Talk:Cybersquatting

message: :This article called "Cybersquatting" is erroneous and misguided. It has hijacked the "Domainer" article, a discussion about legitimate domaining. Article Squatting: taking a topic name and redirecting it to an article designed to shed an incorrect negative view of the hijacked article's topic. In the domain industry it would be easy to file a UDRP and et the article back to it's original contributors. Trotline (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: thumb|right|350px|
screen shot of myspace page using McDonald's Ronald McDonald character
Is this considered cybersquatting?  If you go to  http://www.myspace.com/bigredshoes (accessed today).
Most likely this is not licensed by McDonald's Corporation because you will notice if you go to this site that all of Ronald McDonald's friends are young woman that are mostly wearing string bikinis. I doubt that McDonald's would allow this kind of behavior from any of its franchisees or from someone from the  internal PR Department.
Does anyone have any references to this kind of phenomenon or know of any domain name arbitrations that have occurred because of this kind of activity. I am not sure if we should all this to this page or is it a new phenomenon that has a different name?  Alex756 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A MySpace page is not using a separate domain name so cybersquatting regulations would not apply. That could very well be standard copyright and/or trademark violation though. DreamGuy 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace name squatting 

message: I see that "complainant" has been changed to "complaintant" -- that can't be right, can it? HMishkoff 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaintant? 

message: The propogation of this term represents a grave misunderstanding and application of 'squatting' and the subsequent virtual representation, 'cybersquatting'.  Where there are practices that could be considered 'cybersquatting', 'domain warehousing' is not to be included -- regardless of intent, the people who purchase these domains do so, from a registrar, because a company who owns a  trademark does not buy a domain, or remember to renew the one they have.
Further, 'cybersquatting' as it is represented a US-centric attitude toward domain ownership where the US does not in fact own or control the Internet or domains.
What cybersquatting could actually be: altering WHOIS information about a domain that legally represents ownership of the domain, without confrontation or dispute by its original and true owner -- this is a much more appropriate reflection of a virtual representation of squatting.
If Microsoft puts for sale 100 Xboxes, ones that Electronics Boutique normally has a monopoly over, and I buy them up in a free market before EB get's the chance, is that 'squatting'?  And similarly so cybersquatting should not be. --66.91.243.72 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your opinion. Wikipedia does not go by the opinions or original research of contributors, it goes by how the term is used in the real world. Furthermore, ICANN makes the rules about domains, ICANN is controlled by the US government with the oversight of the U.S. Senate, so the claim that the US does not control names is not technically true. Whether they should control the names or not is a POV, but when it comes right down to it US laws and government rules and regulations and ICANN, with the assistance of multinational entities like WIPO, does control domain names. DreamGuy 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomerization using 'squatting' for base 

message: : and is often incorrectly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names
Says who that this is incorrect usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.101.131 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrct use 

message: User:Kennard2 tagged the article is POV, left an edit comment that said the article was POV, but gave now example of anything that would violate WP:NPOV policy. I gave the article a quick reread (and have read it throughly in the past, most of it seems the same as the old version) and can't see anything offhand that would violate NPOV. If no explanation for the tag is forthcoming I will revert it as baseless. DreamGuy 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Lapsed lurker redirects here.
This (misleading?) neologism should probably be deleted from wikipedia.
If it's worth mentioning at all, wiktionary would be a better place.
ReidarM 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lapsed lurker]] redirect 

