The ethics of domain name investing: Cybersquatting vs. legitimate asset holding

The Emotional Element of Domain Names

There is a uniqueness to domain names that sets them apart from most other assets, and that's the emotional element. A name is significant enough to spark strong emotions. It is therefore understandable if companies are misguidedly accusing domain name holders as cybersquatters. After all, it is their name and they should be entitled to all possible domains bearing that name, right? Nah, that doesn't look right.

Parallels in Other Asset Classes

Let us examine some parallel examples in other asset classes. Real estate could be considered a closely related category (hence people referring to domains as internet real estate).

What is Squatting?

According to Wikipedia: Squatting is the action of occupying an abandoned or unoccupied area of land or a building, usually residential, that the squatter does not own, rent, or otherwise have lawful permission to use. See the last part in bold? That is the contingency to squatting. It is concerned with ownership or the lack thereof. Applying the same logic to domain names would mean that somebody would find a way to hack a domain owned by someone else, and use it for their purposes. Simple, right?

Is a real estate investor that flips, i.e., buys properties for the purpose of selling them for profit, considered a squatter? Nobody in their right mind would call them squatters. They are the rightful owners and they are free to resell the property if they so wish. The reason this is so simple in this case is because there is no premise whatsoever for anybody else to claim rightful ownership of that property, and there is no distinguishable feature that would open a door to such a claim. But when it comes to naming, it is different.

Let us take another example that may be worthy of comparison. Is an art dealer, who buys a painting for the purpose of reselling it, an art squatter? That makes even less sense.

The Subjectivity of Ethics

Ethics is not an exact science. It is subjective and is founded on our social and cultural structures. Therefore, there cannot be a universal standard. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant attempted to come up with a formula for ethical behavior, which he named the categorical imperative (By the way, the domain categoricalimperative dot com is taken). In summary, it says something like: you do only that which you are willing to accept anyone doing. If you are not willing to have anyone do that deed, you do not do it.

Bad Actors in the Domain Industry

Bad actors are everywhere. Granted, the domain industry has been having its share of bad apples. Mike Mann and his blatant trademark infringements are prime examples.

Conclusion

The ethics of domain name investing is a complex and subjective topic. While there are bad actors who engage in unethical practices like cybersquatting, many domain investors operate within ethical boundaries, treating domain names as legitimate assets. Understanding the emotional element and considering parallels in other asset classes can help frame the ethical considerations more clearly.