeaaaalll small words, why "domain speculators
are regarded with nearly the same disgust as email and Usenet spammers."
Bear in mind, I'm old and stupid, and never cared for Marxism...
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN5+6m7ztfgpKlX7qEQIoBACg34duAWgseQBHNvOQ2kVXecVf66oAnRfp
I6Bez+YiT6lYj+UW5CXDZ9MY
=v0jK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"By the taping of my glasses,
something geeky this way passes" Captain Nerd
cpt...@nerdwatch.com
http://www.nerdwatch.com
Jeff Kennedy, Senior System Programmer
>
> Tim May <tc...@got.net> wrote in message
> news:tcmay-28079...@dyn-207-111-241-126.sjc.got.net...
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, you are missing something obvious.
> >
> > But we'll forgive you, as your ".il" domain may mean you are not a native
> > speaker of English.
>
> Hey, wait a minute! I was born and raised in IL (Illinois). Aside from
> most Chicagoans, the vast majority of us spoke English .. at least as a
> second language. ;-)
Well that would explain alot. Had I know you were a "FIB" I would have
typed slower. ROFL
PatH the Cheesehead
Andy Brenton
Please, Please stop posting this to uk.tech.y2k. It is not relevant there and is
getting a lot of bods up tight.
Thanks, Andy B
Kirk Is
[someone else wrote]
> > You are mistaking law and normal morality with Internet justice. Tell me,
> > are you one of the speculators who jam up the internic with speculative
> > registration spam?
> I am the registered organization for a bunch of domain names. I
> also am partner in a web-hosting company.
> What is "registration spam," and what differentiates it from other
> "non-spam" registrations?
"Non-spam" registrations are secured with the intention of being used by
the registrant, or by someone (already) in association with the
registrant. "registration spam" is made by people hoping to force people
who are actually doing things to accept an association, usually moneywise.
> Do you pay for the domains
In a way all legitimate domain owners pay, by greatly increasing the
overhead InterNIC and its ilk have. More to the point, a person with a
legitimate idea for a domain will likely have to pay- pay some squatter
who is providing NOTHING OF ANY VALUE. Or perhaps we all pay by forcing
USED domains to be longer than they have to be, since they have to glue
words together in order to avoid the namespace staked out by the
squatters.
> I have paid for every domain I registered, with my own credit cards.
> In fact, I'm just now finishing paying the credit cards off.
Well, then you're doing better then some speculators, who try to use the
processing lag to control domains without ever paying for them.
> > when the domain goes on hold for nonpayment, making honest folks like me
> > wait a long time for my legitimate registrations to go through?
> How do you know which domains I registered, and what makes you think
> you have any more right to them than I do? Internic has always been
> "first come, first served," until the trademark lawyers started
> butting in.
One of the reasons the trademark lawyers had to butt in was because of
squatters holding domains for ransom. (There are also cases where big
company sicks its lawyers after small company with similar name in order
to extend its a dominion. That is a legitimate problem. Big companies
kicking out squatters because it's cheaper to hire lawyers than pay the
ransom is not a problem.)
[snip]
> Again, explain in reeeaaaalll small words, why "domain speculators
> are regarded with nearly the same disgust as email and Usenet spammers."
> Bear in mind, I'm old and stupid, and never cared for Marxism...
Why? Because capitalism works best when capitalists provide some GENERAL
UTILITY. I dislike metaphors, but I'd say a large percentage of 'Net folk
see speculating more akin to kidnapping than legitimate business activity.
The speculators are trying to bleed money from someone who are actually
trying to get stuff done. They clog up the system, providing NOTHING in
return, trying to etract money from people who are trying to get useful
stuff done.
If my company is forced to pay thousands for a domain that someone has
squatted, what benefit do they get, relative to being aboe to get it from
InterNIC directly?
--
Kirk Israel - kis...@cs.tufts.edu - http://www.alienbill.com
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around,
and don't let anybody tell you any different." --Kurt Vonnegut
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <37b10cd6....@news.netvision.net.il>,
:>post...@dissensoftware.com (Binyamin Dissen) wrote:
:>> On Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:00:37 -0700 tc...@got.net (Tim May) wrote:
:>> :>In article <7nlpuf$3om$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, zac_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
:>> :>> I am auctioning the domain name
:>> :>> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
:>> :>I bid $18.
:>> :>More than it's worth, but what the hell.
:>> Did Zac already pay the $70?
:>> If not, why not register y2k-investing or y2kinvestments or ......
:>> Am I missing something obvious?
:>Yes, you are missing something obvious.
What?
y2kinvesting is not an obvious URL. Nobody is going to guess it.
Not like, for example, airfares, travel, smut, sexwithbarnyardanimals, etc.
:>But we'll forgive you, as your ".il" domain may mean you are not a native
:>speaker of English.
No, I cannot use that excuse.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Andrew Diseker
Hash: SHA1
(followups trimmed to appropriate group)
In article <7npu0b$q4n$1...@news3.tufts.edu>, kis...@agony.cs.tufts.edu (Kirk
Is) wrote:
> Captain Nerd (cpt...@nerdwatch.com) wrote:
> [someone else wrote]
> > > You are mistaking law and normal morality with Internet justice. Tell
me,
> > > are you one of the speculators who jam up the internic with speculative
> > > registration spam?
>
> > I am the registered organization for a bunch of domain names. I
> > also am partner in a web-hosting company.
>
> > What is "registration spam," and what differentiates it from other
> > "non-spam" registrations?
>
>
> "Non-spam" registrations are secured with the intention of being used by
> the registrant, or by someone (already) in association with the
> registrant. "registration spam" is made by people hoping to force people
> who are actually doing things to accept an association, usually moneywise.
It took me a couple of passes to parse the last sentence, there.
I run a web-hosting company. I registered a couple of neat-sounding
or possibly utilitarian names, in order to either use them myself
or provide them to future customers, for a fee. If I then decide
not to use one of the domains, and try to recoup my losses (of fee,
and of time spent to register, time spent setting up DNS/webpages/
whatever), then suddenly the registration I sent in has become
"registration spam," because my motivation for registering changed?
Is it the contention that, if I end up not using a domain, that I
should just cancel the registration and eat the cost?
If I register neat/utilitarian domains that no one has thought of
yet, and I advertise that the names are available, and the prices,
and someone sees a name and says "hey, I like that name, here's
the price you're asking," this is somehow "force?"
What about if someone checks the registry, sees I have a neat
name already registered, but they want the name and offer me
a huge sum, is that somehow also "force"? Does that make the
registration I filed now "registration spam?" because I'm
making money off the domain?
If I sell the domains I have to customers of my web company, is
that sufficiently "in association" with "people who are actually
doing things?" If I register domains because I don't want to lose
them, but I'm not using them immediately, is it "registration
spam" until I actually do use them?
What if I
>
> > Do you pay for the domains
>
> In a way all legitimate domain owners pay, by greatly increasing the
> overhead InterNIC and its ilk have.
Registrations are going to be filed, regardless of the intent of
the filers. The domains are eventually going to be used, so the
only extra overhead is nonexistent, because either speculators
file for the domains, or the one's who are "actually doing something"
are going to file for the same domains. The same number of domains
are going to be registered.
More to the point, a person with a
> legitimate idea for a domain will likely have to pay- pay some squatter
> who is providing NOTHING OF ANY VALUE.
I'm providing the time it takes to register, the time it takes to
set up DNS, the space on my computers' hard drives for the DNS
database and/or web pages, the processing time on my CPUs that
host the page/translate the domain, basically I go through
all the trouble of registering and setting up a domain for use.
I also spend the time and money to transfer the domain to the new
registrant. This by me is value, and I determine the cost in
dollars of that value. Obviously, anti-speculators disagree
with that valuation.
Or perhaps we all pay by forcing
> USED domains to be longer than they have to be, since they have to glue
> words together in order to avoid the namespace staked out by the
> squatters.
That will happen, regardless of the motivation of the people
filing for the domains. If every speculator suddenly gave up
their domains to the people you feel deserve to have them, what
happens to new people who want domains? Don't they now have to
"glue words together" in order to avoid the namespace already
taken by "legitimate" registrants?
> > I have paid for every domain I registered, with my own credit cards.
> > In fact, I'm just now finishing paying the credit cards off.
>
> Well, then you're doing better then some speculators, who try to use the
> processing lag to control domains without ever paying for them.
I always pay for what I buy.
> > > when the domain goes on hold for nonpayment, making honest folks like me
> > > wait a long time for my legitimate registrations to go through?
> > How do you know which domains I registered, and what makes you think
> > you have any more right to them than I do? Internic has always been
> > "first come, first served," until the trademark lawyers started
> > butting in.
>
> One of the reasons the trademark lawyers had to butt in was because of
> squatters holding domains for ransom.
No, the trademark lawyers came in because of Viacom vs Adam Curry,
over ownership of mtv.com.
Curry, a v.j. on MTV, registered the domain in his name and set up
the mtv.com website, because Viacom wasn't interested (didn't
understand, really) the impact of web sites. When Curry decided
to leave MTV, he took the domain name with him, since he was the
owner of record. By that time, the web was starting to get popular,
and Viacom (owners of the MTV trademark) sued Curry to get the domain
back. He lost, and it signaled the end of "first come, first served"
in the domain area, and started the idea that trademarks in domain
space had to be protected.
