GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away

from the bye-bye dept

After GoDaddy made its very public announcement that it no longer supports SOPA, after being a very vocal supporter (despite the fact that it almost certainly violated the original version of the law), many have doubted the sincerity of the company, especially since it confined its remarks to SOPA. So after getting some more pressure, the company put out a separate clarifying statement that it doesn't support PIPA (PROTECT IP) either.

Still, there are plenty of people who don't buy it. It didn't help that the company's new CEO (though he's been at the company in other roles for a while) gave a really weak answer, when pressed on the company's level of support, suggesting that it may have just stepped back from publicly supporting the bills, but hasn't actually switched its full position:

Adelman couldn’t commit to changing its position on the record in Congress when asked about that, but said “I’ll take that back to our legislative guys, but I agree that’s an important step.” But when pressed, he said “We’re going to step back and let others take leadership roles.” He felt that the public statement removing their support would be sufficient for now, though further steps would be considered.

Either way, it appears people keep on transferring domains. Before the talk of a boycott happened on Thursday, it looked like GoDaddy was losing about 13,000 to 15,000 domains a day anyway. Then, on Friday, when people started transferring en masse, it jumped to 21,054. On Christmas Day, it looks like another 22,542 transferred out, so it doesn't look like people are all that mollified by the public change in position. Another 26,032 were "deleted," according to DailyChanges. And, remember, the "official" day that people had talked about for everyone to transfer their domains wasn't until Thursday, December 29th, so all of this was happening before the "big day." Who knows if the statements are enough to calm people down. For what it's worth, plenty of people are still registering new domains with GoDaddy and transferring them in, but the transfers out and deletions definitely outweigh the new registrations and transfers in. It was definitely enough activity to make GoDaddy realize it was going to be in trouble if it didn't change its position.

Filed Under: domains, pipa, protect ip, sopa, transfers
Companies: godaddy

GoDaddy Desperately Reaching Out To Try To Win People Back

from the too-little,-too-late dept

Via Tim Lee, we learn that, in the wake of the capitulation by GoDaddy, some of those who transferred domains to other providers are now receiving calls from GoDaddy customer service folks trying to win them back. Chris Heald explains what happened to him:

I just got a call from #GoDaddy. The rep said he noticed that I'd transferred my 60+ domains away... and wanted to know if I'd tell them why. I got to tell them that it was because of their #SOPA support, and that I couldn't in good conscience give my money to a tech company that would support legislation like that. I told him I was aware that they had reversed their position, but that their explicit support of it in the first place had cost them my confidence in them, as it is at the best viciously ignorant, and at worst, malicious. The rep was quite sincere in his apology to me, asked if there was anything they could do to win me back. He had a "We support IP protections, and now realize that support of SOPA is too broad" song-and-dance routine that probably came in from a PR memo today. I told him "no thanks", and that was that. I'm impressed by the customer service hustle, but it shows that this little incident really spooked them.

It really makes me wonder if GoDaddy will ever be able to win back the confidence of many who joined this boycott. Perhaps not.

Filed Under: boycott, domains, pipa, protect ip, sopa, transfer
Companies: godaddy

How Even Highly-Targeted Censorship Can Lead To Overblocking

from the unintended-consequences dept

As the battle rages over SOPA and PIPA, censorship is very much on people's minds. But there are many different kinds of censorship, operating at different levels of precision. For example, while some forms are crude and inexact, like Homeland Security's shutdown of 84,000 sites, others are highly targeted, and designed to block in a very specific way.

That's the case for the attempted blocking of Newzbin2 in the UK. The judge, Justice Arnold, ordered the ISP BT to take a two-stage approach (possible thanks to the pre-existing "Cleanfeed" system it had set up to block child pornography).

If an IP address matches one of those contained in the blocking list, the request to access the site is routed to a proxy server where the exact URL – the specific address including the directory and filename – is examined. If that matches too, access is denied. The judge specified this technique, rather than simply ordering the IP address to be blocked, for an important reason, which he explained in one of his rulings:

the Studios now accept that the order should refer to IP address re-routing and not IP address blocking. It appears that IP address blocking could lead to "overblocking" of sites or pages that ought not to be blocked.

However, as James Firth notes in a blog post, overblocking is still likely to occur thanks to the combination of two factors:

The first is that Newzbin will - and there's strong evidence they have done already, several times - change their IP address. It is well known that IP addresses have all but run out. Nearly all IP addresses allocated are recycled - they've been in use before.

