Cybersquatting - The Pros and Cons

Cybersquatting is a particularly thorny issue in the world of online ethics. On the one hand, it seems illegitimate for someone to register a domain name that is either a registered trademark of a private company, or a person's own name. In the case of businesses, the case against it seems particularly valid, given copyright laws.

On the other hand, the idea that an individual citizen would be the sole owner of his or her name online seems illogical, since he or she is likely not the only person in the world with that same name. It would also seem fairly impractical for that reason alone to think that everyone could be given their own names as website addresses, an idea that was proposed in class.

Even still, it seems rather petty and opportunistic to cybersquat for the sole purpose of selling that domain name to someone with a more legitimate claim to that domain. In the same vein, it seems particularly malicious to cybersquat at a domain similar to an existing website like Amazon.com for the sole purpose of misleading people into believing that they are shopping at the actual website.

The really tricky situations are where cybersuqatting is used as a form of protest. The protest is perfectly legal and legitimate outside the online world, so what makes cybersquatting any different?

In my opinion cybersquting should only be illegal in cases where an individual deliberately misleads viewers into believing they are on one website, when in fact they are on another. This seems to be a clear cut case of truth in advertising.

Cybersqatting as a form of protest however, could not be treated in the same way as other forms of cybersqauting, because of the first amendment. This type of cybersquatting should remain legal, because restricting it would be difficult to do short of declaring free speech dead on the Internet. If I were a legislator I would ensure that businesses have access to their own names, while still championing the rights of those who wish to engage in social commentary through cybersquatting. This is especially true when it comes to public figures like the president, who already do not enjoy as much protection as private citizens in this regard. While it is true that such sites may mislead, that can also help to change the nature of a national debate, and that far outweighs the potential for harm in this case.