Hrmm let’s see… am I petty enough today…
Please avoid GoDaddy.
GoDaddy has been involved in many controversies since its foundation in 1997.
I prefer NameCheap, but almost anyone is better than GoDaddy.
*Edit: broken link
Holy $+(+$ even a registrar can’t stay out of trouble
Thanks for the education
I always love these shitty “replace the enter key on a keyboard” news thumbnails. Like, ah shit, accidentally hit the “Domain Name Registration” button on my keyboard.
Oh, that’s no biggie:
But where will we find young sheep passing under a bar videos?
Another great example of this being an economic rent problem.
Namecoin is one of the oldest cryptocurrencies, but never caught on because it’s >99% domain name squatters. There’s no mechanism to increase the cost of renewal to anything proportional to the value of the name, so they always renew for practically free. Consequently there’s no incentive for web browsers to support it.
A domain name is like a plot of land. Right now our choices are crony capitalist ICANN with eminent domain, anarcho-capitalist crypto DNS, or sailing the high seas on an .onion address.
Hey hey hey, there’s i2p too.
Squatters do this shit every day to regular people and small businesses, but they don’t have the money to convince a judge to hand over a domain.
A squatter is why Valve used steampowered.com instead of steam.com. The owner of steam.com (who has owned the domain since the early 90s!) has consistently refused to sell to anyone, and has never stated a specific reason why.
I see nothing wrong with that. It predates steam and they aren’t attempting to extort large sums of money from anyone.
What the judge should have done is threaten to cut the domain name in half and see who was willing to give up their claim out of motherly love.
Wasn’t expecting to see biblical wisdom on the fediverse today
I wonder how much the city of LA would pay to get La.com back haha.
Why a city would want a .com tld? A .gov tld would be far more applicable IMO
I would guess tourism. It seems like that’s what it’s currently used for.
The city of LA should not get a .com name. They might have a case that la.com should not have a .com either (they look like a tourist .org though if they are not acting like a .org they are scammers) - but this would be a very hard sell in court. The city of LA should have a .gov (which won’t allow them) or .us (which is not organized well - something they should be mad about and pressure to get fixed) name.
I think the initial goal of top level domains having any real meaning is dead.
And that’s ignoring the state of LA.
What sucks is that a lot of commercial companies in L.A. use the .la domain, which is blocked by my company’s proxy.
I present to you: http://www.slutsofinstagram.com/
What an acid trip of a front page.
Not sure why others are defending the defendant here. He was just a cyber squatter who had no ties to the name Lambo until after he bought the domain. His only goal was to resell it to Lamborghini for a profit.
I mean, if we are going to capitalism with a straight face we have to start being the whole bitch.
He owned it, Lamborghini wanted it… that made it a valuable asset that he held that Lamborghini should have paid for
it’s easy to see it that way when a big corporation is involved, but average people and small businesses get fucked by cybersquatters too.
On balance I tend to side against the cybersquatters. They are not providing any value to anyone, just leeching dollars from the economy.
We’re not talking about an individual, we’re talking about Lamborghini. I think cybersquatting Lamborghini is fine.
You have to think one step beyond this specific instance. Laws apply to everyone consistently.
So do you want to let cybersquatters fuck everyone just for the sake of fucking Lamborghini? Or is it better to get rid of these leeches who are providing no value to anyone but themselves?
Laws apply to everyone consistently.
I fucking wish!
I wasn’t talking about any laws. I was talking about one specific cybersquatter.
that’s the point, you can’t do that.
I just did.
Greed was hia downfall, nothing else. He started by listing it at 1 million, but then kept refusing bids to buy and kept raising the price up to 75 million.
Greedy bastard got what he deserved.
if we are going to capitalism
Nobody is for capitalism, except as a derivative of classical liberalism. Capitalism might be useful as a tool in economics, but so is the “spherical cow” useful in physics - you can learn a lot but need to be careful as it doesn’t apply to the real world.
Since nobody is going full capitalist we can ask what liberalism things - and that is a branch of philosophy much more complex than just pure economics. In this case Lamborghini is entitled to their property, which we know is their property because the Lambo guy was acting like it was - in many other domain cases there is at least some doubt.
Not sure why anyone would defend a large corporation for any reason, ever.