Pity the website owner who picks up Newzbin's old IP address. Under Arnold, J's BT ruling the new owner of the IP address would have some solace in that the URL would not match, therefore BT customers would still be able to access the website, albeit via a proxy. Re-routing via the proxy may cause some minor problems, but that's a bit of a side issue.

In the case of Sky, [another UK ISP now blocking Newzbin2] unless Sky happen to also use a 2-stage blocking system [like BT] - and my contacts tell me they do not - then whoever picks up the old recycled IP addresses from Newzbin will find themselves blocked.

As Firth points out, one of the many worrying aspects of the Newzbin2 judgment is that there doesn't appear to be any mechanism for removing IP addresses once they have been placed on the blocking list – even if they are no longer used by Newzbin2. Adding new ones, by contrast, is explicitly permitted:

sites "whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin[2] website" (para 10) can find themselves blocked, again without re-application to the court. If someone creates a website explaining how to work around the block, and this website did very little else but explain how to access Newzbin, it too could be blocked.

That would lead to yet more IP addresses being added to the list, which might then be handed out again to new users as they are recycled from ephemeral sites that pop up and then disappear.

What Firth's analysis shows is how even relatively "sophisticated" censorship systems that aim to minimize damage to other sites can lead to overblocking because not every situation can be foreseen or planned for. Now imagine what SOPA/PIPA will do.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: blocking, censorship, copyright, ip blocking, ip filtering, overblocking, pipa, protect ip, redirects, sopa, uk
Companies: bt, newzbin, sky

The Myth That SOPA & PIPA Will Stop Infringement By 'Educating' The Public

from the educating-them-how-to-avoid-domestic-DNS dept

One of the key arguments we've heard about SOPA and PIPA in defending the fact that dedicated infringers will always find their way around the blocks to continue infringing, is that it's really intended as an "educational" mechanism, based on the assumption that people going to certain "rogue sites" don't know they're rogue -- but with a big DOJ banner, perhaps they'll be educated. This has never made much sense, frankly. The entertainment industry has been betting its legacy business model for quite some time on the myth that all it takes is a little "education" to fix things. Multiple studies have shown that nothing is further from the truth. People who infringe know they're infringing. And they still do it. Education won't make a lick of difference.

DNS expert Paul Vixie is debunking this myth even further, by separating people into two groups: intended infringers (those who know what they're doing breaks the law, but are still going to do it) and "unintented infringers" who don't realize they're breaking the law. As he notes, SOPA/PIPA are completely useless against the intended infringers, since they'll always find easy ways around the blocks. So what about the unintended infringers? Well, he points to a recent study of college students, about their views on following internet policies. And the short summary is that they all break the policies anyway, for a variety of reasons -- with a big reason being that, even if it's against "policy" they just don't believe they're really doing anything wrong.

As Vixie notes, "from a high level policy perspective... we really can put "unintended infringer" into the "myth" category." Kids aren't lacking in education or morals or anything like that. They just don't see what's so wrong about accessing what the technology allows access to. If the industry hadn't wasted so many years and so much money on legal tricks and lobbying for stricter copyright laws, and instead invested that money and effort into providing better legitimate and licensed services, those kids would have gladly jumped to those offerings. But the industry decided to go in the other direction...

Filed Under: copyright, education, myth, protect ip, sopa

Harvard Researchers Explain That SOPA Supporters Are Misusing Their Research To Support SOPA

from the not-so-fast,-daniel-castro dept

We recently discussed how ITIF's Daniel Castro (who's been credited with pushing a SOPA-style censorship program to government officials in the first place) bizarrely used the web censorship done by 13 of the most oppressive governments to support his case that censorship under SOPA would work. The argument was based on a Harvard/OpenNet Initiative to study how the internet is censored and used in various repressive nations. The authors of that study have now come out pretty strongly against Castro for his misuse of their report, and have explained in detail how Castro's assumptions are wrong and his quoting their study is done entirely out of context.

we disagree with the way that Mr. Castro applies our findings to the SOPA debate. His presumption that people will work as hard or harder to access political content than they do to access entertainment content deeply misunderstands how and why most people use the internet. Far more users in open societies use the Internet for entertainment than for political purposes; it is unreasonable to assume different behaviors in closed societies. Our research offers the depressing conclusion that comparatively few users are seeking blocked political information and suggests that the governments most successful in blocking political content ensure that entertainment and social media content is widely available online precisely because users get much more upset about blocking the ability watch movies than they do about blocking specific pieces of political content.