message: pls send me a website that engaging cyber squatting  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.69.26 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to see the url of a web site that violates trademarks. The company that scans the net daily for trademark violations for legitimate trademark holders would be all over them.Trotline (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this is what you mean, but... I was sued over my domain, ShopsAtWillowBend.com, by the holder of the trademark "The Shops at Willow Bend." The company that scans the net daily for trademark violations must have been on vacation when I registered the domain, because I had the domain for something like two years before The Taubman Company (the trademark holder in question) contacted me. I won the case, BTW. According to the decision in my case, registering a domain that is someone else's trademark (or, in my case, a domain that's very close to someone else's trademark) is not in and of itself illegal. HMishkoff (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The domain name without the "the" is not the trademark if the trademark includes the "the". Close does not count in trademarks. The trademark owner can get the domain name with the "the". If you are advertising for the shops and sending business then what is the problem? Lesson here? Never get a trademark with a "the" or "a" at the front of it. Trotline (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing personal, but you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. I'm pointing this out not to start an argument with you, but because someone might believe what you say and get themselves in trouble. HMishkoff (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: "Nothing personal, but you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I'm pointing this out not to start an argument with you, but because someone might believe what you say and get themselves in trouble." If there is anything in your statement that is not personal please point it out. Trademark law is very gray and is usually decided in court. There are many arguements on the "The" issue and many different decisions. I'll be following this article to see when you post what you mean instead of an attack on me. 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Although I don't know this for a fact, I suspect that you made up that bit about "the" being so important in trademark law. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to point me to a few decisions that illustrate your claim. My skepticism is fueled by the fact that my domain name differed from the trademark of the people who sued me only by the omission of the word "the," yet I don't believe this difference was ever raised in the case, not by my attorney, not by the district court judge, not by the three-judge appeals court panel. It surprises me that this issue, which you claim is so significant, was a non-issue in my case -- especially considering that if your claim is accurate, it should have a critical issue in the case. But I'm always interested in learning something new, so I'm looking forward to your response. HMishkoff (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  websites engaging cyber squatting 

message: Since I don't want to get into an edit war, I thought I'd informally solicit opinions here.
I put a link to TaubmanSucks.com in this article some time ago, and nobody's had a problem with it until a few days ago, when an editor deleted it saying that it was commercial and a violation of WP:EL. But the site is entirely non-commercial -- and although I was unfamiliar with WP:EL, a quick review suggested to me that the link *is* in compliance.
When I restored the link, the same editor deleted it again, this time saying that it was POV and not notable. The site to which the link points is certainly POV, but the link itself is not, and the link is all that's in Wikipedia, so that's really all we're discussing here. The description attached to the link says something about the site being a detailed description of a cybersquatting lawsuit, which is about as non-POV as you can get -- it doesn't say, for example, that the link is to a site about a greedy company with unscrupulous lawyers, to give an example of what would have been a POV link description.
Of course, I've avoided what is probably the real issue here, which is that the link points to a site that I created -- in other words, TaubmanSucks is not just a detailed example of a lawsuit, it's a detailed example about *my* lawsuit. Although I do recognize that that makes me less than impartial on this topic, I don't see how its relevant to a discussion of whether or not the link belongs in the article. The site is *easily* the most detailed account of a cybersquatting lawsuit on the Web, and it's been covered extensively in news media (online and offline) and blogs (receiving half a million hits in its busiest week), which sounds pretty notable to me.
Again, I understand that I'm not an impartial judge of whether or not the link belongs in the article. However, I don't accept that it doesn't belong in the article simply because it points to a website that I created. I don't want to make this any kind of formal poll, but I'm wondering what the rest of you think. HMishkoff (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is inappropriate because it contravanes several of listed reasons in WP:LINKSTOAVOID including (4) link to promote a website, (11) link to a personal webpage, and probably (2) unverifiable research. EECavazos (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added an external link to Public Citizen's discussion about cybersquatting, which itself includes links to several representative examples, including TaubmanSucks.com.  I think this external link satisfies all guidelines, and it provides the reader with a potentially valuable resource on the subject matter.  --Art Smart (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Public Citizen link is a good one, and removes the issue of HMishkoff's apparent conflict of interest when adding his own link here.  --CliffC (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think EECavazos is wrong, the link doesn't "promote" a website, if so i would like to know how. The Website is not "personal", it's about the persons (note plural), the documents and commentary surrounding a court case, please cite how is the website personal. It is not unverifiable research, since there's no research in it; only legal documents and commentary, please cite the area of research and the conclusion of said research. On the other hand, i think the link would not be good here, but not for the motives EECavazos weakly dangles around, but because there is already an article for Taubman Sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisdanielmesa (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I disagree with the conclusions of EECavazos, but I don't see the point of beating a dead horse, so I'll let it pass. Thanks to Art and Cliff, I appreciate you getting involved. HMishkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe link to the six-minute Taubman Sucks documentary on YouTube as well.  --CliffC (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You get that the six-minute YouTube video is the sum total of the Taubman Sucks documentary? And the "fan site" listed at The Shops at Willow Bend is. just.  Flowanda | Talk 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out over on the Taubman Sucks discussion page, I accept that I have a conflict of interest in posting links to my own site. But I should point out that, as far as I can recall, in the hundreds of descriptions I've read of the site, yours is the first that calls it a "rant" -- which leads me to wonder how you, as an attorney, can really claim to be acting with objectivity and impartiality when you remove links to a site that disparages lawyers. HMishkoff (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A "rant" in this situation is a long complaint about a legal controversy.  The external link you provided contains content in a legal controversy and it also directly references legal controversy.  it is also several pages long, at least requiring one to click to another page.  If you removed the content from the website and then added link to it in the external links sections of Taubman Sucks and this article, then that would add value to both articles. EECavazos (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to TaubmanSucks site? 

