I'm defending this decision because the alternative, big companies bullying out little ones is worse.

No idea where you're getting your information from, but according to the most legitimate source I can find it's not true. From the World Intellectual Property Organisation report on the case of Nintendo v. Domain Admin:

It's not the same at all. Domains were created for a purpose, they're tools to help us navigate the Internet. When they're misappropriated it doesn't simply affect the entity trying to acquire the domain, it affects those trying to navigate to a destination as well. They're not owned property, otherwise you wouldn't…

Not true, if that was the case Nintendo would have an easier time getting hold of it. It's been controlled by the same entity since 2004.

How you presented it however is ad hominem, which does not make for a logical argument. Fallacies rarely do.

If they were planning to do something with the domain, then in all likelihood they would have done it in the nine years since it was registered. And at any rate it's not like they'd have to let strangers into their office. In any proceeding like this evidence would simply be submitted, and has been submitted in this…

True, but I'm not arguing what the current rules of the system are. I'm arguing they shouldn't be that way. Domains are tools, their purpose is to help us navigate the internet. That purpose is compromised when domains aren't used legitimately though. If they weren't unique commodities and weren't a vital part of the…

You're an idiot and a misogynist to boot. So I think you're failing harder there kid.

I don't give a shit if it's Nintendo, any other big corporation, or even an enterprising individual on the other end. You know what isn't logical? Accusing me of being a Nintendo fanboy. That's so illogical it's a freaking logical fallacy. So don't you talk to me about logic.

But that's not the case here. You are using that domain, and yes I agree that no one has a right to forcibly remove it from you. However it does not seem like this domain has been put to use, ANY USE, for the last nine years. It was registered for a purpose that failed to materialise and they've just been hanging on…

It's a placeholder site now, and has been for the last nine years as far as I can tell. There's crawls on the web archive going back to 2004 that can verify this.

There was an honest motive behind it... nine freaking years ago. A motive, which in the nine years since has born no fruit. Intent to use a domain in the future is fine. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to register domains for future use, obviously there are cases where you want to reserve a domain…

Your analogy doesn't work. Two reasons:

I disagree. If you're sitting on a domain for an excessive length of time without putting it to use then REGARDLESS of whether anyone else has designs on said domain you're squatting it. You're holding on to it for the sake of holding it, rather than for any legitimate purpose. I have no problem with people holding on…

If you're not making any use of a domain nearly a decade after you registered it, then it's squatting. Regardless of whether anyone else wants that domain or not. At that point it's clear they have no legitimate intent to put it to use and are just holding it for the sake of holding it. That's squatting, whether the…

I am serious, and your case is different. Even if you're not using it for anything significant you're still making use of it. The domain in this case simply has one of those placeholder pages that's used on a completely unused domain. From the statement the intended use of the website hasn't materialised, nearly a…

Considering you pay for continued ownership of it, it's more like renting than it is buying. You don't really own a domain. The fact you pay for it doesn't really give you any more rights than you have over a rented property. You can't be evicted without good cause, but you can still be evicted.

How the hell does it make me a fanboy just because I disapprove of cybersquatting? That's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Also I disagree that you should be able to hold on to a domain as long as you choose to. Domains don't work like copyrights, but they shouldn't work like property either. People shouldn't be…

I would have thought that sitting on a domain for nine years without doing anything with it would be sufficient cause to argue that the owners have no rights or legitimate interests in it. Seriously there should be a statute of limitations on this kind of thing. Use it or lose it.

I can see why they wanted her to remove the piercings. Yeesh they look hideous. I mean I'm not really a fan of piercings outside the ear but the cheek ones are just really ugly.