Readit News logoReadit News
Posted by u/9387367 4 years ago
Ask HN: Is domain squatting still profitable? Is there a solution?
I have nothing to do with domain squatting, but I do own a .co.uk domain for over 20 years and 18 years ago I tried to buy the .com from what I then found out was a squatter, out of principle I turned their offer down and the .com domain remains vacant, it’s not a particular interesting or valuable domain, so I’m not surprised no one else bought it.

Fast forward to a few months ago, and I let one other domain expire, it was for a brand I was creating, the domain was a made up word and a squatter registered that domain as soon as it expired, assuming some service registered it without any human supervision as that made up word holds no value to anyone else and I consciously decided to let it expire.

Since I made up that word and it was 14 characters long, are they just going to keep it for 20+ years?

This just made me wonder how many vacant domains we have today, that it must still be (unethical and) profitable and if it’s time to do something about it?

suby · 4 years ago
I had a personal website where the URL was literally my full legal name. The domain would be of no interest to anyone other than me. I let it lapse around 2019 because I didn't want to pay for renewal, and figured I'd be fine leaving the site offline.

Immediately upon letting it lapse it's bought by someone who I believe lives in Russia. They took my website, rehosted an old version found on archive.org, and then put advertisements on the site. It was not rehosted well, half of the links were broken. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to embed malware on there too.

I emailed the hosting company (DigitalFyre) with a DMCA request to get it taken down. Their support assured me they'd take it down but they never did.

After a year of it being up the domain expired and I bought it back just to prevent someone else from doing the same. I figured it wouldn't be profitable for them so I made the decision to wait them out early on.

I'm thinking the entire process is automated, where they'll buy up expired domains, rehost archived versions, and hope for either the previous owner to purchase it back or for ad revenue to make it worthwhile.

Absolute scum of the earth.

roosgit · 4 years ago
Speaking of expired domains, in your case the domain might have not been valuable enough (not enough backlinks). But I recently saw two websites put up for sale, one was claimed to be making $4000/mo and the other $1000/mo. Both from Amazon affiliate links.

The weird thing is that neither website was in the same niche as to what it was "reviewing". For example, the resort website had a post about the "best tomato chopper". Some of the old content was kept though(taken from archive.org), probably to look more "legit" to Googlebot.

sjg007 · 4 years ago
I've seen this too. It's endemic.
downandout · 4 years ago
The DMCA is treated as a joke by these companies. I helped a friend, who was being doxed on a domain comprised of his full legal name, where they were using photographs and other content that belonged to him, file a DMCA takedown request with Digital Ocean. They did absolutely nothing about it, other than sending a notification to the perpetrator that a complaint had been filed.

These laws, like DMCA and the CDA, really need to be modified to impose more legal liability on service providers over situations like this. I know that many people on HN frown upon this view, but the gaping holes in these laws are enabling digital terrorism, extortion/blackmail, stalking, harassment, and copyright violations with no recourse for the victims.

chrsig · 4 years ago
Another consideration: we shouldn't be relying on copyright law to protect against doxing. Online privacy rights should be their own thing, and treated much more harshly than copyright infringement.
PaywallBuster · 4 years ago
Should follow up with DO after a period (say 72h).

A company that big would be in trouble to ignore DCMA notices.

Could also try contacting upstream providers if worth the trouble.

Deleted Comment

Deleted Comment

wirthjason · 4 years ago
I saw this on another HN post sometime back about “Space Jam 2”. Best form of squatting ever!

https://www.spacejam2.com/

I’m not sure that squatting makes sense anymore. Getting generic names like “pets” or “travel” isn’t important today as it once was.

As for someone snatching up your old domain of a nonsense word, that sounds like someone looking for a quick buck. There will always be people looking to do that.

4cao · 4 years ago
Don't miss the Space Jam 2 trailer: https://www.spacejam2.com/space-jam-2-trailer
danuker · 4 years ago
Hah! The jam is out of stock.
yitchelle · 4 years ago
Wonder if it is worth the punt and register sequels of Space Jam? ie Spacejam3, Spacejam4 etc.
snowwrestler · 4 years ago
A few years ago I registered a short (five letter) nonsense word as a .com domain for a side project. I ended up using a different name so I let the .com expire. It was instantly registered by someone else.

But I just checked, and it’s available now. (Not squatted.)

I think some people run systems to buy up domains that expire, in case the expiration is a mistake. Then they can make a few bucks selling the domain back to the dummy who let it expire accidentally.

There’s a limit to how much you can make doing this, though, as any big company probably has a trademark on their domain. And if they do, they can just ask ICANN to seize it from you.

I think that’s different from someone who registered a common word (or many) and holds onto them, hoping to sell them to people who want them.

