I think this is just plain wrong

He didn't do anything legally wrong, but morally he has done a great wrong.

 

Whats the "great wrong" he has done? What if the original owner asked for the domain back a year from now? Is the person who registered it responsible to just hand it over?

 

And what if he left it, and some Russian came along that Brady could never have corresponded with?

The guy who registered it had all the right to register it and has all the rights to sell it at whatever price he sees fit and to whoever he sees fit. Market decides.

Is it more 'wrong' now we know Brady has had a rough time? Would the new owner not have been more obliged, morally, if the old owner was a multi-millionaire who overlooked extending the domain because he was sunbathing in the Bahamas?

Who are you, Kaabi, to decide what's right and wrong? You might want to start a 'catch-all' service for forgetfull people, register their domains and hand them back over, FOC, just in case...

 

Also, who's to say the new owner doesn't put food on his table by researching popular domains and brokering sales with people who also put food on their table for their family. (Like you said, legally and fully within the guidelines layed out)

Like I said, the nice thing to do is give the original owner the domain for nothing but that doesn't put food on the new owners table either.

 

Yeah but this new owner doesn't make all of his money (to my knowledge) registering popular domains and then selling them. How did he even know that the domain had expired and it hadn't been re-registered? Does he try to do this with hundreds of sites?

 

There's tools you can subscribe to that will monitor thousands of those about to fall off the conveyor belt. Takes one click to claim them. I don't see any malicious intent here.

 

I previously mentioned a comparison to being evicted from a house, but I've since reconsidered my position. Isn't there supposed to be a grace period (75 days?) when a domain expires? During that time, services are supposed to be shut off, so in that case wouldn't it be obvious to a webmaster that something is wrong?

brady @vbwebsites.net, if you're still watching this thread, was your site down for 75 days without you noticing it?

yfs1, to address your point about the morality of this, I can't believe you don't think it's at least a little bit morally wrong to snatch expired domains. I bet you think of it like someone driving around a neighborhood picking through people's trash cans. But you should think of it like someone leaving their shopping cart in a grocery store for a moment while they pick up another item. Sure, anyone can grab that shopping cart. That person doesn't own any of that stuff at this very moment, but you should know it's wrong to take it.

 

I'm sure he does do itwith hundreds of sites...You know how many sites are abondoned and the domain sits there unregistered for months?

I don't see why it makes a difference how much money the original owner makes. If he makes that much, he should take his lumps and buy it back at fair market value (which was around $500 if I remember right)

If he is making $40k a year with that domain, is $500 outrageous at all? A bit of a pricey mistake but still very reasonable

Again with the analogies. It is nothing like picking through garbage cans, not even close to moving into someones house when they are on vacation,nor is it in the least like stealing someones shopping cart, etc. There are clear cut guidelines for registering domains. The new owner followed them and did nothing wrong. Whether he should be charitable and give away the domain is a completely different issue.

 

How can it be morally wrong? What if Brady had no intent to do anything with the domain anymore? You guys only think it's wrong because you heard the sad story behind it. There's thousands of domains expiring every day... If your name .com expires and you want it, why shouldn't you be able to take it?

 

That was a great analogy torun, and I have another one. T0P, you say there are tools to monitor domains that are about to expire, so that means that lots of people must be doing this. Since lots of people are doing this, it's not wrong. But back in the 1700s, the majority of people owned slaves, but that doesn't mean it was right just because everyone else was doing it. It was still wrong, and it's the same thing with this domain taking thing (except, you know, on a lower level).

 

You are now comparing this with owning slaves

 

From the moment he registered the domain, say for instance 2 years back, he's had 2 years to extend it. Nothing to do with slavery. New owner played by the rules the former owner was well aware of. All of us know the rules so there is no point in debating whether it's right or wrong.

 

I'd just like to know what happened to the site. BDmunee said in the other thread - auction closed. Okay. Has he taken it off of DP because of the heat, passed it on to someone else, sold it for how much? I don't get the impression that the original owner has these answers either.

Maybe he should at least be in the position of being able to contact the NEW owner. Whether it is worth paying to get it back by the time the OP has had his cut and the new owner gets his - well, probably not.

I suppose the seller has done nothing wrong, but I hope he enjoys whatever profit he made out of this deal. Yes, the original owner was to fault in letting it go (for whatever reasons) but coming here to auction the site and finding the original owner, who obviously wants the site back - well, I'd have made a private deal with the owner to cover expenses and let it go at that.

I find this all a bit tawdry and sad, tbh. I wonder how much profit the seller could have made that would make it worthwhile.

 

Thats the funny part, the former owner has said as much in the thread. To me, he could have pleaded his case to the new owner and who knows what might of happened.

But there was originally a threat of a lawsuit. Wheres the morality in taking away the other guys livelyhood (when he is doing things according to the guidelines)

 

Here are the details of the new owner:

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=VBWEBSITES.COM&prog_id=godaddy

 

You have to admit that just because there are "clear cut guidelines" in registering domain names, it doesn't mean that something morally wrong couldn't occur. You don't like analogies, but I think my shopping cart analogy is good, because I'm not aware of any rules that state that you can't take someone else's cart. It's bad etiquette though.

Morality isn't black and white. I'd rate snatching domain names somewhere in the shopping cart analogy, but obviously not as bad as something like forcibly robbing someone. If you can't see that, then that doesn't say much for your morals.

 

By the way, the key to my whole morality argument is that the original domain owner really does want the domain still, but through a lapse in judgment or awareness let it slip. Otherwise, expired domains are fair game.

 

I don't understand how it could happen in the first place. I had a domain expire on me. It had been registered to an email that I no longer use. My bad!

But when it went offline of course I noticed right away. I contacted the registrar who I think were obliged to hold it for 30 days because of numpties like me. So, how was it possible that this domain was hanging in the wind long enough to be snapped up?

 

The key to your whole argument is that it's only morally bad because of the sad story behind it. That just doesn't make sense. That means you want the rules changed just so people already hurt can't get hurt more. Where's the logic in that?

 

Why do you keep equating morality with rules? I know you guys hate analogies, so let's just use a hypothetical. Let's say I were the one that bought the domain in question, and I was made aware of the original owner's situation. First, I'd make sure I wasn't being scammed (perhaps by someone else claiming to be the owner). Then, I'd evaluate how much the original owner had invested in this domain. Did they just buy it a year ago and squatted it? So, yes I'm taking into consideration the sad story, but that's because that's how I view morality. I don't think I'm alone in that.