Go Daddy Supports E-PARASITE Legislation Even Though Its Own Site Is Dedicated To Theft Of Property Under Terms Of The Bill
from the find-a-new-gc,-folks dept
The supporters of the new E-PARASITE Act (the even worse version of the already dreadful PROTECT IP) have been pretty desperate trying to find any "tech" companies to support these bills. It's kind of amusing that the only ones they've been able to turn up so far have been some of the most hated companies around among techies. First, they had Monster Cable go to Congress in support of the bill, without even realizing that in Monster Cable's view, "sites dedicated to piracy" would include eBay, Craigslist, Sears and Costco, among others -- basically proving the point that the broad private right to action in the bill would be massively abused.Their latest attempt to roll out a "tech company" supporting these bills is equally hated and equally laughable. I know that any time I mention GoDaddy in almost any context on this site, the anti-GoDaddy comments come flying fast and furious. So its reputation in tech circles is already suspect. And while in the past it was skeptical of E-PARASITE's predecessor, COICA, it appears that GoDaddy has been convinced to be the latest "tech company" to talk about why such laws are a good idea. The company's general counsel, Christine Jones, published a laughably misleading op-ed in the paywalled section of Politico. I won't bother quoting it directly, given that I don't want to be accused of circumventing DRM and face having my entire website shut down by an overzealous "notification" to my registrar under E-PARASITE (or merely an ICE seizure).
However, the really stunning thing is that Jones doesn't even seem to understand the bill that she's supporting. Specifically, she doesn't seem to recognize not just the compliance costs it puts on GoDaddy (or maybe she's hoping, as a large player, that GoDaddy is better to withstand the costs, while smaller competitors may go out of business -- but that's a particularly cynical viewpoint). She also doesn't seem to realize that under the bill's broad definitions GoDaddy itself is a "site dedicated to the theft of US property".
That's because among the definitions of a site that's "dedicated to the theft of US property" is this: if the site "is marketed by its operator... for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates... the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code." In other words, if you operate a site that enables or facilitates the sale of goods that bear a counterfeit mark... you're dedicated to theft of US property. So, let's take a quick wander over to GoDaddy... and, just for fun, let's see what happens if we try to register the domain Rolex.com. Rolex.com is obviously taken, but... oh wait... what's this... GoDaddy is recommending that I might want to register these other domains that are perfect for infringing sites.
Yes, GoDaddy's own general counsel is supporting a law that could be used to kill GoDaddy and force it offline. Makes you wonder if she even read the bill. GoDaddy might want reconsider its support of this law until it finds a lawyer who actually understands what the law says.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: christine jones, e-parasite, rogue sites
Companies: godaddy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pirate.
Then they came for me,
because I stupidly supported their legislation that I didn't read or understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I got it wrong, feel free to correct me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This looks like another example of how 99 percent of lawyers give the other 1 percent a bad reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its this simple
tl:dr
"In our view....."
I won't go against Mikes wishes and post the actual text either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw, Isohunt isnt registred at Godaddy ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"godaddy.com" itself has no recommendations
Invalid search: Please select a different domain name to search on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "godaddy.com" itself has no recommendations
But Godaddy's other properties do have availability and godaddy themselves suggest alternatives. You could snatch secureserver.net and .com alternatives, wsimg alternatives, wildwestdomains alternatives.
In short, you could go meta meta on this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Daddy Go!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh... I don't wish death to any1 but in a honest analysis if a few (ok a lot of) ppl died now inside of the MAFIAA the world would be instantly a better place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202509463855
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Techdirt had a points/karma award system, you'd have all I could give atm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GoDaddy is...
I've studied registrars, hosting companies, networks, mail providers, every entity that's come to my attention. Nobody else even comes close. GoDaddy supports, encourages, facilitates, and profits from some of the very worst people on the planet.