The domain squatting business is kind of like poker. You have a slow bleed of costs from annual domain fees (the ante in poker) and few deals to offset that (winning a hand in poker). Over time you have to either score some big deals, or eventually cut your costs. This limits the utility of squatting random nonsense domains for very long.

tomhoward · 4 years ago
I've been both harmed and helped by this at different times - in both cases by HugeDomains.

The domain for a brand name of a product line of my father's small business lapsed when I forgot to renew it, and it was registered by HugeDomains with an asking price of US $2600. The business unit had mostly wound down and it's not important enough to spend that kind of money on; it's just a bad look when people browse directly to that address. I registered the .net, and I'm hoping they'll quit renewing the .com some time and we'll be able to get it back for an ordinary price. It's quite obscure so no legitimate buyer will want it. I'm happy for them to keep wasting their money in the meantime.

Another time, I was starting a new company, and had an idea for a name that had personal significance, but involved common-enough words that you would expect it to be taken already. It turned out HugeDomains was squatting it, and asking about $2500. In this case it was worth spending that money to buy it off them, so I did, and have been a happy owner of that domain ever since.

I'm not happy about supporting domain squatting, and I've wondered about how it could be prevented, and even considered starting some kind of "benevolent" squatting service to beat the extortionate practices that HugeDomains seems to be undertaking in cases where people just forget to renew, but maybe the way they do it is the only way to do that kind of thing economically, and that only a complete overhaul of the domain name market could open the way for better practices.

ohashi · 4 years ago
You make it sound like you forgot and it was immediately taken, but if it was a .com it would have gone through the expiration process and not have been working for quite some time. Nobody noticed website wasn't online for weeks before it would have been dropped and re-registered.

HugeDomains is a massive operation though, I think they are the largest drop catcher at this point and that's their business model. If they are selling for $2500/ea roughly, they need to sell around 1:300 to remain profitable.

A lot of people try to imagine what a better domain market looks like and a more fair way to distribute things. I don't think I've ever heard a proposal that looked better. Since we know there is economic value, people are going to invest heavily (look at crypto space) and not create any real value. I think we ended up at a local maxima because of the organic development of domain names and the internet. There might be a scenario where everyone acted in some communist good faith best effort system, but humans just aren't capable of really doing that.

a1371 · 4 years ago
Funny how your purchase is fueling their squatting.
somehnacct3757 · 4 years ago
It doesn't strike me as an expensive hobby to get into, and the tech is kinda cool. Crawl whois records to build a list of domains expiring soon. Automate registering them for 1 year and pointing to your squatter page. That's the main loop; from there you can optimize efficiency with all sorts of weekend projects. I wonder if ppl are doing it just cuz it's something to do, and it costs less than golf clubs
voakbasda · 4 years ago
If I was going take on that much risk, I think I’d rather write a stock trading bot. At least that’s vaguely ethical…
mmerlin · 4 years ago
Brett McFall sold a $3000 scammy course and service that taught you to do something like this (monetize expired domains that have traffic and hope to sell the domain later) including create SEO spam blogs packed with Amazon or eBay affiliate links on the freshly renewed domain name.

I went to the seminar with friends and the whole time thinking this is just bullshit, but somehow Brett McFail had ignited my less tech-savvy friends greed impulse so they paid for it and I helped run it. This was about a dozen years ago.

Major waste of time and money except for Brett McFail who made $millions selling $3000 courses on a slick stage pitch teasing passive income dreams where the fine print should have read: *actual results WILL vary GREATLY in the opposite direction than my nice trending-upwards passive SEO spamblog and domain sales income charts ;P

nuclearnice1 · 4 years ago
On the tech side, there is some art to being the first to catch the domain as it becomes available to register. Some domains go to auction now instead of becoming available for normal registration.

Then a whole world of research could be done on the value of a particular domain and a the right squatter spam content.

myth_drannon · 4 years ago
Or you can just use park.io
Normille · 4 years ago
"ppl" --fuck's sake. Just spell "people" properly. This isn't Reddit
throwawaycities · 4 years ago
I invest in domain names, probably about 100. More recently I purchased a few single character emoji domains (specifically country flags just so others couldn’t) and a few “crypto domains” which function as both web 3 domains and plain English ethereum wallet addresses.

About 2 years ago I bought a lot of crypto themed domains seeing some of the secondary sales…the way I saw it if artificial scarcity is what gave cryptocurrency it’s value, then I’d rather invest in domain names that have a real use - like gold digging, the real money being in selling shovels.

I recently listed a few for sale and almost immediately someone bought cryptocomicbook.com for $1,250 which I registered and renewed only once. However I almost feel like that purchase was part of a scam by the domain registrar to encourage me to register more domains through them.