> The speculators are trying to bleed money from someone who are actually
> trying to get stuff done. They clog up the system, providing NOTHING in
> return, trying to etract money from people who are trying to get useful
> stuff done.
> If my company is forced to pay thousands for a domain that someone has
> squatted, what benefit do they get, relative to being aboe to get it from
> InterNIC directly?
See my explanation above about "providing nothing."
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6CYgLztfgpKlX7qEQLRQACdGY0i0UtBtKPt58UoSsUrVmYSmDYAn1XG
ORK7jeHHB/9T7zWnHa2Sr6vU
=+xWX
Steinar Haug
| It took me a couple of passes to parse the last sentence, there.
| I run a web-hosting company. I registered a couple of neat-sounding
| or possibly utilitarian names, in order to either use them myself
| or provide them to future customers, for a fee. If I then decide
| not to use one of the domains, and try to recoup my losses (of fee,
| and of time spent to register, time spent setting up DNS/webpages/
| whatever), then suddenly the registration I sent in has become
| "registration spam," because my motivation for registering changed?
| Is it the contention that, if I end up not using a domain, that I
| should just cancel the registration and eat the cost?
Yes.
Actually, I wouldn't be against a lower fee for this. But I see absolutely
*no* reason why you should be allowed to register a name and then later
cancel it again, for free.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Andrew Diseker
Hash: SHA1
In article <7nq736...@verdi.nethelp.no>, sth...@nethelp.no (Steinar Haug)
wrote:
> [Andrew Diseker]
>
> | It took me a couple of passes to parse the last sentence, there.
> | I run a web-hosting company. I registered a couple of neat-sounding
> | or possibly utilitarian names, in order to either use them myself
> | or provide them to future customers, for a fee. If I then decide
> | not to use one of the domains, and try to recoup my losses (of fee,
> | and of time spent to register, time spent setting up DNS/webpages/
> | whatever), then suddenly the registration I sent in has become
> | "registration spam," because my motivation for registering changed?
> | Is it the contention that, if I end up not using a domain, that I
> | should just cancel the registration and eat the cost?
>
> Yes.
Why?
> Actually, I wouldn't be against a lower fee for this. But I see absolutely
> *no* reason why you should be allowed to register a name and then later
> cancel it again, for free.
Why not?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6CjmDN71VPIx5AJEQL2dwCgqYAVsZUwpKcdCP0AkmQX87uSuT0AoMAQ
VuC2hPZMN1u6BeXrcS5779VH
=sZfA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steinar Haug
| > Actually, I wouldn't be against a lower fee for this. But I see absolutely
| > *no* reason why you should be allowed to register a name and then later
| > cancel it again, for free.
|
| Why not?
You have used resources. You should expect to pay for them. Also, having
*some* cost for this is a good deterrent against domain name speculation.
(And if we are going to discuss whether domain name speculation should
be allowed or not, let me point out that speculation in the stock markets
is not free...)
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <7nqa5u...@verdi.nethelp.no>, sth...@nethelp.no (Steinar Haug)
wrote:
> [Andrew Diseker]
>
> | > Actually, I wouldn't be against a lower fee for this. But I see
absolutely
> | > *no* reason why you should be allowed to register a name and then later
> | > cancel it again, for free.
> |
> | Why not?
>
> You have used resources. You should expect to pay for them. Also, having
> *some* cost for this is a good deterrent against domain name speculation.
I've already paid for resources, such as my server, my time to
register, my effort at originally coming up with the name, etc.
As far as using resources, when I surrender a name for nothing,
NSI will turn around and charge the new registrant the same
amount for the same record, so they can get twice any "cost"
they have.
> (And if we are going to discuss whether domain name speculation should
> be allowed or not, let me point out that speculation in the stock markets
> is not free...)
But allowed.
Here's another thought: Why should the first person who registers
a domain name be deemed a criminal or at least a "vermin", just
because he got there ahead of someone else? Why should the person
who got there first be automatically considered "wrong" for wanting
to charge the latecomer a fee to transfer the name?
The bottom line is, are domain names property, can they be transferred,
and can the current registrant charge a new registrant for transferring
registration? The idea of domains as property leads to the idea of
property rights. If I buy a piece of undeveloped land in an area
with low property values, don't develop it while the surrounding land
becomes more valueable, is it wrong to want to sell it for more than
I paid, if someone wants the land? Is it "forcing" or "blackmailing"
or "holding for ransom", as a previous poster claimed I, as a domain
speculator, am doing?
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6EgU7ztfgpKlX7qEQJtqQCfbtZMEFJEva1H1aa2oGy37HXBFIQAoJ3x
9ovV7v8BspoEMWm7lR17Cpw8
=i2eH
Steinar Haug
| > You have used resources. You should expect to pay for them. Also, having
| > *some* cost for this is a good deterrent against domain name speculation.
|
| I've already paid for resources, such as my server, my time to
| register, my effort at originally coming up with the name, etc.
If you haven't paid any of this to the registry (NSI in this case), it's
completely irrelevant.
Miguel Cruz
> I run a web-hosting company. I registered a couple of neat-sounding or
> possibly utilitarian names, in order to either use them myself or provide
> them to future customers, for a fee. If I then decide not to use one of
> the domains, and try to recoup my losses (of fee, and of time spent to
> register, time spent setting up DNS/webpages/ whatever)
If this takes you more than 5 minutes, or uses more than a penny worth of
disk space, you're doing something seriously wrong. The fee itself is
immaterial since the objections here are to people who don't pay the fee.
Why don't you write $10000 off on your next tax return for a new pencil and
see how the IRS takes it? ("But I flew to Japan first class to buy it!")
miguel
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <6pho3.12440$eR.8...@news1.giganews.com>, use...@admin.u.nu
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Andrew Diseker <adis...@lexonia.net> wrote:
> > I run a web-hosting company. I registered a couple of neat-sounding or
> > possibly utilitarian names, in order to either use them myself or provide
> > them to future customers, for a fee. If I then decide not to use one of
> > the domains, and try to recoup my losses (of fee, and of time spent to
> > register, time spent setting up DNS/webpages/ whatever)
>
> If this takes you more than 5 minutes, or uses more than a penny worth of
> disk space, you're doing something seriously wrong. The fee itself is
> immaterial since the objections here are to people who don't pay the fee.
No, the objections I've read have been to people who dare to charge
others more than the Internic fee to transfer the registration.
Doing so makes one a "speculator" and "vermin."
> Why don't you write $10000 off on your next tax return for a new pencil and
> see how the IRS takes it? ("But I flew to Japan first class to buy it!")
>
> miguel
A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea
that a domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what
I'm trying to invalidate here. It is intellectual property, and is
as valuable as a corporation name, and as valuable as someone else
is willing to pay. If I stake a claim on a name, by being there
first, and someone else later wants the same name, then there must
be a negotiation, and fair recompense for my effort. The value of
that recompense is determined by me and the party that wants the
fruits of my effort. And as long as it's legal, and not forbidden
by the registration terms imposed by NSI, I fail to see what the
problem is.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6HTe7ztfgpKlX7qEQKH6gCfcciJEtDx8m0V2CMZi6+G5R6AtxcAn0PA
3+i/x+6nwWq5MpGo4wXr2xw/
=1x0/
Eric Edwards
> A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea
> that a domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what
> I'm trying to invalidate here.
No one is disputing that. But if you feel the price should reflect the
name's value then, by all means, pay the Internic several thousand
dollars for your next domain name. I'm sure NSI won't mind.
> It is intellectual property, and is
> as valuable as a corporation name, and as valuable as someone else
> is willing to pay. If I stake a claim on a name, by being there
> first, and someone else later wants the same name, then there must
> be a negotiation, and fair recompense for my effort.
Why? Your effort has not increased the value of the name. The loss of
the domain name is no burden for you. Why should you be compensated?
--
Real courtesy requires human effort and understanding.
Never let your machine or your habit send courtesy copies.
Miguel Cruz
> A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea that a
> domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what I'm trying to
> corporation name, and as valuable as someone else is willing to pay.
This sort of thinking applies nicely to intellectual property which arose
from some creative or scientific process.
Picking words out of the dictionary and sticking ".com" on the end of them
does not qualify.
> If I stake a claim on a name, by being there first, and someone else later
> wants the same name, then there must be a negotiation, and fair recompense
> for my effort. The value of that recompense is determined by me and the
> party that wants the fruits of my effort.
I disagree. The value of your effort in such a case is close to nil. The
value of the domain name does not derive from your effort, but from the
scarcity of the resource, which is something entirely different.
miguel
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <inmo3.38245$lP6.1...@news3.giganews.com>, use...@admin.u.nu
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea that a
> > domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what I'm trying to
> > invalidate here. It is intellectual property, and is as valuable as a
> > corporation name, and as valuable as someone else is willing to pay.
>
> This sort of thinking applies nicely to intellectual property which arose
> from some creative or scientific process.
>
> Picking words out of the dictionary and sticking ".com" on the end of them
> does not qualify.
So, you saw my list of domains? You watched me "pick words out of the
dictionary?"
I am impressed...
What's the definition of "infomere?"
Who owns the trademark?
What poor, innocent company am I holding ransom by having registered
infomere.com, .net, and .org?
