Cybersquatting is indeed not something that should be taken lightly, which is why I simultanously applaud these two for their admission while finding it reprehensible.

You first confirm the definition of cybersquatting, but then go on to point at the cost involved, and lable it an “investment” and a “legitimate business”.

First, the money involved is completely irrelevent. It does not matter whether 10$ or 10,000,000$ was spent. This in no way changes it’s status as either an investment, or more importantly, as an ethical action. (note however that many cybersquatters have deferred fees, waiting until the get a payoff).

Second, cybersquatting involves the registration of names in bad faith. Precisely what is happening here. While the laws are only beginning to catch up to this behavior now, they are finally doing so. Thus, the legality is now indeed in question. In terms of morality, I would be interested in hearing your justification. Both from a deontological and utilitarian perspective, this behavior is harmful. One of the reasons, every attempt has been made to keep the cost of domain registration down is to honor the spirit of the open internet and the efficacy of doing business on the internet. Taking advantage of this system, for personal gain, is harmful to both. In addition, it’s harmful to society, as the profits acquired by cybersquatters (as well as the many court battles now being fought) are ultimately funded by society. All this while the cybersquatter produces NOTHING.

Finally, your analogy to buying cars is flawed. First cars are not a scarce resource, and second, in purchasing the item, you have paid for the product in entirety as was intended. Applying in bad faith for the privilege of using a unique item breaks not only the spirit of the law and the service, but now it breaks the newly forming laws. If you wish to use an analogy to common goods/services, a better one would be this, a person or person(s) books all the appointments with the doctor(s)in the city, to go in with fake problems. This is done in bad faith, and in the hopes that a few of the slots can be sold to desperate people for exorbitant amounts. This is type of behavior is precisely why bodies of oversight often must limit or restrict distribution to unethical individuals who would attempt to take advantage. For example, most apartment complexes would not allow one owner to buy up all the car slots, in the hopes of selling them off for profit. We do not applaud this as capitalism, but as an abuse of the system. Cybersquatters were lucky, in that no regulatory body or regulations had yet been formed for the rapidly evolving internet, however, despite the previous loopholes in policies, those engaged in this behavior need evaluate their morality.

It’s not really an accusation to throw around lightly.

Do I find it annoying when I want to register a domain name and then find it has been registered, yet never used and seems to be owned by a company in the business of reselling domain names at a profit? Sure I do. Are the people that do this conducting a legitimate business – of course they are.

Owning 10,000 domain names is likely to cost over $100,000 a year in registration fees. This is an investment. Making profit on an investment is called capitalism and it’s how our society works.

Sure, the industry could be regulated more to prevent this. Or yearly registration fees could be increased significantly to discourage it (which of course would hit every website owner’s pockets).

At the end of the day, if you want to go out and buy a dozen cars, park them in a garage and never drive them, you can.