Moral limitations for Typosquatting?

[Duckinla]

Are there any moral limitations you have as an individual when it comes to typo-squatting? Would you grab anything that makes money or would you stop short of things like charities, health info, etc. regardless of how much money it could make? If there was an internet equivilant of the "911" emergency phone number, would you register www911.com? Just wondering what peoples moral boundries are when it comes to typosquatting.

 

[Dave Zan]

Are there any moral limitations you have as an individual when it comes to typo-squatting?

Only if the individual decides to set such. To each his/her own, after all.

I currently don't typosquat because I can't afford the time and money for it. :-D

 

[simon]

if you dont abuse the users its ok to register the typos because typos usually displays the related adds.

but if u register domains targeted to children and then forward the traffic to a porn site or something like that then its not acceptable.

 

[namestrands]

This sort of question is one that only the individual could answer.

And the best way to do so is, ask yourself how you would feel if someone started registering typos from one of your developed successful websites, and started to profit from your good name and even intercept mistyped personal emails.

The fact is I am confident that you would not like it. I have some typos left over from the early days of domaining and I can swear that I would never knowingly register one again.

Its an awful feeling when someone does it to you.

 

[dotNetKing]

namestrands. You make some good thought provoking points. Thanks for your post.

I wonder what you would do (or did) with names making $100 a month ($1200 a year). I ask because I have one or two domains in this category.

I see several options:

1 keep them and benefit from PPC
2 keep them and benefit from PPC, but with a clear link to the "real" site.
3. "give" them to the "rightful owner" and hope that they realise their value and don't lapse them at renewal.
4. Keep the domain but redirect to the "real site". (with or without informing the owners of the "real site".)
5. sell them for as much as you can get to a less scrupulous domainer.
6. give them to a less scrupulous domainer friend.
7. lapse them and let the dropchasers and dropcatchers fight it out for profits.
8. others

 

[namestrands]

DNK.. its a case of money talks and BullShit walks.

and brings me back to the issue of whether the registration was deliberate attempt to profit.

But the question was one of a moral one, and I have to say I would like to think that I would keep it registered and remove the nameservers.

But I know I would take the money and screw morality even though I have had it done to me, I would however give it great consideration.

I am sure I could convince myself that I was "sticking it to the man", and that particular company were responsible for the death of my hamster

 

[dotNetKing]

namestrands: Thanks for your candid reply. Much appreciated.

I have typos that I registered innocently with no knowledge that such a company existed. The particular earner I referred to above about wasn't registered quite so innocently.

 

[Deleted member 70408]

if you dont abuse the users its ok to register the typos because typos usually displays the related adds.

but if u register domains targeted to children and then forward the traffic to a porn site or something like that then its not acceptable.

I don't think the holder of those TMs would agree with your statement. I guess it is up to the buyer to determine if the money is worth risking a lawsuit (up to $100,000 per name) or UDRP/WIPO. It seems that more companies are turning to lawsuits because they are able to profit from a lawsuit (Lantham Act) rather than paying $1,500 for a UDRP/WIPO to only take posession of the domain name(s) without any financial compensation.

 

[NavySeals91]

Dave Zan Vidi, Vici, Veni

I saw, I conquered, I came........

I don't want to know why that was the order

Vici Cum auxilliam- mind my latin, I'm a bit rusty

 

[WhoDatDog]

I have just a handful, but I understand the issues. People need to realize that lots and lots of businesses profit from other's trademarks. If CNBC does a news story on WalMart then they are attempting to profit from the interest in a company that is trademarked. That's the reality of the situation.

If someone owns a piece of land real estate that is located next to a WalMart and they then decide to open a store that sells similar products then they are capitalizing on potential traffic to Walmart (usually works the other way, I know).

K Mart came well before WalMart. Do you think that WalMart would be called WalMart without K Mart having been the biggest retailer in the United States? WalMart profited from the association with a trademarked name.

Star Magazine sells millions of dollars worth of reading material based mainly on the exploitation of major celebrities, many of whom have the equivalent of trademarked status. ESPN profits from many trademarked teams.

It can be argued that seeing a landing page with links is better than seeing a blank page. The consumer is wise enough to figure it out...that's why just a small percentage of people click on the ads.

The most egregious cases are the ones that confuse the public into thinking they are at a particular place, when if fact they are not. The remedies are there if the trademark holder wants the name. Sometimes, the technical infringement actually helps the trademark holder sell more product.

At the end of the day we all profit from slavery (I am white), and we all break numerous laws thoroughout our daily lives (jaywalking, seatbelts, etc.).

I believe this issue falls closer to the latter two wrongs. The speeches given by those who accuse typo holders of being immoral are pretty ugly and pretty sad. The answer is usually somewhere in between. Many of the speech-giving crowd are people who have benfited from all kinds of injustices in the world, and they likely own businesses that they try to protect, which means that their morals are based on their own personal experiences and usually aligned with what benefits them the most. Boring.

 

[Duckinla]

My original question wasn't really meant to be about the morality of typosquatting, I already know the divided opinions about that.

The question was intended to be more along Simons answer. Would you keyword optimize to "Naked downloads" on a site for kids if that made you more money? Would you typo-squat an Emergency Relief Organizations donation site? Would you typo-squat an emergency CPR site because it could make you a few dimes? Have you run into money making typo-squatting opportunities that you decided to back away from because it didn't feel right to you?

 

[namestrands]

Then I have to say yes some circumstances would make me walk away

I purchased a domain once based on the back links on google. It turns out it was a domains used in malware applications. It gets over 1 million uniques a month, and still does to this day. I have it parked on a blank site with a message explaining how to remove the malware from the users machine.

I know I could profit from this and earn hundreds if not thousands, however I refuse to profit from an individuals misfortune.

 

[Duckinla]

Sometimes we think in terms of "traffic" and can forget that traffic is humans looking for something. Sometimes it's as frivilous as myspace downloads, but sometimes it's not. Here's a time when I think it's particularly inappropriate to run people around in circles trying to earn a dime: www.fetaldistress.com. This is the kind of thing that will cause backlash against parked pages. Not only does it confuse people at a difficult time, but it stops somebody from being able to put up a legitimate site there.

 

[eAudible]

I have a small collection (~250) domain names that I have collected over the years for development, etc.

After just recently parking them, I got caught up in the "traffic" domain concept and registered a dozen or so typos. I now regret it.

Is there anyway to "un-register", delete or otherwise dump these domains? I sounds like the bishop's suggestion of removing the dns might be the best option. Ideas?

Thanks,

 

[BobDiGiTaL]

6. give them to a less scrupulous domainer friend.

I think #6 is the best option , my friend :hug: :kiss:

My domain morality depends on the day.
One day I'll register obvious TM infringing domains, then the next day have "ClintonBushKatrinaFund.org" in my sites and never pull the trigger.

I would never forward kids to porn sites, that's just wrong. and slows down those porn sites while I'm on them !!!! :whistle: :typing:

 

[WeBuyThe.Com]

If anyone needs to dispose of some of these names please let me know...

 

[Duckinla]

If they are getting traffic and revenue, sell them. Or redirect to the site they are squatting, or nowhere. Dumping them won't keep them from getting opened up again. If they have traffic, drop catchers would pick them up.

How much you asking for them? Just kidding.

the next day have "ClintonBushKatrinaFund.org" in my sites and never pull the trigger.

I registered an alternate extension for a charity. Just couldn't believe they would take .org but leave .com, .net. I had remorse within an hour and just forwarded the traffic to the real site.