> > If I stake a claim on a name, by being there first, and someone else later
> > wants the same name, then there must be a negotiation, and fair recompense
> > for my effort. The value of that recompense is determined by me and the
> > party that wants the fruits of my effort.
>
> I disagree. The value of your effort in such a case is close to nil. The
> value of the domain name does not derive from your effort, but from the
> scarcity of the resource, which is something entirely different.
The same can be said of undeveloped land, but no one claims that
a holder of such land is only entitled to the original price they
paid for it.
The truth is, I went out and registered the name, I set up the
server, I put the name out in public, I am the one who made the
effort. If someone else comes along later and wants to profit
from my efforts, that's between me and him.
You may put a value on my effort, but that's irrelevant to the
discussion. I value my time and effort highly, and if someone
else wants the domain that I secured, and most importantly if
they agree with my self-valuation, then your valuation means nil.
Other than griping because someone had the money, time, and
resources to register a domain first, I've yet to see a reason
why what I'm doing is "immoral."
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6KKarztfgpKlX7qEQJmtQCfSX7ZNLQeM+DcMRUHGuE1d3HGFWgAn3zq
plbyvxmWq8ZRdxcgHcEud/3Y
=Cpup
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <86hfmmh...@mindless.com>, fsck <fs...@mindless.com> wrote:
> cpt...@nerdwatch.com (Captain Nerd) writes:
>
> >
> > A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea
> > that a domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what
> > I'm trying to invalidate here. It is intellectual property, and is
> > as valuable as a corporation name, and as valuable as someone else
> > is willing to pay. If I stake a claim on a name, by being there
> > first, and someone else later wants the same name, then there must
> > be a negotiation, and fair recompense for my effort. The value of
> > that recompense is determined by me and the party that wants the
> > fruits of my effort. And as long as it's legal, and not forbidden
> > by the registration terms imposed by NSI, I fail to see what the
> > problem is.
>
> I find this vastly amusing.
I live to serve...
> Cap, are you even aware that Trademark and Intellectual Property
> lawyers and holders are right now using that exact same argument to
> forbid you from doing what you're doing?
How so? Are they planning to make making up a name, sticking .com
on the end, and selling it illegal? Are they going to make it
illegal to, as the other poster said, "stick .com on the end of
a dictionary entry?"
> If they're allowed, they'll use the same argument to make what you're
> doing a crime.
Until they do, I'm not breaking the law, and any claim that
what I'm doing is "immoral" is on shaky ground.
> This has got to be the first time I've seen two parties who both
> claim victimization, and use exactly the same argument to support
> the claim.
I'm not "claiming victimization," anymore than any other businessman
claims victimization by genning up an invoice.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6KLVrztfgpKlX7qEQJ4egCgpisQ8tdmp+AZEuAGkg3sBPY3dtwAnjbv
5cLShkly106ldSU/QLH3vhDU
=5XAB
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7q3mjf...@spica.exile.org>, ese...@news9.exile.org
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:31:58 -0400, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>
wrote:
> > A domain name is quite a bit more valuable than a pencil. The idea
> > that a domain name is only as valuable as the Internic fee is what
> > I'm trying to invalidate here.
>
> No one is disputing that. But if you feel the price should reflect the
> name's value then, by all means, pay the Internic several thousand
> dollars for your next domain name. I'm sure NSI won't mind.
How valuable is a name that isn't registered? How valuable is a
name that no one has heard of? Of course NSI is aware, that's
why they want to be in the hosting/advertising business themselves,
not just the registration business. Just having a name is of
no value unless others learn of it. How valuable was "ebay.com"
before it was registered, and before it was advertised?
> > It is intellectual property, and is
> > as valuable as a corporation name, and as valuable as someone else
> > is willing to pay. If I stake a claim on a name, by being there
> > first, and someone else later wants the same name, then there must
> > be a negotiation, and fair recompense for my effort.
>
> Why? Your effort has not increased the value of the name. The loss of
> the domain name is no burden for you. Why should you be compensated?
The name had no value until I registered it. It had no value
until I listed it in public as being available.
I don't care that you value my efforts as nil, since you are
never going to be a customer of mine, your valuation has no
meaning.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6KMh7ztfgpKlX7qEQIiOACfdjxnbe2LjVe/ZzJgm/3mA0RvVuoAn3rP
/m9DCM2ceT00s/W6Va072SgR
=mchD
Miguel Cruz
>> Picking words out of the dictionary and sticking ".com" on the end of them
>> does not qualify.
>
> What's the definition of "infomere?"
I am suitably impressed by your ability to pick a single contrary example.
>> I disagree. The value of your effort in such a case is close to nil. The
>> value of the domain name does not derive from your effort, but from the
>> scarcity of the resource, which is something entirely different.
>
> The same can be said of undeveloped land, but no one claims that
> a holder of such land is only entitled to the original price they
> paid for it.
This ain't 1820, and you're not paying for the "undeveloped land", you're
paying an administrative fee that covers the cost of assigning the land to
you. The value of the land remains unaccounted-for.
> You may put a value on my effort, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
> I value my time and effort highly, and if someone else wants the domain
> that I secured, and most importantly if they agree with my self-valuation,
> then your valuation means nil.
Let's try another example, then. I say that the value provided by kidnapping
a child is zero. You say no, someone is willing to pay you a lot of money to
get that child back, so obviously you have created substantial value. I
shrug and go talk to someone else who makes more sense.
miguel
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <CvGo3.14329$eR.9...@news1.giganews.com>, use...@admin.u.nu
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> >> Picking words out of the dictionary and sticking ".com" on the end of
them
> >> does not qualify.
> >
> > What's the definition of "infomere?"
>
> I am suitably impressed by your ability to pick a single contrary example.
Haven't done a "whois" yet, eh? Hmmm.
"Orthomere.com" "Intrometric.com" "intromere.com" "Evalence.com"
"digitalgrubstake.com", and the .net and .org versions as well.
I did do a couple of dictionary words, that are rarely used.
"Janissary.com" "godwit.com" "wingmen.com"
Some of them I'm going to use, some of them I'm going to sell.
One of them I'm using to "sell itself."
> > The same can be said of undeveloped land, but no one claims that
> > a holder of such land is only entitled to the original price they
> > paid for it.
>
> This ain't 1820, and you're not paying for the "undeveloped land", you're
> paying an administrative fee that covers the cost of assigning the land to
> you. The value of the land remains unaccounted-for.
Until someone places a value on it, by purchasing it.
> > You may put a value on my effort, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
> > I value my time and effort highly, and if someone else wants the domain
> > that I secured, and most importantly if they agree with my self-valuation,
> > then your valuation means nil.
>
> Let's try another example, then. I say that the value provided by kidnapping
> a child is zero. You say no, someone is willing to pay you a lot of money to
> get that child back, so obviously you have created substantial value. I
> shrug and go talk to someone else who makes more sense.
Kidnapping is against the law. What am I doing that's against
the law?
Kidnapping harms innocents. What innocents am I harming?
Come back when you have a real analogy, fighting strawmen is
a waste of time and energy.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6Pcy7ztfgpKlX7qEQKIkQCg2VlbZyaDDHxryorLbXrCVhGLkPIAnAu6
jHlBjOuPOLUFmXp23kmT2UE0
=TimS
Eric Edwards
>In article <CvGo3.14329$eR.9...@news1.giganews.com>, use...@admin.u.nu
>(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> I did do a couple of dictionary words, that are rarely used.
> "Janissary.com" "godwit.com" "wingmen.com"
>
> Some of them I'm going to use, some of them I'm going to sell.
Why did you register them if you were just going to sell them. It seems
more efficient to leave them unregistered. Anyone who wants the name
can register directly through the Internic. It's the same name, after
all, whether they register direct or go through you. It's just more
hassle and expense if they have to go through you.
>> This ain't 1820, and you're not paying for the "undeveloped land", you're
>> paying an administrative fee that covers the cost of assigning the land to
>> you. The value of the land remains unaccounted-for.
>
> Until someone places a value on it, by purchasing it.
Purchasing puts a *price* on the land, not a value. Learn the
difference.
> Kidnapping is against the law. What am I doing that's against
> the law?
Does it matter?
> Kidnapping harms innocents. What innocents am I harming?
Does harm have to be done to so-called "innocents"? Does your fellow
man not count? Would kidnapping be Ok if the victims were adults and it
wasn't actually illegal?
Eric Edwards
>In article <slrn7q3mjf...@spica.exile.org>, ese...@news9.exile.org
>(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> How valuable is a name that isn't registered?
A name that is not in use and not registered has exactly the same value
as a name that is not in use and is registered.
> How valuable is a
> name that no one has heard of?
About the same as a name who has only been seen by people who have
looked at your listings. A lot if it's short and guess-able, not much if
it's long and prone to misspelling.
> Of course NSI is aware
Aware of what?
>, that's
> why they want to be in the hosting/advertising business themselves,
> not just the registration business. Just having a name is of
> no value unless others learn of it.
Or can guess it, or has the potential to be memorable, or, etc.
> How valuable was "ebay.com"
> before it was registered, and before it was advertised?
It had some value, being a pronounceable, four letter name. Right now
it has a lot of value to the highly successful auction house we all
know. If the auction house had not been successful, it would be worth
about the same as it was before being registered.
