Law blog Concurring Opinions has jumped on the lets bash SEO’s bandwagon with a bizarre post blaming the process of old domains being reregistered and used for other purposes on “Slimy SEO’s”.
They cite in their evidence the case of Crescat Sententia, who moved from a .org name to a .net name and later found the .org name registered by someone else who is now using the site to flog something called “Proactive Solution”.
Hysterically, Will Baude of Crescat Sententia writes:
In September, without my knowledge or consent, our old domain was purchased by a Search Engine Optimization firm that intends to make money by either reselling the domain for a pretty penny to somebody greedy for its pagerank, or by using that pagerank to sell links to sites eager to trick Google. The webpage up there now is not this blog (it’s an old cache that he will have to take down soon), and this blog is the current and future home of crescat.
OMG the sky is falling! But lets think about this for a minute. The name wasn’t stolen or hijacked. Baude didn’t renew the name, plain and simple, and it would appear that he purposely did not to renew it, so we aren’t talking about an accidental oversight. Having decided not to keep the name, someone else legally came along and registered it. There’s no need to gain Baude’s “knowledge or consent” because in choosing to NOT renew the domain he legally gave up all rights to it. And how exactly does he know that a SEO firm bought the name? He doesn’t, he’s just presuming. I’m personally not a SEO firm and yet I’ve previously bought expired domain names…indeed, perhaps famously social news site Newsvine came about as a direct result of a expired domain (Newsvine.com being previously registered to someone else). SEO doesn’t equal buyer by any stretch of the imagination.
Concurring Opinions gives other examples of sites moving domain and finding their old domains picked up by others, calling it hijacking. Every single example they give is identical: site owners gave up their domains when moving to other sites. I’d note: gave up. If someone doesn’t renew a domain (particularly intentionally) and someone else comes along and registers it, they only have themselves to blame. Whipping up some jihad against SEO’s doesn’t change the facts of the matter. And here’s another thing: cost of renewing a domain name: $7-$10 (shop around, you can get cheaper again). So for a very, very small amount these people could have kept their domain names, put a proper redirect on the old name and we’d all live happily ever after, but then again, we’ve got about as much chance of curing stupidity as we’ve got of solving poverty.
The case for the defense rests. The site owner is to blame.
Originally posted on March 4, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
This is bizarre to say the least – I mean “consent” !!!
I’ve purposely not renewed domain names in the past and they’ve been taken up – once given up it has nothing to do with me.
And if the domain you don’t want anymore but is still relevant to your brand then pay the damn few dollars to keep it going and under your ownership. Sheesh!
>>he legally gave up all rights to it.
I agree the site owner is dumb for letting the domain go, but they can still have rights based on trademark. The UDRP is highly slanted in favor of the trademark holder, so with a lot more hassle than 8 bucks at Go Daddy, they can still get the domain back. Seems pretty silly though, right?
I agree with you totally Duncan. This is also the reason I tell people to ensure that their domains are renewed well in advance.
It’s become common for people to blame registrars and domain hijackers for “capturing” a domain they didn’t renew.
The original post is dated Nov 6 – I hardly call that jumping on the bandwagon.
Sure they have no real cause for complaint if they abandon something in that way, though as Brian says, there might be trademark issues.
Linkbait (the post/whine)
Andy – that’s the problem with the “blogosphere” – posts scroll so fast by us and off the main page that we never get a good go at it.
I see nothing wrong with bringing up a 4 month old post and discussing it. Lots of “food for thought” posts are lost in the clutter.
Still reckon spending $8 could have saved them any trademark issues that they may bring about now – seems they screwed up by not looking after their trademark properly.