message: Domaining should redirect to Domain Name Speculation, not Cybersquatting.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.85.186 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Domaining is not necessarily Domain Name Speculation. Domainers have a common interest as domain name owners and there are all types of business people involved. If the page "Domainers" had not been redirected to Cyber Squatter then you would be able to read all about the legitimate business of domaining. The article also explained Cyber Squatting and how those types of criminal domainers are not allowed in the profession organization for domainers. Try reading about the Internet Commerce Association on their website to learn about legitimate domainers.Trotline (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domaining is not Cybersquatting 

message: Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the site. I need to speak immediately with an administrator in regard to someone redirecting "Domaining" and "Domainers" to the cybersquatting Wikipedia page. This is not acceptable. Cybersquatting is a federal offense, and it should not be equated with domaining. 
Can Wikipedia staff please direct me to the appropriate representative, or assist me in getting this problem corrected? Thank you.   Kingwarren (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion on your talk page, to have any effect you would need to provide reliable sources that verify your claim regarding the redirects Domaining and Domainers (which currently both redirect to Cybersquatting). Also see WP:Articles for deletion/Domaining. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domaining is NOT Cybersquatting 

message: The "AfD" discussion (debate) on this topic appears to have been the conclusion of one or two misinformed people. The resulting decision to redirect "Domaining" to "Cybersquatting" is unacceptable. Cybersquatting is the registration of domain names that specifically infringe on existing trademarks. Cybersquatting is a Federal offense and punishable up to $100,000 per instance. By definition "using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". "Domaining" is simply the monetization of generic (non-trademarkable) domain names via many strategies. There is nothing illegal about domaining. These are not synonymous terms or activities, and allowing a redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting is a factual misrepresentation and a deliberate attempt to categorize domaining as a criminal activity. I can easily refute anyone's claim to the contrary, and would like to speak with a Wikipedia administrator at the earliest possible time. 
Can an admin please forward me a contact person and phone within Wikipedia, someone who can address this decision? This must be corrected as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and assistance.  Kingwarren (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the links that I left for you above. Your personal ability to refute any argument is not relevant here. What counts are the reliable sources that verify your claim. Once you produce that information, someone will be glad to explain the next step. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to set up your own web site and display whatever information you want. However, if you want to influence information displayed on Wikipedia, you will need to spend some time reading a few guidelines. I took the trouble to provide the most relevant links because more than opinions are needed here. User:Themfromspace has already explained what your options are, on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: In the sidebar, click "Contact Wikipedia". You will see a lot of confusing information because Wikipedia is a big place. Essentially, you can contact someone in authority if you believe a living person is being defamed or may suffer harm due to information on Wikipedia, and there is also an address for anyone wanting to serve a legal notice. However, for correcting content (which is essentially what you are discussing) you probably won't do much better than following the advice on your talk page. There are lots of people here with all sorts of opinions, so editors learn to not pay much attention to an opinion until it is supported with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting 