The number of domains is infinite, so the only real way to make money I think is to be able to buy/sell 2N or 3N domains or generic single word domains, but you probably need a big bank roll to get started in something like that, otherwise you just luck out buy owning something like ethereum.com.

trox · 4 years ago
I'm shocked by how many commenters here sympathasize with the domain squatting/parking business. Sure it may be a fun side-project or profitable long-term investment. But trying to make money from people who actually create value is not really the future of the web I want to see.
akersten · 4 years ago
Just for perspective. Real-estate investing:

* Buying up a limited resource with the intent to sell it to someone else later

* Often is good land that could be used by someone else to create value instead

* Lots sit unused for years waiting for a buyer

* Land in "just the right spot" for me is being "squatted" by someone trying to flip it

Do you have the same opinion about that business, and if not, for what reasons?

hyperman1 · 4 years ago
One solution is taxation. If you just sit on real estate or a domain name withoutdoing anything usefull, it should cost you. If squatting stays a problem, raise the tax. You can lower tax for your first domain, just as you would for a primary home.
CorrectHorseBat · 4 years ago
I'd say that is even worse
trox · 4 years ago
A very valid comparison, they indeed share lots of characteristics. I also feel that adaption in real estate would have societal benefits.

The difference to real estate business lies in the fact that it is much more diverse and way harder to manage.

Domains are managed by one organization, ICANN (with respective tld management), which facilitates a policy change. We also see changes in digital space progress much faster.

There are approx. 600'000 new domain names registered over Verisign in Q3 2020 alone [1]. In the future, the significance of the problem will only grow.

mplewis · 4 years ago
This is even worse because shelter is a human right.
closeparen · 4 years ago
* Provide liquidity to owners who want to sell.

* Take a risk proportional to the value of the asset.

* Pay taxes proportional to the value of the asset.

That's a little different from waiting for a domain to revert to the registrar and then paying $8/year for it.

brailsafe · 4 years ago
> trying to make money from people who actually create value is not really the future of the web I want to see.

Isn't this a fundamental principle of business? How are they also not creating value, if value is more or less defined as money earned?

The web is literally dominated by like 5 companies, and every smaller company's stupid 'mission' is to build some platform for everyone else to 'create value' and change the world with their SaaS. Maybe I'm just cynical, and I understand that you disagree with sort of scummy extortion tactics, but the wording you chose seems to me to already be what the web is.

nitwit005 · 4 years ago
> How are they also not creating value, if value is more or less defined as money earned?

Bandits make money by robbing people. Are they "creating value", as money is being earned?

Some means of earning money never help anyone but the people doing it, and hurt everyone else.

throwawaycities · 4 years ago
> But trying to make money from people who actually create value is not really the future of the web I want to see.

That is all business, but especially tech. FAANG all extract money from content/value creators that they have captured.

Not everyone is going to get a $500k/year job and stock options with big tech, and fewer will get millions in funding to start their own startups…but a domain for under $10 that might be used and/or flipped for a little profit? That seems much more ethical than most big tech.

encryptluks2 · 4 years ago
The solution IMO is a decentralized domain registry. Maybe we can even have a way for multiple people to own the same "domain" and pin the one they find most useful.
thayne · 4 years ago
DNS is decentralized. And having multiple owners of the same domain would be a phishing nightmare. Not to mention, how does the user determine which one to use?
ohashi · 4 years ago
multiple people owning the same domain is perhaps one of the worst ideas I've ever heard regarding the DNS. From a user perspective awful. Security perspective? Horrific. Marketing/branding perspective? Useless.

Just... why? How could this even be a good idea?

Dead Comment

JohnJamesRambo · 4 years ago
I’m surprised comments are saying it isn’t a thing. I was reading another thread a few days ago and people were saying it was very much a thing still and .com names were going for insane prices and limiting opportunities for real ideas and websites to be made.

I feel like there should be some process where you have to put a real website at the domain name in a certain time period or you lose it. And I mean a real website not those godaddy placeholders. It’s just another rent seeking scam like we get in real estate without something like that.

horsawlarway · 4 years ago
I think there's more nuance here - I have several domains (name related) that point to my router and serve solely private services, often on non-standard ports.

They'll appear empty unless you happen to be scanning high-number random ports, but I'm using them and they're providing value to me.

CydeWeys · 4 years ago
> I feel like there should be some process where you have to put a real website at the domain name in a certain time period or you lose it. And I mean a real website not those godaddy placeholders.

I don't see how that would work; there's so many issues with it. For one, domain prices would have to be radically increased to handle all of the additional labor costs stemming from these manual verifications of domain usage (as you're talking about making a subjective determination rather than a technical one a la "does this domain have nameservers and is it responding over HTTP[S]"). Or, as an alternative, you might need to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars up front to cover the costs of such a claim when initiating it, as currently happens with ICANN UDRP/URS.

Secondly, I own a domain that I've had for well over a decade but which is not currently serving a website because I grew tired of paying the hosting company's fees every year and let it expire. However, I am still using that domain for email. Should I lose that domain? Should I be required to spin up some fake content, but not too fake, just to "park" it correctly? What's the minimum level of BS content I'd have to put up there to not be susceptible to losing it?