> The name had no value until I registered it. It had no value
> until I listed it in public as being available.
The only people who see your listings are people who are looking for
domain names, and not even very many of those. The "public", as in the
people your customers are trying to reach, has no more awareness of the
names than before you registered them.
> I don't care that you value my efforts as nil, since you are
> never going to be a customer of mine, your valuation has no
> meaning.
But I do care because your efforts raise the cost of doing business on
the net.
You know, if you really want to go into the naming business in an
honorable fashion, why don't you become a consultant. Help people find
good names for their operations rather than waiting for your customers
to come up with the names themselves and then charging for the privilege
of actually getting to use them.
Miguel Cruz
> Kidnapping harms innocents. What innocents am I harming?
The people who would otherwise be able to register names at the real price.
miguel
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7q7oj8...@spica.exile.org>, ese...@news9.exile.org
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 05:36:14 GMT, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com>
wrote:
> >In article <CvGo3.14329$eR.9...@news1.giganews.com>, use...@admin.u.nu
> >(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> > I did do a couple of dictionary words, that are rarely used.
> > "Janissary.com" "godwit.com" "wingmen.com"
> >
> > Some of them I'm going to use, some of them I'm going to sell.
>
> Why did you register them if you were just going to sell them. It seems
> more efficient to leave them unregistered. Anyone who wants the name
> can register directly through the Internic. It's the same name, after
> all, whether they register direct or go through you. It's just more
> hassle and expense if they have to go through you.
Less hassle, more expense. I fill out all the forms, I spend the
time, they spend the money. Time/money tradeoff.
I registered a bunch of names, because I liked them and they weren't
taken yet, and because others were taking names, and I didn't want
to be left out. Self-defense in some respects. The names I don't
want now, I'm going to sell, if I can. If I can't, I'll keep them
and eventually use them, either for myself or for others.
> >> This ain't 1820, and you're not paying for the "undeveloped land", you're
> >> paying an administrative fee that covers the cost of assigning the land
to
> >> you. The value of the land remains unaccounted-for.
> >
> > Until someone places a value on it, by purchasing it.
>
> Purchasing puts a *price* on the land, not a value. Learn the
> difference.
Price is the most visible measure of value. Tangible assets'
values are esoteric until measured via commerce.
Is a Van Gogh painting valuable because someone spends $12 million
on it, or is the painting so valuable that someone is willing to
spend $12 million on it? Is the painting valuable without anyone
spending money on it? Yes, but what is the value?
>
> > Kidnapping is against the law. What am I doing that's against
> > the law?
>
> Does it matter?
Yes, since the person who made the example was trying to equate
what I'm doing with kidnapping. I was pointing out that comparing
a legal activity with an illegal activity does not advance his
argument against the legal activity.
> > Kidnapping harms innocents. What innocents am I harming?
>
> Does harm have to be done to so-called "innocents"? Does your fellow
> man not count? Would kidnapping be Ok if the victims were adults and it
> wasn't actually illegal?
Kidnapping has nothing to do with registering and selling domain
names, which is the whole point of this thread.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6VYpLztfgpKlX7qEQJsSwCgwH/NgAQC9sUwqGhZGW8Qh/tF0uMAoPnj
R9TMb+VhllpI6HaMA/CQn+vh
=TPuB
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7q7roe...@spica.exile.org>, ese...@news9.exile.org
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> > I don't care that you value my efforts as nil, since you are
> > never going to be a customer of mine, your valuation has no
> > meaning.
>
> But I do care because your efforts raise the cost of doing business on
> the net.
You could make the same claim that people who come up with good
names and trademark them, have raised the cost for people who haven't.
You could claim that someone who invents something raises the
cost for someone who later comes up with the same thing.
From what I see, all the complaints are being made to the effect
of "you got there first, it's not fair to those who didn't."
Well, yes, but that's too bad, it's called competition, and until
the rules are changed, whoever gets there first wins. It raises
the cost for those who get there second, granted, but so does
coming up with a novel invention, or buying property in an area
that later becomes popular. You either accept that there are
going to be winners and losers, or you don't, and try to make it
impossible to win.
If you don't like competition, I can understand that. The ethos is
changing, to make winning morally unacceptable, however, I don't
subscribe to the "new order." I have a shot at either winning or
at least coming out ahead, following all the laws and rules, and
competing against thousands of others in the same race. I'm not
cheating, I'm not doing anything anyone else can't do, I'm just
doing it now.
> You know, if you really want to go into the naming business in an
> honorable fashion, why don't you become a consultant. Help people find
> good names for their operations rather than waiting for your customers
> to come up with the names themselves and then charging for the privilege
> of actually getting to use them.
I said in an earlier post that I would offer names to my customers
who haven't come up with their own name, yet. Perhaps you missed it.
Besides, if I come up with the name first, why shouldn't I charge
the ones who come up with the same name later? I was there first.
Oh, yeah, it's unfair to come in first, hence "dishonorable."
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6Vot7ztfgpKlX7qEQIr3wCgp84JcG2/HJYp3h5pg9x20pjNhEQAn3gj
GqTMAmf8KLz+4WsW/QtUjlFq
=1HAO
Miguel Cruz
> Yes, since the person who made the example was trying to equate
> what I'm doing with kidnapping. I was pointing out that comparing
> a legal activity with an illegal activity does not advance his
> argument against the legal activity.
You might as well dismiss the argument on the grounds that kidnapping starts
with a K while registering starts with an R. The legality has nothing to do
with the point I was making.
The simple fact is that registering a domain is not creating value. Your
attempts to argue the contrary have been based on the idea that if your
actions cost someone money, then you have created value. Kidnapping is
merely one example of how that does not follow.
All you are doing is taking advantage of a flawed system in order to
increase the inefficiency of the marketplace for your personal gain. This is
the opposite of competition and of fair play.
miguel
Brian McCauley
> I am auctioning the domain name
> "www.y2kinvesting.com" at Amazon's auction site.
> For information go to:
>
> auctions.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/auction-glance/Y03X1259389X8463634/
>
> This is THE domain name for capturing the
> attention of the entire world for the most
> important investment opportunity in history.
>
> There is no reserve price, and the minimum bid is
> set to $1000.
Huh? What pray is the practical difference between a "minimum bid"
and a "reserve price"? The latter is defined in Webster's as "a price
announced at an auction as the lowest that will be considered".
This is not the first time I've seen this wording in a domain name
auction spam. It's well known that spammers lie but rarely is their
lying so compulsive that they contradict themselves within a sentence.
Of course nobody has bid for this, no sane person would.
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread domain name
speculators are viewed with the same disgust as spammers and for
basically the same reasons.
Like spamming domain name speculation is unlikely to ever create a
profit for the perpetrator. Also like spamming lusers see domain
name speculators and assume there must be money in it so have a go
themselves.
> A complete search of the Federal Trademark
> database at www.trademarks.com found no prior
> claim, so there is no possibility of trademark
> infringement.
Was it strictly necessary to insult the rest of the world in this way?
Did you think that posting off-topic and domain name speculation would
not make enough nettizens angry with you?
--
\\ ( ) No male bovine | Email: B.A.Mc...@bham.ac.uk
. _\\__[oo faeces from | Phones: +44 121 471 3789 (home)
.__/ \\ /\@ /~) /~[ /\/[ | +44 121 627 2173 (voice) 2175 (fax)
. l___\\ /~~) /~~[ / [ | PGP-fp: D7 03 2A 4B D8 3A 05 37...
# ll l\\ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | http://www.wcl.bham.ac.uk/~bam/
###LL LL\\ (Brian McCauley) |
Miguel Cruz
>> There is no reserve price, and the minimum bid is
>> set to $1000.
>
> Huh? What pray is the practical difference between a "minimum bid"
> and a "reserve price"? The latter is defined in Webster's as "a price
> announced at an auction as the lowest that will be considered".
With a lot of the online auctions, the reserve price is a secret. That seems
to be the only difference, but obviously with an automated auction it's not
a significant difference since you can increase your bid in $1 increments
without annoying anyone.
miguel
Eric Edwards
> You could make the same claim that people who come up with good
> names and trademark them, have raised the cost for people who haven't.
> You could claim that someone who invents something raises the
> cost for someone who later comes up with the same thing.
If that thing is trivial, as your domain names are, then yes. I do
object. Examples in patent law include such losers as the Xor patent.
> From what I see, all the complaints are being made to the effect
> of "you got there first, it's not fair to those who didn't."
> Well, yes, but that's too bad, it's called competition,
Ah, but you are not in competition. You are not using the names. You
are in no way competing with people who are. You merely extract a tax
from them.
> and until
> the rules are changed, whoever gets there first wins.
If people could be trusted to make ethical judgments, we wouldn't need
so many rules.
> It raises
> the cost for those who get there second, granted, but so does
> coming up with a novel invention,
No. When the patent system works, it ensures that the inventions happen
and that the discoveries are fully disclosed. That's the trade off.
Your names would have been "discovered" whether you were there or not.
It makes no sense to give you anything.
> If you don't like competition, I can understand that.
I like competition. But aren't competing. You aren't offering any
goods or services either for and not for profit. You are merely
collecting a private tax.
> The ethos is
> changing, to make winning morally unacceptable, however, I don't
> subscribe to the "new order." I have a shot at either winning or
> at least coming out ahead, following all the laws and rules, and
> competing against thousands of others in the same race. I'm not
> cheating, I'm not doing anything anyone else can't do, I'm just
> doing it now.
