Hell.com

[mugaliens]

"Hell.com (http://www.hell.com) is a private parallel web. There is no access via web browswer."

I'm not really sure what that means, but that's what you get when you try surfing it.

Regardless, it failed to sell for the $1 Million it's owner, Moniker, had hoped to raise. Other domains for sale by Moniker were Hiyieldcd.com, HMO.com, Stockexchanges.com, Digitalcameras.com, and Rentalcarrates.com. Source: CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/27/technology/hell.com_domain/index.htm?postversion=2006102710).

Of these, the last three appear to actually exist as websites, but the others don't.

I wonder how many people would have done something more with these owned but unused websites if they'd had the opportunity? I own four domains, but keep them updated regularly.

Who else here thinks domain names should be utilitzed, and if not utilized within, say, 90 days, reverted back to the public? Who else here protests the hoarding of these domain names and the subsequent auctioning off of them?

[Doodler]

They used to do the same thing for product names from advertising agencies. They also allow the copyrighting of product names for indefinite periods now, regardless of whether there's a product attached. Gives the marketing people free reign to build a small arsenal of names ahead of the R&D people launching something, then needing their services on little to no notice.

This is really no different, someone shelled out x amount of dollars to secure certain names, and they expect to be paid to give it up. Digital real estate. Its no different than the little dinky island nation that just happened to be gifted with the country tag ".tv". 37 million dollars within a few weeks of going online? Hot names which are stupidly easy to recognize like that will generate a certain amount of demand. In a free market system, its not unexpected for a certain amount of jockeying to corner the market. Not unlike a land rush, really.

[Serenitude]

It's nothing new, either. Cybersquatting has been around for some time.

[tdvance]

I'm not sure there is a good solution to cybersquatting. To require a domain be "utilized" requires some kind of definition of utilization that a cybersquatter can probably satisfy--e.g. lots of "reserved" domain names go to web directories.

A partial solution would be to incorporate it into trademarks. So, if you squat on www.mcdonalds.com, McDonalds can rightfully claim that this is a trademark of McDonalds corporation and demand its release. On the other hand, it's hard to say who rightfully owns generic names like www.cameras.com, etc. Perhaps something like, when a domain is reserved, for one year's probationary period, others can challenge it. If a sufficient number of people want it, it will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. This would make cybersquatting far more risky.

Todd

[mugaliens]

At least land rushes required actual "squatting." You were required back in those days to physically work the land.

In cyber squatting, you're not required to do a damned thing expect pay the registrar a paltry fee to reserve your domain name.

I do recall a number of court cases in the 90's where more appropriate owners of certain domains (those who could prove they had a significantly better vested interest) won over the squatters, but that appears to be more fleeting these days. I'm not just talking "apple.com," but the likes of "eugenecement.com" (a ficticious example of a company in Eugene, OR, which makes and pours cement). If some squatter registered it and then tried to sell it to Eugene Cement later, the company would sue on the basis of copyright infringement (or if the company was the only cement company in Eugene but was named "Rock-Hard Cement", then the suit would usually win, as well).