This is a pretty bad article. It seems like a hit piece trying to paint the guy as a war profiteer, because...ebola? I have no real love for domain squatters, but the guy isn't any worse because he happens to own a domain name related to a disease that is in the news. Lines like:
> Doesn’t he know that Ebola has killed more than 4,000 people in West Africa, has breached the United States, and that international health officials now warn of state collapse and widespread chaos? Doesn’t that tug at his heart strings?
just make me roll my eyes. The idea that he should be so very ashamed of himself for owning ebola.com (and should then obviously give it out of contrition and the goodness of his heart to...someone else) is odious.
Who should legitimately own ebola.com? Ebola, Inc? Pfizer? It's difficult to make an argument that it should be owned by the government, since we have the entire .gov tld for that purpose.
The true irony is that immediately after "Doesn't that tug at his heart strings?" is an advertisement. If it's not okay for Schultz to capitalize on the popularity of ebola then why is it okay for the washing post to capitalize on both the popularity of ebola and the supposedly despicable thing Schultz is doing?
Meh, somebody has to own ebola.com and birdflu.com.
And whoever buys ebola.com for $150,000 is doing it because it's profitable for them. Maybe the manufacturer of ZMapp wants the domain to sell their medications? Why shouldn't Schultz make a profit selling it?
How is this any different than a real estate investor? I could buy several acres in Detroit and sit on it for a while, hoping the city rebounds and I can sell for a profit. Does that make me evil too?
Yeah I really don't see anything wrong with this. The guy paid $13,500 for the domain and is rightfully looking for a return. It's not like ebola patients are being deprived of anything here because he won't relinquish this domain for free.
I realize that's probably said tongue-in-cheek, but I agree with the statement. The problem with patent trolls isn't that they exist. The problem is that patents are being granted for things that are obvious (Do X, but now on a PC!). And, the courts appear to be correcting that problem.
Domain names are a market just like any other. If someone buys a domain name to make money from affiliate links that's their choice, I don't have a problem with that. Don't like it? Come up with a more profitable use for the domain name and buy it from them.
What the article doesn't address is whether this guy's business actually makes any money. It might make sense as a good bet if he paid $9.99 for birdflu.com, but $20,000? Has he actually resold any of his domains for large sums?
And if he does, so what? Who exactly is harmed by it?
As best I can tell, it's just moral outrage at someone who dared to capitalize on public awareness of ebola, written by someone who is capitalizing on public awareness of ebola by writing stories like this in order to garner a few ad dollars.
Oh I wasn't making any judgement on the business itself. Just pointing out that, if anything, he probably hasn't profited as handsomely as the article implies.
> Doesn’t he know that Ebola has killed more than 4,000 people in West Africa, has breached the United States, and that international health officials now warn of state collapse and widespread chaos? Doesn’t that tug at his heart strings?
just make me roll my eyes. The idea that he should be so very ashamed of himself for owning ebola.com (and should then obviously give it out of contrition and the goodness of his heart to...someone else) is odious.
Who should legitimately own ebola.com? Ebola, Inc? Pfizer? It's difficult to make an argument that it should be owned by the government, since we have the entire .gov tld for that purpose.