So everything they ever say and do should be considered in that context -- that is, whatever they're doing is designed to maximize their profits, and is NEVER motivated by principle or altruism. It just remains to be seen how they figure to work this in their favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
Anyhoo, you all /really/ ought to stop ranting sometime and consider that you FEW "techies" are up against masses of dolts who /buy/ Monster Cable products at outrageous prices. Dolts rule by sheer numbers, and those who get income from dolt-itude are advantaged by easy money and utter lack of conscience on how to use that money to gain more. Leads me to conclude that "capitalism" isn't based on merits and honesty in a free market as the myth goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
I will be the first to agree with you, Rapidshare does host infringing files and Godaddy does have a horrible reputation. The problem Masnick and everyone else has with E-PARASITES is the lack of balance. With just a form letter, any and all sites would be quickly shut down. I thought the DMCA notice and counter notice was bad, now instead of a particular item being taken down, its all taken down. There's far too much ability and power given to take something down and to shut someone up, but practically nothing to protect free speech (and in the case of E-PARASITES, there's no provision to put back up the taken-down content).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
So, like most everything else, OotB is completely wrong in his use of these pseudo-italics. First, he could use the real thing on this site. Second, when bold and italic are both available, bold is generally used for emphasis while italics are used as a differentiation (e.g., to indicate that a quoted passage contains thoughts instead of speech, or to indicate titles).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
Yep, in this case, I feel justified in going Grammer Nazi on him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
When all he does is comes off as a retarded dishcloth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If kills "Godaddy"... I'm still looking for the /down/ side to SOPA!
You deliberately overlook the fact that if a "form letter" is served on a site, that this site has the ability to counter with a form letter (counter notice) of its own. Once the counter notice is delivered, then the matter goes before a judge. The reason the anti-IP FUDpackers have no traction and no credibility is shit like this. You deliberately distort the impact of the proposed law to suit your needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open mouth, lose account.
Yes, past-tense. I just put in a request to close my account and refund my money.
Now, Hollywood: who else do you want to see turn into lost sales over your bullshit?
I'm game. My wallet, my choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
~Completely trustworthy congressman, who is totally not trying to kill off the internet at the behest of the MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of making it harder for infringers to infringe, or providing mechanisms to bring the criminals to court, it is merely attempting to turn service providers into cops, and punishing them for failing at it, while the infringers just laugh and scoot away deeper into the Intertubes.
So, I really don't see how can anyone support a law that would, effectively, allow criminals to evade justice, while "innocents" get slammed repeatedly for failing to stop them. It's all backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only way to get them to listen is to make them suffer the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bills are not going to make it illegal to sell domains or make them liable, in the same manner that phone companies are not liable for providing a phone number.
It's really amazing to watch you try to drudge up the spectre of 5th and 6th party liablity, but in the end, it's just a bullshit attitude by someone who is losing badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are right. The Bill would not make it illegal to simply sell non TMed domain names. But the fact that GoDaddy suggests other website names that could infringe on someones trademark and then sells them, they would almost certainly be seen as inducing IP infringement under this bill. The fact that they have restricted their own website from this process is further proof that they have considered this. However, if they implemented a fix that blocked any use of a trademarked word/phrase in a domain name, then they surely would be guilty of over broad censorship activity (although immune from liability under this bill). Say, I want to buy the domain name www.angryverizoncustomer.com, that is within my rights under copyright law--but would be filtered out. In short, the inducement-like standard put forth by this bill is a huge problem and would make all sort of activities, such as Godaddy's automatic suggestions, that are generally useful to users. The bill would likely also create a monitoring regime that could impose serious liability on user generated content sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's an incredible stretch, one that Mike is making just to try to scare us all.
Oh yeah Mike, I read the talking points on it. The full bill? I doubt even you have seen it marked up, and that is the only version that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, read the law: it doesn't say you have to actively do anything. It says you merely have to fail to actively block such things.
So, you fail.
Oh yeah Mike, I read the talking points on it. The full bill? I doubt even you have seen it marked up, and that is the only version that matters.
I've read the full bill, as it currently exists, many times already, and already went through it in detail with three different reporters.
What's clear is that by reading the "talking points," you, like Ms. Jones, have no freaking clue what's in it.
What's scary is you then presume to comment on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What's clear is that by reading the "talking points," you, like Ms. Jones, have no freaking clue what's in it.
