This is a pretty bad article. It seems like a hit piece trying to paint the guy as a war profiteer, because...ebola? I have no real love for domain squatters, but the guy isn't any worse because he happens to own a domain name related to a disease that is in the news. Lines like:<p>> <i>Doesn’t he know that Ebola has killed more than 4,000 people in West Africa, has breached the United States, and that international health officials now warn of state collapse and widespread chaos? Doesn’t that tug at his heart strings?</i><p>just make me roll my eyes. The idea that he should be so <i>very ashamed</i> of himself for owning ebola.com (and should then obviously give it out of contrition and the goodness of his heart to...someone else) is odious.<p>Who should <i>legitimately</i> own ebola.com? Ebola, Inc? Pfizer? It's difficult to make an argument that it should be owned by the government, since we have the entire .gov tld for that purpose.
Meh, somebody has to own ebola.com and birdflu.com.<p>And whoever buys ebola.com for $150,000 is doing it because it's profitable for them. Maybe the manufacturer of ZMapp wants the domain to sell their medications? Why shouldn't Schultz make a profit selling it?<p>How is this any different than a real estate investor? I could buy several acres in Detroit and sit on it for a while, hoping the city rebounds and I can sell for a profit. Does that make me evil too?
Domain names are a market just like any other. If someone buys a domain name to make money from affiliate links that's their choice, I don't have a problem with that. Don't like it? Come up with a more profitable use for the domain name and buy it from them.
What the article doesn't address is whether this guy's business actually makes any money. It might make sense as a good bet if he paid $9.99 for birdflu.com, but $20,000? Has he actually resold any of his domains for large sums?