I will defend anyone when they are in the right, even if I otherwise hate them. I require proper due process for murders and other criminals who have done worse things that large corporations (most large corporations have committed murder - or at least not done it in a way that I can prove beyond any shadow of doubt)
Stupid greedy asshole got what he deserved. Could have made bank by selling it for 1 million already. But the greed rulebook said to keep raising it to 75 million.
Fuck Lamborghini too.
He raised the price higher than the cost of going to WIPO to deal with it. If he set the price to $1 or 2 million they likely would have paid it. $75 million is bonkers.
He also set precedence. A few more cases like this can the cost of going to court becomes cheaper for everyone.
That judge is a dumbass and any precedent that ‘justifies’ this ruling should be reviewed and struck down. This is called theft. And do eminent domain too while we’re at it.
A domain name is explicitly not property.
Cornell Law disagrees.
Property is anything (items or attributes/tangible or intangible) that can be owned by a person or entity. Property is the most complete right to something; the owner can possess, use, transfer or dispose of it.
The point isn’t that intangible objects can’t be property. The point is that domains are not legally owned by people or corporations. You can pay for the right to use one, but you don’t own it.
Why not? You can’t hold it, but why should that be a limit?
Note, phd’s can easially be written on this subject defending either side. Some of those will say things like domains are not generally property, but for some situations we should treat them like property and in other situations not. I’m not expecting a response. I’m expecting everyone to think about the question.
This isn’t about an intangible thing being property. This is about the way domains are controlled. Nobody owns a domain, they register the right to use a domain. All domains are controlled and “owned” by ICANN, which allows registrars to handle who can use domains.
They are not anyone’s property.
That is part of what a phd can argue about…
I would argue that the registration cost is just a tax and you own it. But remember I’m arguing as a philosopher and not someone who can’t see both sides or even thinks there needs to be one correct side.
Theft is when something you own is taken away. The squatter never owned the domain, only registered to use it. In this case, ICANN owns the domain and allows a registrar to handle who can use that domain. ICANN sets strict rules on how domains can be used, and the squatter broke those rules.
Maybe the judge is a little smarter on actual laws than you are.
I don’t really feel any sympathy for this guy.
This fucking thread 🤣
Scary! Sets precedent🤦♂️!
This shit has been going on for 25 years and complaining have been ripped away for this bullshit before.
Nothing burger. Judge was right.
Always crazy seeing people lick the boots of huge corporations like this. Do you think they give you a Lamborghini for it?
Naw, I have a 911. Eat my ass.
I don’t care how much I hate someone, or otherwise how evil they are: when they are right I will support and cheer them. I can still oppose them in other ways, here they are in the right.
It’s not bootlicking, you weirdo. It’s recognizing when one thing is right and one thing is wrong. Just because a company does something doesn’t make it automatically wrong.
I know it might be a crazy concept that is hard to grasp, but the world isn’t totally black and white. It’s almost like bad people can do good things sometimes. And good people can do bad things sometimes. Your way of thinking is exactly the way Republicans justify all the evil shit they do. They are religious, which makes them good people, and therefore everything they do is good. In your case, you think a corporation is bad and therefore everything they do is bad.
Shows you the type of people that are on Lemmy.
“stop defending corporations”
It’s like we hate the corporation too but they’re correct in this instance.
Unpopular opinion, but the judge was right. There would be zero benefit to society to reward this absolute cybersquatter. There’s an almost zero benefit to reward a corporation. Both bad, but the corporation should get it in this case.
How is a cyber squatter worse than companies who squat on other things like money or diamonds.
The man bought the domain and if lambo wants it, they can buy it from him.
How long until other companies start trying to get any domain name that is part of their name now?
See: Nissan.com
Or the poor Italian guy Luca Armani, who registered armani.it in the early '90s for his rubber stamp shop.
He tried to keep his name in a lawsuit carried by the most famous Armani, and he lost. He also lost all of his money and his shop.
Details matter. In this case the guy shouldn’t have kept the name. On the one you mention the guy should have.
Of course in both cases I am lacking full information. It may be biased sources are giving me incomplete information and if I had all the information I’d change my position.
I know the story of Luca Armani and I think it’s sad. He even lost his health because of this.
He should have just offered the Armani brand to pay him a good sum and that’s it. Instead, he wanted to fight for his rights, and he ended up losing.
(I honestly think that he was right, but the judge didn’t know anything about technology and the internet)
Or Mike Rowe software.
