Experts say the theft of Internet domain names occurs every day. The thieves — taking advantage of companies that have either let down their guard or failed to take adequate precautions — are often after financial gain, since short or memorable domains can be sold for millions of dollars and generate Web traffic and online-advertising revenue. Some domain hijackers are former employees or others looking to extract payments or take revenge.
“It’s a complete rampage in our industry,” says Monte Cahn, founder and chief executive of Moniker Online Services LLC in Pompano Beach, Fla., which handles domain services such as registrations and auctions.
The problem with domain theft is demand. There are many buyers who are very aware that something just isn’t right about a purchase, however they would rather not ask any questions. This allows buyers to avoid the “internal conflict”? of knowing that they’re buying a stolen domain, yet at the same time, ensuring their defense should there ever be a challenge to the purchase. This “plausible deniability”? has been an issue for many years now, and in my opinion is the main factor driving these hijackings.
Occasionally, buyers are truly victims, as they buy these domains from auction houses or after domains have changed hands many times over. But then again, the auction houses could and should do a better job authenticating ownerships, while buyers should make sure that they know the exact trail of a domain beginning with its original registration thus making sure it is not actually stolen.
The only group losing out in this scenario is those whose domains are being stolen while they remain completely unaware of it, or those who are highly fragmented (as a group that is), so who is left to stand up for them?
In my opinion, a possible solution to this problem lies in stopping demand and increasing authentication. Buyers need to take responsibility, auction houses need to authenticate ownership more accurately, and monetization services must also do their part in verifying if there are stolen domains in their system and if they discover that there are, they need to flush the offenders.
The question is why should anyone care? Auction houses make commission on sales, stolen or not. Monetization services make money on traffic, stolen domains or not, and buyers are calculating their risk of losing the property, stolen or not. Possibly companies like Moniker, which has some sort of gain (services) might stand up for domainers, but then again, if domains are on other registrars, the problem still exists.
The Solution? I really don’t know.
I agree that theft of a domain name is like theft of anything else. Domain thieves should serve time in prison like people who steal anything else. There will be a shift as soon as people start to hold the hand of law enforcement and explain the nature of the loss/crime.. Theft of property and theft of a license to property are punishable in the real world. One day a case will make its way to the courts and a jury will jail a thief of virtual property. The wild west is slowly being tamed.
A good solution would be to allow a victim of a stolen domain to bring a UDRP case against its new (illicit) owner. In addition to trademark cases, UDRP panels would be able to order a stolen domain name be returned to its original owner.
This would speed up recovery of stolen domains, as well as make it less worthwhile to steal one in the first place.
Frank makes a valid point and I think that is one solution, as the potential of being someones girlfriend in a locked cage will deter some thieves. What these thieves are really doing besides stealing a domain is also committing identity theft.
Another solution is having the equivalent of title insurance as in real estate. Ive heard many people talk about this but the company that handles this should only do this facet of the business. I think if the company also does auctions then that is a conflict of interest for example. I think the answer involves a hybrid of ideas but the fact of the matter is that theft and fraud with be evident in any profitable area of business.
I think the solution can only come from making the domain name “real property.” As long as they’re stuck in the “IP” classification, and temporarily at that, inumerable problems will continue to plague the nameholder.
It originates at the registrar-registry link and the contract verbiage they use to preclude you from “owning” them. Just after 9/11/01, I presented a business plan to the investor community that effectively solved this problem for a $2M investment. More now. At the time, they were all both scared and clueless. So, the plan sits on the shelf. B^)
Provenance is the term used in the art world and the domain auctioneers should be held to at least the same standards; i.e., they get to share with their cellmates, best case, when convicted for sale of counterfeit or stolen goods.
Our protection issues have a lot to do with the “speed” at which domains can be illicitly transferred, sold and resold to mask the etherial trail leading to nowhere. It can only get worse. And, insurance can’t solve the problem, only mask the damages.
Don’t we all as nameholders (a large group) need a registrar whose only objective is to protect our interests? One we don’t want to transfer from, period? Just askin.
Disallow private registrations and look for ways to make the ownership trail transparent and a matter of public record.
Addressing demand is the key. In the real world, receiving stolen property is a crime. If buyers know they can be prosecuted for buying a stolen domain name, and if the ownership trail is clear, then it’s just not worth the risk.
In the few domain hijacking (both real and alleged) cases I handled in my domain registrar work, it’s really going to take a combo of automated and manual solutions to possibly resolve such. But indeed, why should anyone care if they especially have little to no incentive and with these different and/or competing interests involved?
Unfortunately if certain parties don’t take responsibility for their actions, someone else might do that for them and they aren’t going to like it.