Rather than comparing usage of circumvention tools in closed societies to predict the activities of a given userbase, Mr. Castro would do better to consider the massive userbase of tools like bit torrent clients, which would make for a far cleaner analogy to the problem at hand. Likewise, the long line of very popular peer-to-peer sharing tools that have been incrementally designed to circumvent the technical and political measures used to prevent sharing copyrighted materials are a stronger analogy than our study of users in authoritarian regimes seeking to access political content.

Furthermore, they argue that the bill that Castro is so desperately in favor of would have disastrous consequences, in that it would deny important circumvention tools to those in repressive countries:

Second, our research has consistently shown that those who really wish to evade Internet filters can do so with relatively little effort. The problem is that these activities can be very dangerous in certain regimes. Even though our research shows that relatively few people in autocratic countries use circumvention tools, this does not mean that circumvention tools are not crucial to the dissident communities in those countries. 19 million people is not large in relation to the population of the Internet, but it is still a lot of people absolutely who have freer access to the Internet through the tools. We personally know many people in autocratic countries for whom these tools provide a crucial (though not perfect) layer of security for their activist work. Those people would be at much greater risk than they already are without access to the tools, but in addition to mandating DNS filtering, SOPA would make many circumvention tools illegal. The single biggest funder of circumvention tools has been and remains the U.S. government, precisely because of the role the tools play in online activism. It would be highly counter-productive for the U.S. government to both fund and outlaw the same set of tools.

We noted that Castro's paper read like a joke from the beginning, and the more people dig into it, the more ridiculous it seems.

Filed Under: daniel castro, dns, dns blocking, dnssec, jillian york, john palfrey, pipa, protect ip, sopa

More And More Internet Infrastructure Players Coming Out To Say How Bad SOPA/PIPA Are

from the anyone-support-it? dept

We've noted in the past that most of the people who actually understand the basic internet infrastructure have come out against SOPA and PIPA. That includes both individuals and companies (such as OpenDNS and Dyn), but it appears that we may be reaching a tipping point with tons and tons of internet infrastructure companies speaking out against these bills. We've already talked about the massive GoDaddy backlash... but it's interesting to note that many registrars and hosting companies are using this as an opportunity to speak out against SOPA and PIPA. Hover, Dreamhost, NameCheap and Name.com have all made explicit statements on their blogs. Back in the DNS space, EasyDNS has written a blistering anti-SOPA post on its blog:

If this becomes law, it's a short stretch from SOPA to NODA (No Online Dissent Anywhere) and if you think I'm a nutcase for saying so, I'd like to remind everybody what happened just over a year ago, when US politicians were tripping over themselves to shut down wikileaks (a royal fiasco in which this company was embroiled) and to this day, they have not been charged with a crime anywhere.

Many of the "dirty tricks" employed against Wikileaks would be enshrined in law under SOPA (and someday, NODA):

• A requirement that service providers block access to offending domains, including that they stop resolving their DNS
• Search engines to purge search results for offending domains
• Payment processors to sever ties to offending domains

And they added an extra provision that it will be an offense to knowingly create a service or system to provide a workaround to a banned domain or host. So for example, they would no longer have to hassle Mozilla to remove that firefox plugin that lets you reach ICE blocked websites, it would be illegal to make it or distribute it.

And that's not all. As if to drive home the point, a relatively new group called the SaveHosting Coalition just came out with a letter signed by over 300 execs involved in internet infrastructure companies, saying they're against SOPA. The full letter, embedded below, is well worth a read. It's quite comprehensive, and basically makes it quite clear that SOPA isn't just bad for internet infrastructure, but it's bad for jobs and the economy, as well as pretty much anyone who does anything online. Here's just a snippet:

We write to express that, after careful review of H.R.3261 - the Stop Online Piracy Act of 2011 (SOPA), we believe that this legislation will lead to significant loss of high-wage, high-tech jobs in our industry and other industries that are directly or indirectly supported by our industry. This impact will diminish the attractiveness of U.S. companies to foreign customers, while also reducing the U.S. hosting industry’s ability to compete with foreign competition within our own borders. Further, and of equal importance, weaknesses in SOPA may actually lead to less protection for intellectual property owners by undermining the stability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Finally, SOPA undermines the U.S. judicial system’s reputation as a fair and transparent method of resolving business disputes.