What's scary is you then presume to comment on it."
I think it is much scarier that you have apparently read the bill (marked up was it?), and still clearly fear mongering. Your assumption that companies that are on the edge are not going to adapt to avoid liability is a joke. You are working so hard to scare people, and yet the answer is quite simple: Go Daddy stops offering the suggestion service for additional domains, and their liability disappears.
Further, you being a smart man would realize that GoDaddy is only an agent for the various TLD owners, and that in reality, it would be up to the TLDs to accept or decline a registration, not Go Daddy. But I know that invoking the names of TLD owners in various countries around the world isn't exactly as sexy or search engine relevant as picking a name company like godaddy. Your techniques for self promotion never cease to amaze me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What we want is for those who are actually guilty to be the only ones punished, and then in a realistic manner. When you go to court, the prosecution is supposed to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. These bills bring law to the level of "accusation=guilt" and "guilty until proven innocent," since the accused, unless the firm suing drops all cases with any opposition, have to prove beyond ALL doubt that they are innocent.
In a related note, it is pointed out on this site that developers/studios/artists who only focus on "pirates" are making a bad move, that will most likely only hurt them in the long run, but it will hurt them for sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should try reading the actual bill next time before making statements like that. It's not illegal to sell domain names, but it is against the text in the law to recommend domain names that enable infringement.
Another day, another TAM fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dad said "No! You will BE KILL BY PIRATES"
There was a time when she believed him. Then as she got oldered she stopped. But now in the internet site of the ISP she knew there were pirates.
"This is Go Daddy" the radio crackered. "You must fight the pirates!" So Christine gotted her E-PARASITES bill and blew up the firewall.
"SHE GOING TO SHUTDOWN US" said the pirates
"I will shoot at her" said the cyberbully and he fired the DDOS. Christine C&D at him and tried to shut him down. But then the ceiling fell and they were trapped and not able to C&D.
"No! I must shutdown the pirates" he shouted
The RIAA said "No, Christine. You are the pirates"
And then Christine went to jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... Hooray?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens if
No copyrighted terms that I 'don't own' but lots of possibly infringing words.........
Also gonna be fun when every single member of the senate, congress and even whitehouse.gov get taken down by a random notice.
Would the whitehouse itself DARE to let such a law pass then declare itself immune from takedowns for evil infringement?
It's very weird, but its almost like someone out there WANTS there to be a 2nd american civil war and is actively pushing the public over the edge with ridiculous and dangerous laws............
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness
Our system in predicated on the belief that we are innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, we would need to judged by an independent third party, either a judge, magistrate or jury. With this new law, every small website owner stands to lose.
First, the site owner being accused must “Prove their Innocence” instead of the accuser proving guilt. It is a fundamental problem in the law.
I can only imagine that the big players will file a plethora of these claims just to eliminate legitimate competition that cannot afford to defend themselves.
Second, most website owners cannot afford to defend themselves when a larger corporation comes after them. These law suits start at $20,000 and can easily reach over $100,000 before the case is even presented.
Third, do you really want Godaddy to be the decider of the facts and who is in violation. Really?
Fourth, what happens if your website contains “Copy written material” Are you in violation of losing your site?
This act is harmful to every website owner and just plain stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
urgent loan offer
opened an opportunity to every one in need of any financial help.We give
out loan to individuals, firms and companies under a clear and
understandable terms and condition.contact us via Email:
fredrickpeterson.loanfirm@gmail.com
Borrowers Information Needed Fill And Return.
Name:
Age:
Gender:
Marital status:
Address:
City:
State/province:
Zip/postal code:
Country:
Phone:
E-mail:
State Purpose of Loan:
Loan Amount:
Loan Duration :
Net monthly income:
Have you applied for a loan before?
if yes how did it go.
Thanks
Mr Fredrick Peterson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If This Bill is about Theft Of Property Why Are They Taking Iamge Chan sites?
These actions are the actions of a police state spread the message the PROTECT IP must stopped.
For the Artists Rights!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]