Sopa and GoDaddy

[1_1_1]

I know GoDaddy is a sponser so whats rev3's stance on this
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars

[tokenuser]

If those protesting would sit down, read, AND UNDERSTAND what the First Amendment freedoms they seem to think are being quashed this would largely be a non event.

[1_1_1]

I guess you haven't read it then, or seen what the RIAA/MPAA/DHS are already doing before this.

[tokenuser]

I guess you haven't read it then, or seen what the RIAA/MPAA/DHS are already doing before this.Actually, I am guessing you havent read it and are actually only regurgitating what the herd are saying over at reedit.

How have the actions of the RIAA/MPAA/DHS personally affected you?

I'll speak up first and say that I have not been impacted by the RIAA or MPAA. Indeed, I now have more options for the consumption of digital content online than ever before - and the creators are getting their due. Look at Loiuis CK's latest effort - he ditched the networks, went for private distribution and made out like a bandit.

DHS is another story. Is the question of whether or not you have TB or a hernia a matter of national security? Apparently for me it is.

So, in YOUR interpretation of SOPA. Why is it evil?

Then let me ask - have you ever created content (software, audio, video) that you would derive an income from.

[phatlip]

Actually, I am guessing you havent read it and are actually only regurgitating what the herd are saying over at reedit.

How have the actions of the RIAA/MPAA/DHS personally affected you?

I'll speak up first and say that I have not been impacted by the RIAA or MPAA. Indeed, I now have more options for the consumption of digital content online than ever before - and the creators are getting their due. Look at Loiuis CK's latest effort - he ditched the networks, went for private distribution and made out like a bandit.

DHS is another story. Is the question of whether or not you have TB or a hernia a matter of national security? Apparently for me it is.

So, in YOUR interpretation of SOPA. Why is it evil?

Then let me ask - have you ever created content (software, audio, video) that you would derive an income from.


That's like saying the Patriot Act only impacts terrorist. My concern is that we're going to see this on more and more websites (http://torrentfreak.com/images/seizedservers.gif) without first going through due process and determining their innocence in a court of law. Then eventually abusing SOPA (as we've seen with other abuses of power such as the Patriot Act) and targeting other sites such as WikiLeaks.

If my government didn't have a long history of blatantly abusing power I could possible support a bill similar to this. Unfortunately, history has shown that's anything but true.

I've been a GoDaddy customer for many years now, but that will no longer be the case after hearing their stance on this.

[damnedeyez]

The problem with these bills is that they are intentionally too vague...they're written that way with the intention of having the leeway to get the big violators and close loopholes, but wind up catching even non-offenders in the process.

[tokenuser]

Much of the "reporting" on SOPA has been based upon the words of Gary Shapiro (President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2011/12/07/save-the-internet-take-action-against-sopa/

Forbes magazine - credible source right? Well, despite the Forbes banner, it is not from the news reporting side of the fence, it is form the blog side, and what is being "reported" is actually an OpEd piece which means that fact checking is optional. For the most part he is a pretty good mouth piece, but he bases much of his information on an early draft of SOPA that was leaked, and not the actual bill before congress.

I'll quote another blog that has quoted him -
Shapiro asserts “the bill is so broadly written that, in theory, it would allow any copyright owner to shut down a legitimate retail website, such as Amazon or Best Buy, by alleging that one product being sold on the site could enable or facilitate infringement. It could even allow any content owner to block access to the Patent Office website if it receives and posts a patent application for a product that is believed to use content without permission.”
Source: Copyright Alliance (http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2011/10/can-i-buy-a-fact/)

The crucial part that he misses from his diatribe is:

Both the House and the Senate bills narrowly target sites dedicated to infringement. The Senate bill defines such sites as ones that have “no significant use other than” engaging in, enabling or facilitating infringement. The House bill, defines such sites as ones that are “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose other than, or is marketed by its operators for …” infringement.

He also misses these crucial points:


The House bill requires a DMCA-like notification/counter-notification regime before a rights holder can seek an injunction asking the payment processor or advertising service to stop doing business with the rogue site.
The House bill contains a savings clause that nothing in the bill shall be interpreted to violate free speech protected under the 1st Amendment.
The House bill specifies that neither payment processors nor online advertising networks have a duty to monitor sites for illegal behavior.
The House bill provides damages against those who misrepresent charges that an Internet site is dedicated to infringement


Notifications like the torrent freak takedown notice stir up the emotions online, but seriously ... they have a business model based around the notion of profiting form the distribution of illegally sourced content.

How would you feel if a car lot opened up down the street from you that dealt in "quality vehicles stolen straight from the GM factory"? Should that business be shut down?