The rules are flawed. You take advantage of the flaws to line your own
pockets.
> I said in an earlier post that I would offer names to my customers
> who haven't come up with their own name, yet. Perhaps you missed it.
I didn't miss it. It simply wasn't important. Looking at a short list
of random domain names is not a useful technique for finding a domain
name for a given activity. It's probably not even worth the time cost
if you offered the names for free.
You are still not providing a service. No one should be paying you
until you do provide a service.
Eric Edwards
Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> Less hassle, more expense. I fill out all the forms, I spend the
> time, they spend the money. Time/money tradeoff.
There are companies, including ISP's, that will do the paperwork for
far less. And, I suspect, that your forms, and dealing with you, is
more complicated than dealing with the Internic. Certainly it's more
complicated than dealing with one's own ISP, who will often do it for
free.
> I registered a bunch of names, because I liked them and they weren't
> taken yet, and because others were taking names, and I didn't want
> to be left out. Self-defense in some respects.
Self-defense from what? You afraid you might get left out on the latest
scam?
>> Purchasing puts a *price* on the land, not a value. Learn the
>> difference.
>
> Price is the most visible measure of value. Tangible assets'
> values are esoteric until measured via commerce.
>
> Is a Van Gogh painting valuable because someone spends $12 million
> on it, or is the painting so valuable that someone is willing to
> spend $12 million on it?
It is valuable because it is a great work of art. The money is
immaterial.
> Is the painting valuable without anyone
> spending money on it? Yes, but what is the value?
Priceless. If you seriously think that the value of a work of art can be
measured in currency, you understand nothing about art.
Captain Nerd
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 09:45:30 GMT, Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > You could make the same claim that people who come up with good
> > names and trademark them, have raised the cost for people who haven't.
> > You could claim that someone who invents something raises the
> > cost for someone who later comes up with the same thing.
>
> If that thing is trivial, as your domain names are, then yes. I do
> object. Examples in patent law include such losers as the Xor patent.
Trivial or not, the fact remains, someone else got the rights to
use it first. Sucks, definitely, but that's the breaks.
> > From what I see, all the complaints are being made to the effect
> > of "you got there first, it's not fair to those who didn't."
> > Well, yes, but that's too bad, it's called competition,
>
> Ah, but you are not in competition. You are not using the names. You
> are in no way competing with people who are. You merely extract a tax
> from them.
I am certainly competing against the other people who want the
domains I've already gotten, and I'm in competition with those
who want to register domains I haven't yet.
Whining about people registering domains they "aren't using"
isn't making them stop, and since there's a grab going on, and
I have the resources to grab, too, I'm going to take what I
can, and devil take the hindmost.
> > and until
> > the rules are changed, whoever gets there first wins.
>
> If people could be trusted to make ethical judgments, we wouldn't need
> so many rules.
So, getting there first is unethical? How so?
> > It raises
> > the cost for those who get there second, granted, but so does
> > coming up with a novel invention,
>
> No. When the patent system works, it ensures that the inventions happen
> and that the discoveries are fully disclosed. That's the trade off.
> Your names would have been "discovered" whether you were there or not.
> It makes no sense to give you anything.
Except that *I* have the names, and if you want them, you have to
come to me, or go around by exercising some superceding intellectual
property law, i.e. trademark or copyright. Why do I have the names?
Because I wanted them, I could get them, and I got them. If I didn't
get them, someone else would, and you would still have lost out, if
you hadn't gotten there first.
>
> > If you don't like competition, I can understand that.
>
> I like competition. But aren't competing. You aren't offering any
> goods or services either for and not for profit.
Sure I am. I'm providing an already registered name, and I'm
willing to give it up for a price, my asking price greater than
the NSI fee, plus a reasonable expectation of return for my
other effort. And I'm competing against everyone else who
registers domains, whether they're speculators or not.
You are merely
> collecting a private tax.
All fees are thus "private taxes." You pay a "private tax"
when you pay the grocery store for the food you eat. You
pay a "private tax" to the clothing store for the clothes
you wear.
You pay me a "private tax" for the domain name I've registered,
if you want it. If not, someone else will.
> > The ethos is
> > changing, to make winning morally unacceptable, however, I don't
> > subscribe to the "new order." I have a shot at either winning or
> > at least coming out ahead, following all the laws and rules, and
> > competing against thousands of others in the same race. I'm not
> > cheating, I'm not doing anything anyone else can't do, I'm just
> > doing it now.
>
> The rules are flawed. You take advantage of the flaws to line your own
> pockets.
Change the rules. The rules allow anyone at any time to register
any domain that's not taken, for any reason, for as long as the
fee is paid. The rules allow anyone who has registered and paid
for a domain to transfer that domain to anyone else. The rules
don't prevent the registered party from charging the new party
money for the exchange of ownership. You consider that a flaw,
I consider that an opportunity. A legal one, at that, and not
at all "immoral," despite your continual insistence. And you
still haven't shown *why* it's "immoral" to register domains
without "using them."
> > I said in an earlier post that I would offer names to my customers
> > who haven't come up with their own name, yet. Perhaps you missed it.
>
> I didn't miss it. It simply wasn't important. Looking at a short list
It's related to the idea that I should be "honorable" and only try
to register new domains for customers after they contract me to
do so. I choose to be proactive, and it is relevant to the discussion
at hand. Try to keep up, and understand that this isn't a two-way
conversation, I reply to other posters, as well.
> of random domain names is not a useful technique for finding a domain
> name for a given activity. It's probably not even worth the time cost
> if you offered the names for free.
The "worth" is not up to you to decide, though, is it?
> You are still not providing a service. No one should be paying you
> until you do provide a service.
I'm providing a domain name that someone wants. Why do I have
to provide a "service" when I have a desired "good?"
Cap.
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <slrn7qfkas...@spica.exile.org>, ese...@news9.exile.org
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 08:36:55 GMT,
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > Less hassle, more expense. I fill out all the forms, I spend the
> > time, they spend the money. Time/money tradeoff.
>
> There are companies, including ISP's, that will do the paperwork for
> far less. And, I suspect, that your forms, and dealing with you, is
> more complicated than dealing with the Internic. Certainly it's more
> complicated than dealing with one's own ISP, who will often do it for
> free.
Never read the "fine print" on those "Free Domain" pages, have
you? And since you've never dealt with me, the "suspicion" you
have about how complicated it is has no grounds in reality.
> > I registered a bunch of names, because I liked them and they weren't
> > taken yet, and because others were taking names, and I didn't want
> > to be left out. Self-defense in some respects.
>
> Self-defense from what? You afraid you might get left out on the latest
> scam?
Scam? How scam? I want cool names, cool names aren't taken, I
register cool names before you do, I have names. Thousands of
others are doing exactly the same, some are "using" them, some
are selling them. If I don't join in the processes, I will
lose, because once domains are gone, regardless of the motives
of the people getting them, I will be left out. No scam involved,
if a nice little old lady who wants a web page takes a domain
that I want before I get to it, that means I've lost out. If
I get to it first, either she loses out, or she pays me for it.
If I want to use it myself, she still loses out.
I registered and am "using" diseker-family.com. I'm not the
only Diseker out there, and there are other Diseker families,
but I'm the one who got the domain name first. I also got
"diseker.com" which I'm not using, yet. By your reasoning,
I don't have a right to "diseker.com" because I'm not using it,
and am "dishonorable" and "scamming" because of that.
> > Is a Van Gogh painting valuable because someone spends $12 million
> > on it, or is the painting so valuable that someone is willing to
> > spend $12 million on it?
>
> It is valuable because it is a great work of art. The money is
> immaterial.
Try getting a great work of art without it.
>
> > Is the painting valuable without anyone
> > spending money on it? Yes, but what is the value?
>
> Priceless. If you seriously think that the value of a work of art can be
> measured in currency, you understand nothing about art.
Yeah, I'm an uncouth barbarian. Great artists always give away
their great art.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBN6fwfLztfgpKlX7qEQIyyACg2wjk7tCunsbtAUNxdb45phssZ1YAnRmY
qQAy8/P4SexfFjykykx1Ji5l
=6OJH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Miguel Cruz
> Trivial or not, the fact remains, someone else got the rights to
> use it first. Sucks, definitely, but that's the breaks.
At least you're being a little more honest now. "Sucks" is right.
> I'm going to take what I can, and devil take the hindmost.
And again, some honesty.
> So, getting there first is unethical? How so?
Participating in the process is unethical because it decreases the general
welfare and wastes resources (by subtracting, rather than adding value).
> All fees are thus "private taxes." You pay a "private tax" when you pay
> the grocery store for the food you eat. You pay a "private tax" to the
> clothing store for the clothes you wear.
Wrong. When you pay for food or clothes, you are spending money so that you
do not have to till a field or work a loom, which would be more costly to
you than buying these items, because of the opportunity cost tied up in the
lost time and learning curve and lack of scale advantages. When you pay
someone for a domain, you spend more money and more time to get something
that would have otherwise been available. It's exactly the opposite.
> I'm providing a domain name that someone wants. Why do I have to provide
> a "service" when I have a desired "good?"
I don't know if you do DNS, but if you do that, it's a service that people
want. Registering names on request is also a service that people want.