And lastly, this just opens huge avenues of abuse in favor of the domain squatters, as it gives them another avenue by which to hijack existing valid registrations from people. E.g. here's some example abuse of an existing ICANN system (UDRP/URS for trademarks): https://domainnamewire.com/tag/reverse-domain-name-hijacking... Add another system to potentially take domains over, but with an even lower bar to use, and you'll see domain hijacking attempts explode in number.

Meanwhile the actual domain parkers will be fine, as they'll improve their website autogeneration scripts just enough (maybe using GPT-3 or similar) to generate plausible content that would meet the bar and doesn't look like a mere parked page.

tjs8rj · 4 years ago
Simply regulate domains like we already regulate business addresses and trademarks. You open an LLC, and if you continually fail expectations of profit, you lose it, along with your trademarks and domain.

At the end of the day: domain squatters create negative value for society. They shouldn’t be allowed to exist

sokoloff · 4 years ago
I have some domains that I use internally or for email. Not every legitimate use of a domain requires hosting a website on it.
newdude116 · 4 years ago
A name does not make or break a website.

How about https://www.seat61.com/

Yes, seat, train etc were taken. But he build a business out of it.

JohnJamesRambo · 4 years ago
danuker · 4 years ago
> limiting opportunities for real ideas and websites to be made

I can't imagine this being the case. There are plenty of TLDs to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom...

JohnJamesRambo · 4 years ago
Imagine trying to get an old person to remember a .io address instead of .com. It's hard enough to get them to remember the name.
layoutIfNeeded · 4 years ago
Ummm… You know, domain names have use cases other than hosting websites. It’s just a mapping from ASCII strings to IP addresses.
tifkap · 4 years ago
It's not a thing anymore, for two reasons:

1, It used to be that the only 'real' domain name was .com. Nowadays this artificial scarecity is over. If you want to launch a service as foo.io, that is fine.

2, You can sue to have a domain name confiscated if you own the trademark with the same name

https://cyber.harvard.edu/property00/domain/CaseLaw.html

newdude116 · 4 years ago
1. not. Sure. Hey. website.io is cool now. .ly too. But you don't know how long the rules will last. They may insist you must open a company in this jurisdiction!

2, "You can sue to have a domain name confiscated if you own the trademark with the same name"

Yes sure. What do you know about trademark law and English common law? A few hints: trademarks are granted for classes and a trademark in another class or another jurisdiction would buy you nothing. lets take sampleword.com

A trademark for sampleword for delivering consulting services would not prevent me from running a shoe shop under this domain. Or a trademark in the US would not prevent me from using in in another country. Country specific domains may offer some protection here but not for .com .net

Y_Y · 4 years ago
Nobody is going to ask you to open a company in the British Indian Ocean Territory. In fact I think the people involved would rather you forgot all about it.
slivanes · 4 years ago
Not sure if article said it, but you'll need to have trademarked your name prior to the domain registration date.
rcruzeiro · 4 years ago
Do you have a source for that? I've been researching this but I got conflicting information.
cushychicken · 4 years ago
The .com domain still carries a lot of legitimate weight. I don't have the source handy but I read somewhere circa 2017 that 25% of all internet traffic is still direct navigation to .com domains. The corollary was that if someone was searching for a thing (say, "toilet seats"), there's still a sizable chunk of people who'd just type "toiletseats.com" into their browser and buy from whatever vendor pops up.
defaultname · 4 years ago
.com is still preferable if you ever communicate a domain name in a manner where people will type it directly in. If you put an ad on a bus or on TV that says easymoney.io, for example, a large percentage of people will go to easymoney.com in their browser.

If you ever see the copious ads for "free to play, no money" gambling sites during sports events or live broadcasts, and wonder how free-to-play gaming makes enough money for that to be worthwhile, note that the TLD they use for their free version will always be a non-.com TLD, but if you just replace that TLD with .com you'll be met with a full gambling site. One that would be illegal to advertise, and often operate, in the jurisdiction where you're seeing the free to play ads. It isn't accidental.

chasemiller · 4 years ago
I think it's important to differentiate between domain name squatters and domain name investors. Squatters are typically registering trademarked names with the hopes of flipping them to the trademark holder, or registering accidentally expired domains names with the hopes of selling them back to the previous registrant (as in OP's case). This is wrong.

Legitimate domain name investors are typically investing in generic words, brandables, or exact search term match domains.

I used to get mad about domain investors having every name I wanted to use for a project, until someone analogized it to real estate investing. Everybody would open their store on Fifth Ave. in New York City if they could afford it. Unfortunately, storefronts there are very limited. This is basically what generic, one-word .com domains are (frequent sales of $1M+). Domain names are just digital real estate.