A little closer to home for you - what are your thoughts on this sort of thing (http://birdabroad.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/are-you-listening-steve-jobs/)?

[1_1_1]

Yes RIAA/MPAA actions have indirectly affected me

I wanted to download Rev3 shows via torrent when they used to host them that way and RIAA/MPAA DDOSed them

events in recent years show that RIAA/MPAA/DHS can't be trusted with such power

btw your idea about a car lot selling stolen cars right from a GM factory is just silly if that were to ever happen then GM would need to improve their security

its a bit different than issuing a lie filled letter and putting artist out of business or small business owners that are wrongfully accused but lose their site for so long that they go out of business

there's so much wrong with SOPA after you consider the current laws and how they have been misused already

[tokenuser]

Diddums. RIAA/MPAA stopped you from getting Revision3 content via BT.
Cry me a river. With the ALTERNATE ways to access Revision3 shows thats the best you can come up with?

I have nothing against BT. There are legitimate uses for the service.

With the MediaDefender case, it was never publicly stated which client engaged them. Their client list is a long list of media companies. It could potentially have been any of them.

BUT, here is the irony ... with SOPA, that would never have happened. A takedown notice for the distribution of copyright content would have been issued, and the LEGITIMATE use of BT would have continued.

Here is another fun thing to point out, the provisions of the KILL SWITCH bill could have been invoked by Revision3 to have MediaDefenders servers DDOS attack taken down.

btw your idea about a car lot selling stolen cars right from a GM factory is just silly if that were to ever happen then GM would need to improve their securityAnd how would they improve their security?
Better antitheft measures?
Powers to go after people stealing their products?

<facepalm>

Now look at SOPA again.

[1_1_1]

If someone can walk into your building an drive off with a car then you have a crappy building

btw an update to the article
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/victory-boycott-forces-godaddy-to-drop-its-support-for-sopa.ars

good luck your trying really hard to make a false claim that it would help someone legitimately, It won't period end of story, the end.

If we fail to learn from our past we'll just repeat it.

Just to make it simple with SOPA the RIAA/MPAA would have instead just removed Rev3 from the internet and then it would have been likely years before the site could rightfully come back.

[tokenuser]

Thats awesome. Economic terrorism at its finest.

Now ... please read the list of other companies who are supporting SOPA.

http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/SOPA%20Supporters.pdf

As you return all the games, books, music, and movies you receive this Christmas, I hope you also don't have those funds put back onto you Visa or Mastercard.

I'll turn it around - you are trying real hard to make it sound like SOPA will harm someone legitimately.

The example you used of the RIAA/MPAA/MediaDefender against Revision3 would have been avoided with SOPA, and MediaDefenders vigilante actions would have been taken down by KILL SWITCH legislation.

[1_1_1]

Keep telling yourself that maybe you really believe it.

Instead of a DDOS they would have kill switched Rev3 and then based on whats happened to people already and how open ended the bill is there's no chance that a kill switched site would come back

They wouldn't have needed MediaDefender because they would just say Rev3 is doing something and then end of story and business.

BTW its not "Economic terrorism" (that's what congress does) its voting with your wallet.

[killerfocus]

I know GoDaddy is a sponser so whats rev3's stance on this
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/12/godaddy-faces-december-29-boycott-over-sopa-support.ars

They no longer support SOPA

[tokenuser]

Keep telling yourself that maybe you really believe it.

Instead of a DDOS they would have kill switched Rev3 and then based on whats happened to people already and how open ended the bill is there's no chance that a kill switched site would come back

They wouldn't have needed MediaDefender because they would just say Rev3 is doing something and then end of story and business.Sigh.

How about some independent thought instead of regurgitating the same old flawed arguments.

Whoever engaged MediaDefender would not have been able to touch Revision3 because ...

Both the House and the Senate bills narrowly target sites dedicated to infringement. The Senate bill defines such sites as ones that have “no significant use other than” engaging in, enabling or facilitating infringement. The House bill, defines such sites as ones that are “primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose other than, or is marketed by its operators for …” infringement.

Revision3 doesn't fall within the scope of either of those definitions.

Please - formulate an argument based on some facts.

[1_1_1]

If the RIAA "Claims" infringement then they can act.

[tokenuser]

If the RIAA "Claims" infringement then they can act.No, if the RIAA can PROVE infringement they can act.

Here is some light reading for you.

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf

Read it. Understand it. There are some legitimate concerns that could largely be mitigated through the education of the judges who precede over these cases, but they are not the end of the internet doomsday scenarios that AOL/TC/HuffPo, Reddit, et al., are proposing.