Registering names in hopes that someone will pay you more for them later, is
a service that nobody wants or needs.
miguel
Captain Nerd
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > Trivial or not, the fact remains, someone else got the rights to
> > use it first. Sucks, definitely, but that's the breaks.
>
> At least you're being a little more honest now. "Sucks" is right.
Ah, so calling me unethical isn't enough, now I'm a liar?
What lies did I tell?
And again, why aren't you as upset about others who profit by
being first to do something? Again, what's so unethical about
registering a domain before someone else does?
> > I'm going to take what I can, and devil take the hindmost.
>
> And again, some honesty.
Again, as opposed to what lies?
> > So, getting there first is unethical? How so?
>
> Participating in the process is unethical because it decreases the general
> welfare and wastes resources (by subtracting, rather than adding value).
Again, how does it "decrease the general welfare?" What value is
"subtracted" and from what is is subtracted? Please be specific,
if you're going to call me a liar, you have to show me the lies,
if I'm a criminal, specify the crimes, if I'm unethical, detail
the ethics.
> > All fees are thus "private taxes." You pay a "private tax" when you pay
> > the grocery store for the food you eat. You pay a "private tax" to the
> > clothing store for the clothes you wear.
>
> Wrong. When you pay for food or clothes, you are spending money so that you
> do not have to till a field or work a loom, which would be more costly to
> you than buying these items, because of the opportunity cost tied up in the
> lost time and learning curve and lack of scale advantages. When you pay
> someone for a domain, you spend more money and more time to get something
> that would have otherwise been available. It's exactly the opposite.
"Otherwise available" in what universe? Domains are being taken,
right now, and you either get yours now, while you can, or you
deal with me or someone else, later. You may decry the fact, or
you can adapt, or you can try to take the domains away from those
you consider "undeserving" or "unethical" such as myself.
> > I'm providing a domain name that someone wants. Why do I have to provide
> > a "service" when I have a desired "good?"
>
> I don't know if you do DNS, but if you do that, it's a service that people
> want. Registering names on request is also a service that people want.
> Registering names in hopes that someone will pay you more for them later, is
> a service that nobody wants or needs.
I just said that it's not a "service," it's a "good." Why do
the two have to be linked?
Miguel Cruz
>>> Trivial or not, the fact remains, someone else got the rights to
>>> use it first. Sucks, definitely, but that's the breaks.
>>
>
> Ah, so calling me unethical isn't enough, now I'm a liar?
Sorry if I gave that impression. I mean honest about your view of the
situation. Before you were representing it as a romantic capitalist paradise
where competition was producing glorious fruits of prosperity; and through
the agency of you and those like you, we were all dancing merrily down the
road to serene (and wealthy) bliss, where choirs of angels would sing us
lullabyes until the coming of the new kingdom of God. Now you admit that it
"sucks".
> And again, why aren't you as upset about others who profit by being first
> to do something? Again, what's so unethical about registering a domain
> before someone else does?
I'm not upset about people who profit by being the first to do something, as
long as they actually do - and not just take - something. What we have here
is like the people who elbow others out of the way to grab food aid as it
drops out of a plane, then sell it to all the other hungry people who were
standing there hoping to get enough to eat, and call themselves
"businessmen." And that's upsetting.
> Again, how does it "decrease the general welfare?" What value is
> "subtracted" and from what is is subtracted?
It decreases the general welfare because of the friction added by the extra
transactions. Value is subtracted from productive internet endeabors because
you are diverting some of the resources that would otherwise go toward
providing goods and services. If grommet.com has to pay you $5000 to get
their domain name before they can commence operations, then the quality of
grommet they can afford to sell at market prices is lower.
> "Otherwise available" in what universe? Domains are being taken, right
> now, and you either get yours now, while you can, or you deal with me or
> someone else, later. You may decry the fact, or you can adapt, or you can
> try to take the domains away from those you consider "undeserving" or
> "unethical" such as myself.
So your argument is that I should not find fault with you because there are
other people behaving just as badly? Is that really the best you can do?
Arguing with you is not an attempt to solve the problem; arguing with you is
an attempt to explain it. So your alternatives don't apply.
>> I don't know if you do DNS, but if you do that, it's a service that people
>> want. Registering names on request is also a service that people want.
>> Registering names in hopes that someone will pay you more for them later, is
>> a service that nobody wants or needs.
>
> I just said that it's not a "service," it's a "good." Why do
> the two have to be linked?
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you are not introducing the "good"
into the economy. It existed before you arrived. You took it, added zero
value, and increased the cost. That's profiteering, not production. It's not
a part of a healthy economic process. I'm not saying you're particularly
evil, just that you are the inevitable villager who destroys the commons. In
a system that allows it, it is bound to happen.
miguel
Captain Nerd
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> >>> Trivial or not, the fact remains, someone else got the rights to
> >>> use it first. Sucks, definitely, but that's the breaks.
> >>
> >> At least you're being a little more honest now. "Sucks" is right.
> >
> > Ah, so calling me unethical isn't enough, now I'm a liar?
>
> Sorry if I gave that impression. I mean honest about your view of the
> situation. Before you were representing it as a romantic capitalist paradise
> where competition was producing glorious fruits of prosperity; and through
> the agency of you and those like you, we were all dancing merrily down the
> road to serene (and wealthy) bliss, where choirs of angels would sing us
> lullabyes until the coming of the new kingdom of God. Now you admit that it
> "sucks".
Yes, it does suck, for those who either don't want to play, or who
don't like it when they lose. Those who don't want to play, but
don't want others to play, too, caused that little tiff over in
Russia back 80-odd years ago. And for someone who despises the
fruits of capitalism and competition, you've picked the wrong
century to be born in, and an unusual medium to be complaining
with. I'd rather be living in this world, than in your perfect
Marxist paradise, where the only things that we can have are the
things "the people" decide we can have, and no one can buy or sell
anything, unless "the people" decide they can, and no one can
make a profit, because it's "immoral."
You twist my world view, I twist yours. Fair is fair, right?
> > And again, why aren't you as upset about others who profit by being first
> > to do something? Again, what's so unethical about registering a domain
> > before someone else does?
>
> I'm not upset about people who profit by being the first to do something, as
> long as they actually do - and not just take - something. What we have here
> is like the people who elbow others out of the way to grab food aid as it
> drops out of a plane, then sell it to all the other hungry people who were
> standing there hoping to get enough to eat, and call themselves
> "businessmen." And that's upsetting.
"As long as they actually do - and not just take - something." Like
land? Is buying land before the devolopers come in "taking" that
land? No one is "giving away" domains, there's a competition for
who gets to pay for the right to register them. There is absolutely
no comparison between "starving people" and "people who want domains",
no matter how much you try to twist the world view you have.
Unless you really do believe that only "the correct" people have a
right to domains, and that if someone doesn't have their domain yet,
that they've somehow reserved in perpetuity the right to have that
domain, and that "the wrong people," i.e., myself, don't have the
right to register it, ever.
So, how do you go about figuring out "the right people" for all
domains? Do those of us who register domains have to submit each
registration to the "People's Domain Commisariat," for judgement
of validity? Do we have to "prove" that we're going to "use" the
domain for the good of The People?
Oh, and by the way, what does "using" a domain mean?
> > Again, how does it "decrease the general welfare?" What value is
> > "subtracted" and from what is is subtracted?
>
> It decreases the general welfare because of the friction added by the extra
> transactions. Value is subtracted from productive internet endeabors because
> you are diverting some of the resources that would otherwise go toward
> providing goods and services. If grommet.com has to pay you $5000 to get
> their domain name before they can commence operations, then the quality of
> grommet they can afford to sell at market prices is lower.
Yes, and if I have a paper supply store, and charge them $19.95 per
package of copier paper, then the quality of grommet is lower, too.
And the power company, charging 10 cents/kilowatt/hour to manufacture
grommets lowers the quality of grommet produced at "market prices",
too.
You are trying to make it look like doing business with me is somehow
different from doing business with any other person or company, and
it's not. You persist in this delusion that I'm Simon Legree, twirling
my mustache and sneeringly holding the deed to the family farm while
tying the farmer's daughter to the railroad track to make the farmer
sign over to me.
No matter how evil you try to portray me, the simple fact is I'm
doing something entirely legal, entirely within the rules, and
entirely ethical, and making money at it, and you are jealous of
that. Bottom line, it's mere jealousy, not ethics, not morality,
that's at play here.
> > "Otherwise available" in what universe? Domains are being taken, right
> > now, and you either get yours now, while you can, or you deal with me or
> > someone else, later. You may decry the fact, or you can adapt, or you can
> > try to take the domains away from those you consider "undeserving" or
> > "unethical" such as myself.
>
> So your argument is that I should not find fault with you because there are
> other people behaving just as badly? Is that really the best you can do?
> Arguing with you is not an attempt to solve the problem; arguing with you is
> an attempt to explain it. So your alternatives don't apply.
Yes, my argument is exactly that, because other people aren't
"behaving just as badly," because *we're not behaving badly*!
There is absolutely, unequivocably, irrefutably no difference
between me registering a domain and you registering a domain.
