News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by jorgeortiz85 on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:59PM (#755844)
Here’s a self-enforcing protocol for determining property tax: the homeowner decides the value of the property and calculates the resultant tax, and the government can either accept the tax or buy the home for that price. Sounds unrealistic, but the Greek government implemented exactly that system for the taxation of antiquities. It was the easiest way to motivate people to accurately report the value of antiquities.

I had an idea a while ago about stopping domain name squatters by using a similar protocol to price and tax domain names. You'd be required to report the "fair value" of each domain you owned. All your domains (maybe there could be exceptions for trademarks) would be implicitly for sale at that fair price. To keep the reported price from being too high, you'd have to pay some fraction of that price as a yearly domain name tax. That way, if anyone has a better use for your domain than you do, they can just buy it from you. Of course, if you build a brand and a trademark, you should have some protection from competitors just buying your domain. Maybe only other similar trademark holders could compete for your domain (eg, Apple Computers and Apple Music could fight it out to see who gets more value out of apple.com).

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by codyrobbins on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @05:12PM (#756432)
I think this really perverts the concept of private property, though. In order to thwart domain squatters, you'd eliminate property rights and create a fluid pool of domain names that could be forcibly purchased by anyone else at any time. Domains would become like oiled pool balls so slick and slippery that no one would be able to keep ahold of them long enough to do anything useful with them. That is, without massively overpaying taxes on them to insure they couldn't be taken at any time.

I think one of the most important things about private property is not necessarily that you can demand its fair value when you sell it, but rather that you alone can decide whether it is for sale in the first place.

From my way of thinking, domain squatting certainly isn't a dignified way to make a living or something to be proud of, and it's certainly a pain in the ass to everyone else, but I think it certainly is within the rights of those who choose to do it. Who cares if someone has a better use for a domain name? If you bought it, it's yours whether anyone else like it or not.

You might argue that squatting is not within the rights of those who do it — according to ICANN regulations — but then I would say that there's already process in place to resolve those sort of disagreements. Whether there are issues with that process is another question. That process may be imperfect, but I think what you are proposing introduces many more problems than it solves.

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by jorgeortiz85 on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @06:22PM (#756588)
Nonsense. Private property already has all kinds of restrictions. Try this: First, buy prime commercial real estate in a bustling pedestrian downtown area. Second, make sure to leave it abandoned, ugly, in a state of general decay, and plastered with ads just to make sure you make a little money off it it. (Assume no property taxes.) Third, watch the city council ordinance you into fixing up the place or leaving it altogether (under threat of fines).

The whole point of community rules on private property is that an ugly or rundown property will drive down the value of the properties around it. The same happens with domain names. The reason we have startups with ridiculous names like Meebo, Loopt, Reddit and Xobni are because all the reasonable names are taken by squatters who just plaster the domain with ads and make a tidy profit while they wait for a sucker to hand them over thousands of dollars.

I agree that people legitimately doing business on the web shouldn't face a constant, ominous threat of seizure. At the same time though, the web could use some communal standards to make the community better for everyone.

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by codyrobbins on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @09:10PM (#757002)
Your argument is that because there are already restrictions on private property, that there should therefore be more. I respectfully but completely disagree.

I also don't think your analogy is very applicable, since domain names are just floating in the ether, not sitting in physical proximity of one another. Ads plastered on one will not drive down the values of the others — the complete opposite, in fact. Furthermore, no one would buy prime commercial real estate, do nothing with it, and then be able to cover their costs with some ads on it — whoever bought it would go bankrupt. Ignoring all that, however, I really feel that if someone wanted to do so, the city council should not be able to levy fines on them for letting their property go into disrepair. Would I want to live next to such a property? No, definitely not. But it's their property and I respect their rights to do as they wish with it. I don't feel the ends justify the means in this case.

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by jorgeortiz85 on Wednesday August 12, 2009 @05:31AM (#757647)
No, my argument is that your purist notion of private property doesn't match reality and isn't a good idea anyway.

You're right that no one would buy prime commercial real estate and do nothing with it. That's because prime commercial real estate is expensive. But the prime real estate of the web wasn't expensive. In fact, all of it sold for just a few bucks back in the 1990s.

Imagine that there was a time when the prime commercial real estate of today was cheap and squattable in perpetuity. Imagine that a handful of people back in the 1600s "claimed" the majority of land in the US simply by having seen it (or, even more aptly in this comparison, by having thought of it). Imagine that all this land is their "property", regardless of whether they live on it, work on it, improve it, or even care about it. Under such a system, the descendants of these handful of people would today be collecting rent from everyone in the country, whether on prime commercial real estate or otherwise. Rather than a nation of rugged individuals (think Homestead Act), it'd be a nation of landed gentry (think British aristocracy).

When it comes absentee landlords, the notion of "property" is rather flimsy. What right does an absentee landlord have to an abandoned property? The only thing that maintains an absentee landlord as the "owner" of a property is the government's willingness to use force against anyone who claims otherwise.

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by Periodic on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @03:16PM (#756061)
I see domain names being too close to trademarks for this to be viable. For many companies the domain name came first, and the trademark came second (e.g. Flickr, bit.ly, del.icio.us). If others could somehow come in and buy your domain name it could really ruin your business. People think of many online businesses as synonymous with their URL, and there is a lot of work that goes into associating the two. The tax would really hurt small startups.

I think domain names should simply have more protections in a way similar to trademarks, and there should be a way to dispute domains as being trademark infringing.

Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by jorgeortiz85 on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @06:11PM (#756567)
Let's say you can pay your property tax in advance, so up to one or two years in advance. After that period, others can threaten to buy your domain. If you manage to build a viable business out of it within a year or two, you can trademark the name and hold on to it for as long as you're doing business under that trademark. If you haven't built a trademark around it, then you either continue paying your tax or risk getting bought out.
Re:Self-Enforcing Protocols by DanielStraight on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @11:43PM (#757213)
That's an awesome idea. I don't agree with it, but that doesn't change anything. The world needs more interesting ideas, and you have one. Kudos.