I dont get how the guy is a parasite. He has a product and this guy wants it. An offer is made and if no agreement can be reached then it doesn't happen. It's called the free-market.
Or is it just because the guy wouldn't sell it for $200 that he's a parasite?
> I dont get how the guy is a parasite. He has a product and this guy wants it.
The reason he is a "parasite" is that he adds no value and charges money for it. His "product" consists of laying claim to something, then charging a lot of money to someone else for it.
The squatter didn't create anything and doesn't increase the value of anything, he just holds it waiting for someone who is willing to pay for it. He didn't even buy something someone else created.
This is similar to patent trolls, with the exception that it's possible there is a real innovation in a patent, and that the existence of the troll gives incentive for innovators to create knowledge that benefits society.
The closest you can get to arguing a domain squatter adds value is that he prevents someone who doesn't value the domain as highly from getting it, keeping it available for someone who will pay more for it - but surely some low-value user of the domain would be willing to sell for a price similar to what the squatter asks.
No value add, taking resources (dollars) from productive market participants = parasite.
> His "product" consists of laying claim to something, then charging a lot of money to someone else for it.
Which is the exact same model behind the real estate market (excluding property flips).
I hate domain squatters as much as the next guy, but it's as viable a business model as buying up land 30 miles from a big city and waiting 20 years for the value to appreciate and then selling it for a huge profit. How is that any different? Seems to be an acceptable practice in today's society, no one labels them parasites.
- real estate "squatters" provide liquidity for property owners (this is theoretically possible in domains, but I've never heard it claimed to be a common case)
- lack of homesteading
When "new territory" opened up (in the US), people could be granted chunks of land if they improved the land, making productive use of the property for some time (homesteading). They could then file a claim for the land and have it deeded to them for continued ownership, resale, etc.
That initial productive use is lacking in domain squatting. No one has "improved" the claimed domain name or made productive use of it. The squatter has only filed a claim for it, hoping for a profit.
what qualifies as an improvement? links? the ocassional post? a pic of gramdma? who gets to decide? you? or should we have a government agency for that?
what if they want it for just email? what if they had plans for it but life happened and they didn't get around to it?
if it wasn't a .com would there be all this stink?
like i said below a domain is not a physical asset. it's 0's and 1's. it's vapor. the value of that domain exists in peoples minds. it is not like land at all.
I think that some people consider domain squatting parasitic because it creates little or no value and takes a corresponding level of effort.
The analogy would be bridge with a toll booth vs a gate in a natural mountain pass with a toll booth.
In both cases there is a service (passage from one area to another) for a fee. However the former is providing a service, the later is removing an intentionally created obstruction.
The only value I can see it providing is that the system places a valuation on domains based which prevents desirable ones from being bought by people who don't "seriously" want them. However that logic is shaky (transfer domain from non-serious to serious) and the value is questionable.
Or is it just because the guy wouldn't sell it for $200 that he's a parasite?