[hellhound]

TY Tokenuser for delving into the SOPA legaleze for me because I always suspected this "boycott GoDaddy" stuff seemed a knee-jerk reaction based on limited info.
I have browsed afew web posts (mostly opinion and no linking to facts) which made it seem that GoDaddy was gung-ho on flipping the "Kill Switch" on a website w/ just a phone call from someone in the Hollywood/music elite, where in fact (and as I suspected) GoDaddy's response was that: if someone is infringing enuff that we get served with a warrant by the govt to take us into legal action... we will abide by the laws (their spokesmen werent too articulate in stating where they stand and went for the patriotism thing at 1st.... that they are Pro-USA.. and foreign run websites that hurt USA companies w/ deceptive or illegal practices should be stopped.. didnt permeate because they didnt add a freedom clause immediately next to the Pro-USA soundbite.

Its like having a buddy over at your apt/house (that you dont know is wanted for an offense somewhere between missing jury duty and rape, and possibly even falsely accused)... At 1st there are security guards/Private Investigators knocking at your door asking to search your place... of course you say "No. come back with a warrant"... and then they come back with a warrant and a SWAT team.. To expect GoDaddy to get sued into bankrupsy and/or face criminal obstruction/facilitation charges goes way beyond the $4.99 or 9.99 a month

[phatlip]

Look, I'm not suggesting that it's okay to pirate things. But do you guys really think this bill won't be abused if it's passed? We already dealt with the department of Homeland Security seizing domain names without so much a trial.

[tokenuser]

Look, I'm not suggesting that it's okay to pirate things. But do you guys really think this bill won't be abused if it's passed? We already dealt with the department of Homeland Security seizing domain names without so much a trial.without a trial?

Drug lord selling cocaine on the streets of LA.
With a warrant, cops roll in, seize his goods, vehicles, and bank accounts.
THEN they go to trial.

Same deal. The fact you haven't heard about the cases going to trial doesn't mean it hasn't/won't happen.

You are smarter than this. Look at the law, and not the kneejerk rhetoric going on online - most of it traces back to a single story that reported misinformation.

[phatlip]

without a trial?

Drug lord selling cocaine on the streets of LA.
With a warrant, cops roll in, seize his goods, vehicles, and bank accounts.
THEN they go to trial.

Same deal. The fact you haven't heard about the cases going to trial doesn't mean it hasn't/won't happen.

You are smarter than this. Look at the law, and not the kneejerk rhetoric going on online - most of it traces back to a single story that reported misinformation.

Some of those sites had their domins seized for merely linking to copyrighted material. It's one thing to arrest a drug dealer for slinging Cocaine in a bad part of town. It's another to arrest me for saying you can buy Cocaine on <insert street name>. And what of warrants? I'm willing to bet the drug dealer was issued a traditional search warrant. Or at least he should have been. Hard to say in light of the abuses of the Patriot Act, but I've read of no such warrants being issued in the case close to a year ago when 70+ domains were seized.

But again, we're talking about giving a group of individuals more power who have a long history of abusing power when put in their hands.

[tokenuser]

Those sites were seized under COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act). It allows a site's domain to be seized if it "has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than" offering or providing access to unauthorized copies of copyrighted works.

I'll move away from the drug reference, and give you a prostitution reference instead.

The site offering the illegal content - similar to the prostitute. They engage in the illegal act.
The site acting as a link repository to site offering illegal content or linking directly to the illegal content - similar to the pimp. While not engaging directly in the act, they are facilitating it and profiting off it (in most cases through paid subscriptions to "faster downloads" or via advertising revenue generated on the sites).

My biggest single issue with SOPA is that their are already laws in place that cover what it it trying to achieve. DCMA and COICA are the dominant ones. Apart from the legislative overlap, I see no problem with the act.

Still trying to see the legitimacy of the "stifling entrepreneurial growth" argument - unless you business model revolves around the distribution of illegally sourced content.

Since you referenced the TorrentFreak website earlier, here is what they found out about the seizure of "Torrent-Finder" (http://torrentfreak.com/torrent-finder-determined-to-fight-u-s-domain-seizure-101206/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20Torrentfreak%20%28Torrentfr eak%29):

TorrentFreak got in touch with David Snead, the lawyer who represents Torrent-Finder, to ask him about this peculiar case.

“At base, what ICE did is legal, if, in torrent-finder.com’s case, a stretch of the law, which is likely what they intended,” Snead told TorrentFreak.

“There is a civil forfeiture law that has been used for many years by the U.S. to enforce its customs laws, and it has been widely, and legally, used to seize items that infringe copyrights. The classic case would be for customs to seize counterfeit DVDs sold at a flea market.”

“In this case, we believe that ICE’s activities are based on a provision of the statute that allows seizure of items that are facilitating infringement. Because the DNS resided in the U.S., ICE was likely within the law in seizing the DNS, even though the owner of the domain name is not in the U.S. It’s important to note that the site itself wasn’t seized, only the domain name,” Snead added.