message: The terms Domainer and Domaining do not equate to Cybersquatting so please do not forward.  Cybersquatting is illegal and properly defined on this page. 
Domainer is defined by the New York Times as (Those)"who see buying portfolios of Web sites as a digital form of investing in real estate." http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/brokering-peace-between-brand-owners-and-domainers/
Defined by Forbes as a "domain trader" http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/10/domains-flip-aftermarket-tech-ebiz-cz_cf_0811domains.html (Text also includes In addition to flipping, domainers have other ways of making money from their investments. Most domainers post ads on their Web sites, which can generate a decent monthly income. )
Inc Magazine defines domaining as "Domain speculation" and references "Domainers" as well. http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090701/good-domain-names-grow-scarce.html
PCWeek defines Domainers as "(Those who) build portfolios of ... domain names and profit by reselling the names or selling advertising on those sites. They may generate revenues by posting pay-per-click ads (where the site owner receives payment every time a visitor clicks on an advertising link) and other advertising content."http://www.inc.com/magazine/20090701/good-domain-names-grow-scarce.html
I hope these credible references will meet your requirement for change.  Thank you Flipweed (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With a somewhat neutral view on the controversy, I have examined the reasons for the, nevertheless astonishing, page edit block of domaining, and simply find no justification for it, since this page (cybersquatting) clearly defines that practice as the illegal one of trademark violations, which in itself maybe rather narrow. Unfortunately the anticybersquatting act has put a legal definition on the term.  The admin who blocked the page has stated a willingness to unblock the page if a consensus exists to do so and to write a balanced article, properly supported by citations according to WP notability standards. So, please formulate a consensus about this on the talk:domaining page. CREDIBLE references of the term in the media and industry will establish notability, no matter what anyone's point of view is regarding the motivation of the practitioners of domaining. Kbrose (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domaining/Domainer NOT Cybersquatting--References included 

message: FYI, the page has been temporarily semi-protected. This is due to the number of recent incidents where the article has been tagged with non-encyclopedic "messages" from IPs and new accounts arriving from "domainer" web sites. Please note that the protection is not because of their desire to change the redirect of Domaining; that matter is being actively discussed here and at Talk:Domaining. It is instead a direct result of the disruption caused by the improper comments and "messages" added to article space. Representatives of the domaining community are asked to communicate to their members that Wikipedia procedure requires editors to contain all discussion and commentary regarding articles to the respective talk pages. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page temporarily protected 

message: In reference to the article at: http://www.dnjournal.com/newsletters/2009/july.htm
A mistaken wiki title such as this would best be corrected by creating a new page under the name Domaining or instead redirect it to Domain name speculation.
--DomainDeveloper (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this page, you are late to the party. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Wrong. If you click your Domaining link, you can see that it redirects to Domain name speculation as a result of the AfD discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domaining is Cybersquatting? Wikipedia Throws Its Credibility Out the Window 

message: To Wiki Administrator: It's been 5 days since I submitted a very thorough Domaining page to Wikipedia. Could Wiki admins post a visible, and easily accessible link to the Sandbox page so that visitors can find the page and offer input/additions? I am concerned that the current domaining page (under review & editing) is difficult for visitors to find. I cannot locate a link to it even from the domaining discussion page.
Also, is there a reason why the redirection of domaining to "cybersquatting" can't be discontinued now ... while the domaining page is developed. This remains highly offensive, and unnecessary. Thanks. 71.76.222.163 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect is under discussion, that is a 7 day process. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Link to Domaining Sandbox 

