cybersquatting on DNF

[LewR]

DotComCowboy,

Murder is illegal - but killing someone is not always illegal - are you qualified to know the difference? Will you be both the judge and the jury? If it was all that clear - UDRP would not exist and lawyers would be unemployed.

You stand on your soap box preaching that DNF is a sleazy place to do business, but I see no "virtual" prison bars keeping you here. Know your material, know your business associates and make your own choices. Advise others when you think it is fit - but NEVER expect that your opinion is the only opinion - or necessarily the right one!!

Debate creates more educated participants, seeing matters from other perspectives gives us strength in our own arguments, or corrects our perception.

LewR
(as he steps off his own soap box....LOL)

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

It sucks to be bashed for doing the right thing.

 

[LewR]

It's lonely at the top - eh?

LOL

It beats the crap out of wimps with NO opinion because they are afraid that they may be wrong sometimes....

 

[Gumby]

"What I hope to gain is a more professional place to conduct business here at DNF."

In this thread http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36185 your contribution was:

"What a bunch of BULL$417 !

VeriSign blows dead German Shepherds!"

I felt quite sick when I originally read that - I am sure you agree those kind of comments don't help in creating a professional environment.

 

[DotLeader]

SOLD :goofy:

 

[Spider]

Hal hates cybersquatters, but he thinks hackers are cool. Interesting.

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36645

 

[hiOsilver]

Originally posted by jh3
Hal hates cybersquatters, but he thinks hackers are cool. Interesting.

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36645

Cowboy seems a bit hypocritical. Personally, I am more concerned about damage done by hackers than by cybersquatters.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Hal hates cybersquatters, but he thinks hackers are cool. Interesting.

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36645
+++++++++++++++++++++

Do not libel/ defame me. I have never advocated hacking.

I said a domain name is "cool." Period.

 

[Spider]

Why would you register coolhacker.com if you didn't think they were? Why would you register a hacking domain at all if you knew it was illegal? I guess sometimes a name just grabs ya, kinda like the cybersquatter domains some people own.

 

[LewR]

"Open mouth, switch feet"

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Does the owner of [murder.com] automatically advocate killing people?

This thread is becoming more and more absurd.

 

[hiOsilver]

Cowboy,

I suggest you register CoolMurder.com and perhaps MurdererForHire.com and perhaps you can come up with some others.

 

[NameGuy]

Originally posted by jh3
Why would you register coolhacker.com if you didn't think they were?

He bought it from me - I am actually the Cool Hacker. :-D

 

[GT Web]

this whole thread is nothing....its one Man's attempt to try and control something that is impossible to control, I myself will decide which names I want to own, period. I dont think cybersquating is right, but I think people here can make their own decisions, I think you should drop this before you make a lot of enemies.....

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

this whole thread is nothing....its one Man's attempt to try and control something that is impossible to control, I myself will decide which names I want to own, period. I dont think cybersquating is right, but I think people here can make their own decisions, I think you should drop this before you make a lot of enemies.....
++++++++++++++++

Cybersquatters will get their due; they will get UDRPed, their reputations will become mud, and they will get sued and bankrupted --and put out of business-- sooner or later.

I guess the management of DNF is deaf to this matter. Oh well.

Enemies? I don't care. It is a badge of honor to have them.

 

[StockDoctor]

Cybersquatting or Typosquatting is a sore issue with a lot of members on the forums because they make a buck from it. They don't like anyone standing on a platform and pointing out that it's wrong. That goes for you too DCC.

I agree that the posts offering these names tend to stink up the joint, and I'd be concerned about the integrity of any member offering names for sale that are obviously pure mechanisms of thievery, without concern for the new buyer.

As far as attorneys are concerned, it often appears that they are not often concerned about what's right or moral, but more willing to take either side as long as they get paid. I don't see how they would profit from a clear and present distinction in these issues, so arguing about the lack of clearity is the road they often take.

I don't always agree with DCC (as far as his .com only stand goes), but behind all his arguments (completely correct or not) is a message that should be gotten across. That message is that obvious cybersquatting actions should not be condoned by this forum, or by its membership.

If you think cybersquatting is ok, you shouldn't be in this business. You're making the rest of us look bad.

 

[DotLeader]

again i laugh

k:

 

[danield]

At this point I suggest you all find out what a hacker is, and it's not someone that breaks into your computer. Media cliches are hard to break.

I'm proud to be a hacker. And without pioneering hackers, you wouldn't be online.

 

[namedropper]

I agree with the Cowboy. These cybersquatting cowpokes should be rounded up and herded out of town.

There are some borderline cases where potential for TM infringement could be argued. But in out and out obvious cases (like, say, where the person admits he's typosquatting on Microsoft's name) the person is clearly violating the law and we all look bad for being on the same board with these lowlifes.

Beyond that, it was the actions of the cybersquatters registering names they knew they had no business getting that caused the backlash against legitimate owners and overly broad laws and rules for name registration that hurt us all directly.

Afternic because a useless site full of cheats, cybersquatters and revenge appraisers and died because of it (I haven't checked out the one under new ownership). We don't need the same thing to happen here.

And, also, danield is right, "hacker" does not necessarily mean "lawbreaker" anymore than "domain name owner" automatically means "cybersquatter." Unfortunately both sets of terms are equivalent in most people's eyes because of the amount of publicity that unethical people have gotten.

For what it's worth, I don't often agree with the cowboy (or at least that's my impression, perhaps I do normally and don't remember), but he is dead on right in this case. The unprofessional attacks against him personally for bringing it up are another indication of how low some people will stoop.

 

[LewR]

So namedropper - the question was this - who will be the judge and jury to decide if a name should be here for sale at DNF? Who here knows more than the URDP panels, ICAAN (well, stupid question there), the attorneys here and the seasoned domain name sellers present?

Just a question I would love to have answered.