[robaer]

I came here to ask a similar question to 1_1_1. I first learned of godaddy from Rev3 and I have since used them for all my domain and hosting needs. I have found their service and price excellent (and the rev3 discount codes helped with that).

My concern with SOPA and Protect IP is the trend they represent more than the words of the act itself. Liberty and Freedoms can be eroded in either single large revolutionary sweeps or by thousands of small movements that each and unto themselves seem just and innocuous. The later is far more dangerous because it divides public opinions and diffuses the long term impact by masking the dangerous direction things are moving in.

The internet has driven the economy of the world for the past 15 years and while it can be a hostile place to content owners... The benefits of getting your ideas and products out into the market outweigh the risks of having that content linked and stolen. Those that have gotten fat off the wealth of the internet now seek to protect their wealth. It is the classic capitalistic activity that every "age" has experienced from the agricultural ages through the industrial age and into the technological age. Every time governments, through pressure from those who have wealth and power in the affected area, have sought to further place barriers and controls on the freedom of activity and information flow, the more society has suffered. In the end it often destroys those governments and societies (roman empire... british empire) because the "free" societies will always float to the top and bring with them the citizens they represent.

America is in a spiraling decline of entitlement, protectionism and conservative backlash that will undo decades of progress and freedom. The very reason the US became an information age giant is because the very technology they now seek to control was created and set free by people for the sake of society.

I recognize that the legislation itself can be seen in good light and positive.. but it can also be seen in bad light and take things further down the rabbit hole. Whenever legislation is tabled that can wear BOTH those hats... its bad legislation. There are other ways to protect the rights and holders then attack the very infrastructure of the information flow and it is for those reasons I do not like SOPA and while I respect the mod's opinion, fear it shows how this legislation is undermining our beliefs.

[justpeon]

Sopa and pipa reminds me of the Joe McCarthyism (spelling?) not so many years ago. Sopa is constantly being changed. so It depends on what version now active. I am not an attorney, But the people at the EFF are. They say it is a lot of alleged garbage and I agree.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/2011-review-fighting-internet-blacklist-bills

Media usage and the media moguls have ruined the internet. I wish they would get their own pipes and then they can do what they wish. We already are making plans to get off the internet if the bean-brained Sopa and Pipa supporters have what they want.

Rumor has it that lots of people are already dumping Go-Daddy. Then GoDaddy will call you to say that they are not really supporting it, Most people think it is a lot telling you what you want to hear to save their business..

[imcostalong]

Like many of the other users, I strongly disagree with the direction legislation is pushing us in light of "internet freedoms." Every act is one step further to completely monetizing the internet into a product place, and those who support those steps are looking to "close the doors" on everyone else to maintain their capital. I find it quite hilarious when someone says "it will have no effect on you." I wonder how many times in history those words have been said in defense of Acts that limit our freedom to share information.

It's also funny that Digg.com and Rev3 are almost ghost towns on the GoDaddy issue when places like 4chan, reddit, twitter, facebook, etc. etc. have so many people debating it. With a Sponsor like GoDaddy, I would put some money on the fact that Diggnation has been barred from addressing the issue in light of the controversy. I guess you don't bite the hand that feeds you, but I've seen Rev3 turn into a puppet for sponsors to cover stories and generate opinions, outside of script, grossly geared to the support of crappy products and services. So I guess its to be expected. I could be wrong, I just skimmed through the latest video topics and saw nothing, sitting through Alex and Kevin now-a-days makes me wanna vomit, so much has changed.

Most of these people are claiming themselves to be familiar with the internet, and yet they promote such mainstream junk for whoever foots the bill. I dropped Rev3 a Long time ago, and I was VERY curious to see if they acted as i thought they would of, no surprises there. Digg.com is dropping drastically in internet traffic and interest, I wonder if it has anything to do with the blanket of Ads that have appeared all over the pages. Greed is a corrosive enemy.

I encourage people to seek out other newsgroups and venues for information/podcasts on the net where people are doing it for the love and thrill versus these sell-outs. I come to the internet to escape corporate puppets and obtusely monetized bullshit. I guess it won't be long when indie websites are dead and the internet just becomes a TV with a keyboard, what a sad day that will be. I'd have to say, aside from Hak5, no one on this website knows their ass from a wrench about the internet or technology. It's all second hand knowledge, based on theories built with enough experience to sound right... though I may be guilty myself with my opinion of this place. Regardless, as useless as this post seems, take a second to think about if you want your information to be censored by special interest groups... Just look how easy it is for such a big issue to be forgotten or minimized on Rev3 with a sponsor like GoDaddy