message: On July 22, 2009, Neeley v. NAMEMEDIA INC, et al, (5:09-cv-05151), https://ecf.arwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?33207was begun due to cybersquatting and defamation by continued publication of original pornography by Mr Neeley after the DMCA agent was asked to delete it.  Therefore, Mr Neeley requested the FCC begin regulating communications by wire.  The Appellant Brief is at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Interlocutory Appeal of obvious errors.  The requested preliminary injunction requires the FCC regulate the Internet exactly like television broadcasts. 
*The litigation will also end "domaining" and domain name speculation both by requiring ICANN Inc to prohibit disclosure of registration expiration dates to anyone but the registrant by all registrars in any circumstance.
Mr Neeley will not add this, due obvious NPOV issues.  Wikipedia has been cited repeatedly in this Federal Court case and was disparaged by several Defendants. Will not be added due to personal involvement.CurtisNeeley (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Current litigation

message: I created an article "Domain Troll" which was removed and the link redirected here.  Inappropriately: Domain trolling is not the same as cybersquatting because a current trademark is not at issue.  It might be more appropriately linked to "domain name speculation", but that page would need to be edited to include the fact that domain trolling is rent-seeking and parasitic on the economy rather than making it seem like a legitimate industry as that page attempts to do (and I can't make that edit).  I also supplied references and costs (acquired from the trolls in my exploration of a .org name for my direct democracy project) in my article.
This issue is the same one as with patent trolls: Why are Wikipedia editors providing a fair (or even harsh) description of that practice while allowing domain trolls to attempt to sanitize their equally parasitic practices?  At least in my circle, "domain troll" has far more currency than "domain name speculator" and Google turns up similar numbers of hits for the two (counting variations). Perhaps renaming the existing page, linking to/from cybersquatting and allowing edits of it would be another option. Metamerman (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It did look like a lot of original research and opinion rather than a Wikipedia article. The term itself is highly subjective and it ignores the fact that the registrant of the domains actually pay the registration fees. They got there first and later entrants to the market have to either create their own unique domain name or buy domains from the existing registrants. Given that there are over 113 million registered .COM domains and over 154 million have been deleted and not reregistered since they were dropped (since 2000), there is little stopping people from coming up with their own variants. The problem generally arises with generic domain names and these are highly sought after and can command high prices. The blogs quoted as references are not reliable sources in Wikipedia terms (WP:RS). The one that dealt with the 2007 period seemed to be unaware of the practice of Domain tasting which was creating an artificial shortage of domains at the time because the domains that were dropping were being hoovered up on an industrial scale before ordinary registrants could get near them. This practice collapsed after ICANN introduced a fee for registrations. The domain tasters had been exploiting an ICANN loophole where they could register domains for five days, check their potential for PPC advertising traffic and then drop them without having to pay the registration fee is they did not make enough money to justify holding them. What happens now is that the larger registries will use their knowledge of domain traffic to move potentially valuable domains to their own auction website on expiry. Domain Trolling isn't an accurate overview of events. Jmccormac (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you should read this: WP:NOR as it deals with your original research issue as it applies to Wikipedia. Just on .ORG, there are approximately 10M .ORG domains currently active but since 2000, at least 14M have been deleted and never reregistered. What people often miss is that businesses using .COM websites will also register the variant of their domain in .NET/ORG etc. The level of development in .ORG is probably around the 25% mark (at least 18.05% is on PPC advertising, 9.51% on holding pages and 21.42% with no websites based on a small 9K website usage and development survey I ran a few weeks ago). The reliable sources WP:RS issue is also important in creating an article on Wikipedia. Blogs and tweets are not typically considered reliable sources as supporting references. And I did not remove/delete your article or create the redirect. Jmccormac (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Domain troll" article removed, redirected to Cybersquating, please put it back 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cybersquatting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214151045/http://www.allbusiness.com:80/technology/technology-services/651746-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/technology-services/651746-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cybersquatting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_hi_te/un_cybersquatting_2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214151045/http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/technology-services/651746-1.html to http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/technology-services/651746-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified