Part 2?

All day long, I’ve considered writing a follow up post to yesterday’s. Wanted to address certain things time and word-count constraints wouldn’t let me in that post. However, I couldn’t help but ask myself…

Is it necessary?

So while I hadn’t quite made up my mind what to write, I didn’t think it would be a follow up post to last nights.

Then I’d only just gotten home from work when I was presented with the fact that LIB had launched a new site and I knew I absolutely had to read it before I could write today’s post. And…

Well, I guess you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

_________________________________

Moving on, I want to tell a very short and simple story.

Story, story…

Once upon a time…

In the days long ago, when Legoland was very small and had little variation and limited options and the real estate was abundant, there was established a small business. A very small business it was. So small, that it only existed as a small shop at the edge of no where.

The business was called The Centre.

The proprietors of The Centre never imagined or anticipated the exponential rate at which their business would grow… And grow it did.

But growing took time and while business was booming, the owners never though to also grow their vision. But some lessons will be learnt, one way or another.

Pretty soon, The Centre outgrew that little store they had in the hinterlands of Legoland and it was pretty obvious where they should move to next: the centre of Lego City.

Only one problem, the wide range of land which had been prime, virgin and available earlier had all been bought up by a set of more forward thinking people. People who, interestingly, had nothing to do with the business but were now charging exorbitantly to sell spaces in the city centre to the highest bidder.

Are these people wrong for owning property they knew was best suited to someone else? Property that was initially available to any and every one.

_________________________________

N.B.

Real questions:

What is the big deal about cyber squatting?

Should first come, first serve in buying domain names no longer be a thing?

Some context:

The website for the White House is whitehouse.gov/ You know why, because by the time it occurred to them to have a site, whitehouse.com was already taken. Not even the American government could bully the original buyers and as they were not willing to buy it, they got creative and created ‘.gov’ for all government bodies.

Another example, Twitter’s popular video sharing platform – Vine – is hosted at vine.co/ not vine.com/ The latter was taken and rather than engage the ‘cyber squatter’ who’d already taken up the name (long before twitter came up with the concept of Vine), they got creative. They understand the reality of first come, first serve and even though they had the resources, they choose to respect it. Noble people.

Now let’s come down to Nigeria, people are giving a certain someone flak and terming him a parasite because he owns a domain name which is perfectly suited to someone else. Why? I am not endorsing his tactics or strategy but we have to be objective in the specific matter of him buying those domains. Personally, I see nothing wrong in the matter. I work in an organisation that has had to shell out some serious, painful dough to cyber squatters because people did not have foresight to purchase those domains early on. I hold no grouse against the cyber squatters for that. They are simply shrewd business people who have chosen to take the risk of (legally) purchasing something they hope will become more valuable down the line. Emphasis on “hope”. As has been proven, there are no guaranties in the matter.

We see this principle play out every day in real estate, no complaints. Why are folk then so upset about the same principles being applied in cyber space? Online real estate is real estate too.

So again, I ask. What is the big deal about cyber squatting?

Advertisements

7 comments on “Part 2?

  1. Dami says:

    Ha! i see what you did there 🙂

    Like

  2. TOTS OF A BLACK GIRL says:

    Really , Nothing is bad in cyber squatting? Hmmm you must rilli have a personal beef with LIB?

    Like

    • 0latoxic says:

      Sigh. I was afraid this would happen. That someone would make it about Linda. I’ve nothing against her. This has absolutely nothing to do with her. These conversations are about principle. And yeah, I’m trying to have conversations here, so that question was not me being sarcastic. It was a genuine question. So, beyond #LindaGate…

      Is IP theft wrong? Is cyber squatting wrong?

      Like

  3. someone says:

    ”Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring a cause of action against a domain name registrant who

    Has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark
    Registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is
    Identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark
    Identical or confusingly similar to a famous mark

    A trademark is famous if the owner can prove that the mark “is widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner”

    i got that form the internet. and i’ve read a lot of suit against cyber squatters and they have lost. cybersquatters register domain name in bad faith and usually after the popularity of the so called small business is growing. they register names which are identical and therefore confusingly similar with the original distinctive trademark. and you tell me its not a bad thing?

    mr toxic, its obvious you have issues with linda ikeji.
    cyber squatting is a crime. it is illegal.
    im so disappointed in you.

    Like

    • 0latoxic says:

      I’ll just copy and paste my response to the previous comment.

      “Sigh. I was afraid this would happen. That someone would make it about Linda. I’ve nothing against her. This has absolutely nothing to do with her. These conversations are about principle. And yeah, I’m trying to have conversations here, so that question was not me being sarcastic. It was a genuine question. So, beyond #LindaGate… Is cyber squatting wrong?” In addition, I made a deliberate effort not to mention Linda in my post hoping no one would arrive at this conclusion, but, o well…

      That said, I honestly wanted to hear the other side of my argument. I did not do any research and the contexts I referred to are reports I was aware of before this whole thing.

      Now, you say cybersquatters register domain name in bad faith and usually after the popularity of the so called small business is growing. they register names which are identical and therefore confusingly similar with the original distinctive trademark.” and to this, I ask, is that really always the case? I’m sure there are avenues through which, if one chooses to pursue a case against clearly malicious cyber-squatter, one can get justice. Heck, even in my organisation, we’ve gained access to a twitter handle which had already been taken but was not in use by simply writing a letter to Twitter HQ. But what of the cases where a lesser known entity with a similar name stakes the first and very legitimate claim, especially if it was claimed before the applicant’s trademark even existed. Then what? You say “i’ve read a lot of suit against cyber squatters and they have lost” but I too have shown examples where ‘cyber squatters” could not be bullied out of domain names they had legitimately claimed.

      My simple argument is this: cyber-squatting in general is neither black nor white. In some cases, it may be black, while in others, white, but I believe it is wrong to make it all bad.

      Like

  4. […] I felt about the whole drama, focusing on the Intellectual Property/Copyright debate and then about the reality of Cybersquatting, something MrAyeDee has been accused of […]

    Like

Comments are beautiful. Create a thing of beauty here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s