None. Zip. Zilch. If I get it first, and you want it, then
we come to an agreement, if not, you lose. What you don't
seem to understand, or don't want to understand, is that you
have exactly the same right, if you get the domain first, I'm
out in the cold. If we both want a domain, but kindly little
old Mrs. Smith gets it first, *she wins.* Motivation doesn't
matter, at all. Period.
If the 1st Street Good Will Mission gets "goodwill.org," it doesn't
matter if Goodwill Industries is a charitable organisation with the
highest motives, the domain still belongs to the Mission. It would
still be true, if vice versa. Thus, motive matters not at all in the
domain arena, because the rule is "first come, first served."
>
> >> I don't know if you do DNS, but if you do that, it's a service that people
> >> want. Registering names on request is also a service that people want.
> >> Registering names in hopes that someone will pay you more for them
later, is
> >> a service that nobody wants or needs.
> >
> > I just said that it's not a "service," it's a "good." Why do
> > the two have to be linked?
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at, but you are not introducing the "good"
> into the economy. It existed before you arrived. You took it, added zero
> value, and increased the cost.
Ah. So, the domain "evalence.com" existed before I thought it up?
As did "infomere.com," "orthometric.com" and all the other domains
I made up, they all existed before I registered them, I "took" them
from somewhere, and now whoever I "took" them from resents having
to pay me to "get them back." This means that all domains exist,
even when they aren't registered anywhere, and that merely registering
the domain doesn't give one the right to do with it what they please.
I'd like to know where and how and from whom you consider I "took"
the above domains, or the dictionary domains I registered.
That's profiteering, not production. It's not
> a part of a healthy economic process. I'm not saying you're particularly
> evil, just that you are the inevitable villager who destroys the commons. In
> a system that allows it, it is bound to happen.
"Not particularly evil" but still "profiteering." And I still fail
to see how the "commons" is "destroyed," whether the domains are taken
by "profiteers" or by people who "deserve" them, the domains are
still gone, and there are going to be latecomers to the game who
want domains that are already taken. What do you do about them?
Take domains from the "undeserving?" And how do you determine who
"deserves" the name?
Miguel Cruz
>> Sorry if I gave that impression. I mean honest about your view of the
>> situation. Before you were representing it as a romantic capitalist paradise
>> where competition was producing glorious fruits of prosperity; and through
>> the agency of you and those like you, we were all dancing merrily down the
>> road to serene (and wealthy) bliss, where choirs of angels would sing us
>> lullabyes until the coming of the new kingdom of God. Now you admit that it
>> "sucks".
>
> Yes, it does suck, for those who either don't want to play, or who don't
> like it when they lose. Those who don't want to play, but don't want
> others to play, too, caused that little tiff over in Russia back 80-odd
> years ago. And for someone who despises the fruits of capitalism and
> competition, you've picked the wrong century to be born in, and an unusual
> medium to be complaining with. I'd rather be living in this world, than
> in your perfect Marxist paradise, where the only things that we can have
> are the things "the people" decide we can have, and no one can buy or sell
> anything, unless "the people" decide they can, and no one can make a
> profit, because it's "immoral."
>
> You twist my world view, I twist yours. Fair is fair, right?
Sounds fair. However, I have no idea where the above paragraph came from,
what's meant to be a twisting of, or what it might symbolize (other than
some random allusions to communism, standard bogeyman of those challenged
in their attempts to earn money By Any Means Possible).
Capitalism and competition are useful and productive things. What you are
doing has little to do with either, other than it happens to occur in their
context - though could just as surely occur in a tightly controlled economy.
Capitalism is about the productive use of resources. Competition is about
improving efficiency through alternatives in the marketplace. Hoarding and
profiteering are about neither.
> There is absolutely no comparison between "starving people" and "people
> who want domains", no matter how much you try to twist the world view you
> have.
Sure there is. Leave aside your guilt hangups for a second and look at the
situation. Something is provided for a specific purpose. Someone diverts it
from that purpose, and then sells it back to those who intend to use it for
the original purpose.
> So, how do you go about figuring out "the right people" for all domains?
> Do those of us who register domains have to submit each registration to
> the "People's Domain Commisariat," for judgement of validity? Do we have
> to "prove" that we're going to "use" the domain for the good of The
> People?
You appear to be afraid of communists for some reason. I promise you, their
worldview is economically impotent in the long term; they can't hurt you.
Honestly, you'll be all right. There are no communists hiding in the bushes.
Actually, you and they have more in common than you think, because neither
of you believe in competition as a way of allocating resources.
In any case, who you are has nothing to do with whether you're the "right
person" for a domain. Whether you intend to make use of it, however, does.
Everyone has this opportunity. Unfortunately, as you suggest, it's difficult
to sort this out. The real solution probably would have been to raise the
price of ".com" domains to a sliding scale beginning at around $1000 and
then use the proceeds from this to vigilantly police ".org" and ".net". But
it's too late for that now. So, because decisionmakers a few years ago
underestimated the attraction the ".com" singularity would have for the
profiteers, the entire economy is paying the price.
> Oh, and by the way, what does "using" a domain mean?
A domain is created for one purpose: To allow people and machines to locate
computer networks which they have an interest in contacting. Anything else,
aside from a not-as-yet conceived productive application, is not "use" but
"abuse". It's like abusing glue (which is useful) by sniffing it (which
costs society).
>>> Again, how does it "decrease the general welfare?" What value is
>>> "subtracted" and from what is is subtracted?
>>
>> It decreases the general welfare because of the friction added by the extra
>> transactions. Value is subtracted from productive internet endeabors because
>> you are diverting some of the resources that would otherwise go toward
>> providing goods and services. If grommet.com has to pay you $5000 to get
>> their domain name before they can commence operations, then the quality of
>> grommet they can afford to sell at market prices is lower.
>
> Yes, and if I have a paper supply store, and charge them $19.95 per
> package of copier paper, then the quality of grommet is lower, too. And
> the power company, charging 10 cents/kilowatt/hour to manufacture grommets
> lowers the quality of grommet produced at "market prices", too.
The difference is that your paper supply store, and these days your power
company, set their prices in a competitive marketplace (to the extent and in
the cases that they don't, capitalism is judged by economists to have
failed). Therefore the economic impact is reduced to approach the most
efficient point. This is something that you and the communists do not seem
to understand.
> You are trying to make it look like doing business with me is somehow
> different from doing business with any other person or company, and it's
> not.
Well, there are two key differences. 1) it's never going to happen, and 2)
nobody I do business with is providing me with something I could have gotten
for free myself ($70 being an administrative charge covering the transfer).
I pay for water because it costs me more money to collect and filter
rainwater. I don't pay for air because I can get all I need myself.
> You persist in this delusion that I'm Simon Legree, twirling my mustache
> and sneeringly holding the deed to the family farm while tying the
> farmer's daughter to the railroad track to make the farmer sign over to
> me.
Whatever.
> No matter how evil you try to portray me, the simple fact is I'm
> doing something entirely legal, entirely within the rules, and
> entirely ethical, and making money at it, and you are jealous of
> that. Bottom line, it's mere jealousy, not ethics, not morality,
> that's at play here.
You've got to be kidding. What you are doing is not ethical, no matter how
many times you repeat it. I have outlined the reasons why it is not, whereas
your reason for stating that it is, seems to come down to some imagined
"jealousy" I have of someone who may or may not make money doing something
that I could obviously do as well if I were to yield my ethics.
> Yes, my argument is exactly that, because other people aren't "behaving
> just as badly," because *we're not behaving badly*! There is absolutely,
> unequivocably, irrefutably no difference between me registering a domain
> and you registering a domain. None. Zip. Zilch. If I get it first, and
> you want it, then we come to an agreement, if not, you lose. What you
> don't seem to understand, or don't want to understand, is that you have
> exactly the same right, if you get the domain first, I'm out in the cold.
Jean Piaget and later Lawrence Kohlberg, two of the century's most renowned
experts in child development, have identified a sequence of development for
moral reasoning: how children determine what is right and wrong. The fourth
of six stages in Kohlberg's taxonomy is the "authority" or "law and order"
orientation. In this stage, an action's acceptability or lack thereof
derives from whether or not that action is sanctioned by parents' rules and
society's laws. Parents said it's okay? Then it's okay. Not against the law?
Then it's okay.
Later, most (but not all) children continue their development, and in
adulthood they come to understand that the acceptability of an action really
comes from that action's consequences for society (which, the debate goes
on, may or not be selfish in itself, as the individual is a participant in
that society and in the long run benefits from its harmonious and productive
operation). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your
excuse is that you're only 14 years old.
miguel
Captain Nerd
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> > There is absolutely no comparison between "starving people" and "people
> > who want domains", no matter how much you try to twist the world view you
> > have.
>
> Sure there is. Leave aside your guilt hangups for a second and look at the
> situation. Something is provided for a specific purpose. Someone diverts it
> from that purpose, and then sells it back to those who intend to use it for
> the original purpose.
So, someone who hasn't thought of a good name yet, thinks "hey, I
just thought of a cool name 'evalence!' I wonder if it's taken yet?"
He does a web search, finds that I've registered it already. He has
the choice, either a) saying "oh, well, guess I'll have to think up
a new name" or b) tracks me down as asks what I want for the name.
I don't have names that infringe on trademarks, so far as I know,
and if I do, then by the rules I lose the domains automatically.
If I have names that someone else thinks up in a few years, they're
going to have a hard time trademarking them, unless I cooperate.
