So I am reading reddit as I often do and this gem of a thread shows up.
It is a gripe by a guy who tried to buy thislittlepiggy.com from World Wide Media (Mike Berkens) and was offended by the minimum offer.
Of course these sorts of complaints are quite common and show up a lot but this had one really nice response:
Someone, somewhere, somehow, needs to come down very hard on domain squatters.
I hate the term "domain squatter" because it falsely implies that something is wrong with the practice.
In the real world, when someone has the foresight to realize that a particular patch of land might one day be valuable, buys it at a low prince and then later sells it for a huge sum of money we say "what an astute businessperson, they're truly a shining example of the best in capitalism!"
On the internet, when someone has the foresight to realize that one day a particular domain name might one day be valuable, buys it at a low price and then later tries to sell it for a huge sum of money we say "oh noes, the evil cybersquatters are being mean, let's pass laws to take away their domains and give them, for free, to other people!" and everyone seems to think this is a good thing.
It ain't "cybersquatting", its internet real estate investment. Coke fucking well SHOULD have paid millions to buy coke.com from the speculator. He was a smart investor who, back long before any of the suit wearing idiots at Coke Inc even knew the internet existed, much less that it might be a good idea to buy a domain name, and he quite reasonably expected to reap a financial windfall from his wise and timely investment.
Imagine the stupidity of trying to apply the "cybersquatting" bullshit to the real world. "Sorry Mr. Jones, I know you bought this land five years ago but we're taking it away and giving it to Coke because they say its the ideal site for their new bottling plant, we can't let you land squat that would be wrong!"
This made my day.
Lots of interesting tidbits are also scattered around the thread, enjoy :)