What if I trademarked each of the domains, and offered to sell
the trademark as well? That's an approach I've considered, in
order to provide a full package to prospective clients of mine.
> > So, how do you go about figuring out "the right people" for all domains?
> > Do those of us who register domains have to submit each registration to
> > the "People's Domain Commisariat," for judgement of validity? Do we have
> > to "prove" that we're going to "use" the domain for the good of The
> > People?
>
> You appear to be afraid of communists for some reason. I promise you, their
> worldview is economically impotent in the long term; they can't hurt you.
> Honestly, you'll be all right. There are no communists hiding in the bushes.
Yeah, whatever.
> Actually, you and they have more in common than you think, because neither
> of you believe in competition as a way of allocating resources.
Wow. So there is no competition for allocating resources right now?
So what do you call "first come first served except for trademark"
domain registration? Who's the one calling for the current system
to change? How is the current system devoid of competition? I
thought it was wrong for me to compete to register these resources,
that they should just be given to the people who are supposed to have
them?
> In any case, who you are has nothing to do with whether you're the "right
> person" for a domain. Whether you intend to make use of it, however, does.
> Everyone has this opportunity. Unfortunately, as you suggest, it's difficult
> to sort this out. The real solution probably would have been to raise the
> price of ".com" domains to a sliding scale beginning at around $1000 and
> then use the proceeds from this to vigilantly police ".org" and ".net". But
> it's too late for that now. So, because decisionmakers a few years ago
> underestimated the attraction the ".com" singularity would have for the
> profiteers, the entire economy is paying the price.
You've said that before, but what is the price? In units, please,
it's hard to measure hurt feelings...
> > Oh, and by the way, what does "using" a domain mean?
>
> A domain is created for one purpose: To allow people and machines to locate
> computer networks which they have an interest in contacting.
Good. Not as accurate as it could be, but good enough.
Anything else,
> aside from a not-as-yet conceived productive application, is not "use" but
> "abuse".
Alright, let's play a little game.
I have put up a website, http://www.evalence.com. You are
directed to the machine by my DNS server, which has records for all
the machines I want to put in the domain. If you see the web site,
it lists the prices I'm asking for the domains that are being used
to point to the web site. "Use" or "Abuse?"
I'm going to set another domain to point to a machine with no
web server at all, only a gopher site, which will catalog all
the old comic books I want to sell. "Use" or "Abuse?" What
about if it takes me a year to do so? "Use" or "Abuse?" What
if someone thinks of using the same domain and offers me $5000
to transfer it to him? "Use" or "Abuse?" What about when I
get tired of using the domain that way, and try to find a buyer?
"Use" or "Abuse?"
I see you've mentioned but not defined "productive application,"
if I were you I wouldn't start down that slippery slope.
It's like abusing glue (which is useful) by sniffing it (which
> costs society).
Another slippery slope you don't want to go near.
> > Yes, and if I have a paper supply store, and charge them $19.95 per
> > package of copier paper, then the quality of grommet is lower, too. And
> > the power company, charging 10 cents/kilowatt/hour to manufacture grommets
> > lowers the quality of grommet produced at "market prices", too.
>
> The difference is that your paper supply store, and these days your power
> company, set their prices in a competitive marketplace
And that's different than now, how? Who determines the price I charge
for a domain? Not some arbitrary board, not some faceless bureaucratic
committee, it's determined by me and my clients, with a sharp eye
on what other guys are charging for *their* domains. If that ain't
capitalism, I'd like to see what is.
(to the extent and in
> the cases that they don't, capitalism is judged by economists to have
> failed). Therefore the economic impact is reduced to approach the most
> efficient point. This is something that you and the communists do not seem
> to understand.
Again with calling *me* "communist!" *I* don't want to have regulators
breathing down *my* neck, watching and judging every thing I do like
registering domains. *I'm* not the one calling the current "laissez
faire" system "immoral" and wanting it changed. I *like* being free
to do something and benefit from the doing, without having someone
like you judging me on my motives and disallowing my registrations
because I'm not "using" the domains for the "public good."
I think you need to go back to that dictionary for a bit, you've
gotten your terms mixed up!
> > You are trying to make it look like doing business with me is somehow
> > different from doing business with any other person or company, and it's
> > not.
>
> Well, there are two key differences. 1) it's never going to happen, and 2)
> nobody I do business with is providing me with something I could have gotten
> for free myself ($70 being an administrative charge covering the transfer).
So, if you want a domain, why aren't you registering it now? Why
should everyone else wait for you to make up your mind whether you
want a name before they get it? Why should the current system, where
the first person out of the block wins, be scrapped, so that only
the "deserving" latecomers can be given their names, for "free?"
> I pay for water because it costs me more money to collect and filter
> rainwater. I don't pay for air because I can get all I need myself.
Central air/heat. You pay for HVAC, unless you live outdoors full-time.
You also pay taxes for environmental cleanup.
Everybody pays, everybody buys, everybody sells. You're take is
that some things should only be given away. Perhaps, but someone
still pays for "free" things, it's just not the person to whom
the thing is given, and the price usually ends up a valuation of
someone else's time and effort.
> > No matter how evil you try to portray me, the simple fact is I'm
> > doing something entirely legal, entirely within the rules, and
> > entirely ethical, and making money at it, and you are jealous of
> > that. Bottom line, it's mere jealousy, not ethics, not morality,
> > that's at play here.
>
> You've got to be kidding. What you are doing is not ethical, no matter how
> many times you repeat it.
Nor is it unethical, no matter how many times *you* repeat it.
I have outlined the reasons why it is not, whereas
> your reason for stating that it is, seems to come down to some imagined
> "jealousy" I have of someone who may or may not make money doing something
> that I could obviously do as well if I were to yield my ethics.
As I have outlined my reasons, although you seem to have some
confusion as to what certain terms mean.
> Later, most (but not all) children continue their development, and in
> adulthood they come to understand that the acceptability of an action really
> comes from that action's consequences for society
I've been in the Internet "society" for over 10 years, now. I've
been a member of the US society for over 40 years. I've seen the
actions of myself, I've seen the actions of others, I've weighed
the actions and the effects of the actions I perform, and actions
similar to what I perform, on both the societies. I judge the
effects of those actions to be far more positive than negative,
on both societies. I see no harm being done to "society" by
registering domains early, just as I see no harm in the turn of
the century Oklahoma land rush, which benefited the people who got
the good lots, and left the slower ones with the rest. The ones
who got good lots prospered, the ones who got poor lots sold them
to the ones who "won," or they found ways to improve the bad lots.
The analogy breaks down, as all of them do, because there were
no "domain natives" who had names taken from them to be distributed
first come, first served, to people like me.
(which, the debate goes
> on, may or not be selfish in itself, as the individual is a participant in
> that society and in the long run benefits from its harmonious and productive
> operation). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your
> excuse is that you're only 14 years old.
Ha, ha. Let me finish it, "at least intellectually and emotionally."
Seen it, read it, burned the moth-eaten t-shirt. In other words,
"lame." You get points for build-up, but the punchline sagged.
It was old when I first read it 10 years ago.
Miguel Cruz
> Seen it, read it, burned the moth-eaten t-shirt. In other words, "lame."
> You get points for build-up, but the punchline sagged. It was old when I
> first read it 10 years ago.
All right, then, well, I'm going to let it rest. We've gotten to the point
where it's a whole lot of "I said that but you didn't get it" back and
forth, which doesn't make for very stimulating debate. Happy hoarding.
miguel
Captain Nerd
(Miguel Cruz) wrote:
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > Seen it, read it, burned the moth-eaten t-shirt. In other words, "lame."
> > You get points for build-up, but the punchline sagged. It was old when I
> > first read it 10 years ago.
>
> All right, then, well, I'm going to let it rest. We've gotten to the point
> where it's a whole lot of "I said that but you didn't get it" back and
> forth, which doesn't make for very stimulating debate. Happy hoarding.
I agree, the camps are too far apart for any common ground.
Good luck with your efforts, but I hope your "side" doesn't
win.
Eric Edwards
Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> I agree, the camps are too far apart for any common ground.
> Good luck with your efforts, but I hope your "side" doesn't
> win.
That would be tragic, wouldn't it? You might actually have to work for
a living, providing real benefit to your customers and/or employer.
Not to worry you though, there is little indication that the current
environment of chaos, corruption, and profiteering is about to end.
Your little extorsion racket is safe. Enjoy.
Captain Nerd
(Eric Edwards) wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 1999 17:09:27 -0400,
> Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
> > I agree, the camps are too far apart for any common ground.
> > Good luck with your efforts, but I hope your "side" doesn't
> > win.
>
> That would be tragic, wouldn't it?
You wouldn't like it, that's for sure. There's this little
thing called the law of unintended consequences.
You might actually have to work for
> a living, providing real benefit to your customers and/or employer.
Har har. Of course, you're assuming I *don't* work for a living,
and that I *don't* provide real benefit for my web-hosting
customers. You make the assumption that all I do is single-
handedly destroy the Internet. I just do that on the side.
> Not to worry you though, there is little indication that the current
> environment of chaos, corruption, and profiteering is about to end.
Chaos, yes. Corruption, not hardly. Profiteering, that's just
your definition
> Your little extorsion racket is safe. Enjoy.
Regular Al Capone, that's me!