It's getting more and more ridiculous for anyone to suggest that SOPA isn't harmful to the wider internet infrastructure, when pretty much anyone who knows anything about that infrastructure has come out against the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, dns, hosting, infrastructure, internet, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Prominent Rightwing Blogger Promises To Work Hard To Defeat Any Rightwing SOPA Supporters In Congress

from the good-for-him,-how-about-the-left? dept

One of the more interesting things about the whole SOPA/PIPA debate (and, as I've pointed out for many years, about any of the intellectual property policy fights) is how non-partisan they are. In fact, I think it's important that they're non-partisan, because when things become partisan, they become... well... silly (on both sides). SOPA/PIPA supporters keep touting how their bills have "bi-partisan" support, but I'd argue what's much more powerful is how the growing movement protesting these bills is almost entirely non-partisan. There are tons of people all over the political spectrum protesting, and none of the discussion has been about broad political philosophies or major party talking points. They've all been about the specific issues with the bill.

And that's creating some interesting opposition that may start to wake up Congress. We've definitely seen people associated with both ends of the political spectrum come out against the bills. For example, how often do you see Nancy Pelosi and Darrell Issa agree on something? We've also seen some prominent Tea Party groups, like the Tea Party Patriots, as well as prominent "left" movements/sites like MoveOn and DailyKos come out against the bill.

Now, Erick Erickson, the guy behind the rightwing site RedState, has said that not only is he against SOPA, but that he will do everything in his power to defeat any Republican who co-sponsors the bill. And he challenges people on the left to do the same with Democratic co-sponsors:

A fund should be created and the left should go out and find candidates to take on the Democrat sponsors. The right should go out and find candidates to take on the Republican sponsors.... The money should then be used to fund the primary challenges against the incumbent sponsors of SOPA. Let the right vet and direct the funding on the right so no one thinks the left is trying to pick the challenger and vice-versa on the left.

He even admits that this might take out some politicians he really likes and supports, such as Rep. Marsha Blackburn (whose hypocrisy on the topic of regulating the internet, we've discussed in the past). As Erickson says:

Killing SOPA is that important.

So important that it's worth campaigning and sending funds against candidates you otherwise agree with.

For a few months now, we'd been warning SOPA/PIPA supporters that this was going to become an election issue. It appears that's starting in earnest, and it's not going to look good for such supporters. And this truly is a non-partisan issue. Rather than this being about some concept of "left vs. right" or Rs vs. Ds, it's about those who understand the internet vs. those who don't understand or are afraid of the internet and wish to control that which they fear. And that's why SOPA and PIPA are becoming toxic politically for their supporters. There are a lot more people who actually do get this stuff out there than are in Congress. And they're starting to speak out as they realize just how big an issue this is.

Filed Under: bi-partisan, erick erickson, free speech, left wing, non-partisan, pipa, protect ip, right wing, sopa
Companies: redstate

Breaking: GoDaddy Drops SOPA Support

from the wow dept

As the public backlash continued to grow -- and GoDaddy's support of it seemed entirely tone deaf to what people were saying -- you knew something had to break eventually. GoDaddy has just announced that it no longer supports SOPA. From the press release they just sent, they say they'll only support future version of the bill if the internet community supports it too:

Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" currently working its way through U.S. Congress.

"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has been working to help craft revisions to this legislation -- but we can clearly do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said. "It's very important that all Internet stakeholders work together on this. Getting it right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."

Go Daddy and its General Counsel, Christine Jones, have worked with federal lawmakers for months to help craft revisions to legislation first introduced some three years ago. Jones has fought to express the concerns of the entire Internet community and to improve the bill by proposing changes to key defined terms, limitations on DNS filtering to ensure the integrity of the Internet, more significant consequences for frivolous claims, and specific provisions to protect free speech.

"As a company that is all about innovation, with our own technology and in support of our customers, Go Daddy is rooted in the idea of First Amendment Rights and believes 100 percent that the Internet is a key engine for our new economy," said Adelman.

In changing its position, Go Daddy remains steadfast in its promise to support security and stability of the Internet. In an effort to eliminate any confusion about its reversal on SOPA though, Jones has removed blog postings that had outlined areas of the bill Go Daddy did support.

"Go Daddy has always fought to preserve the intellectual property rights of third parties, and will continue to do so in the future," Jones said.

I would imagine that, for many, this will be too late, but as SOPA support continues to crumble, it's going to make it very difficult for Congress to claim that this bill really has much support out in the real world.

Filed Under: boycott, pipa, protect ip, public, sopa
Companies: godaddy

Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling

from the well-look-at-that dept

So we were just discussing how a bunch of companies who were listed by the US Chamber of Commerce as SOPA/PIPA supporters are demanding to be taken off the list, noting that, while they had agreed to a generic statement about fighting the sale of counterfeit goods, they don't support crazy broad legislation like SOPA/PIPA. It seems that others listed as "supporting" SOPA are scrambling to get off the list as well. The Judiciary Committee's official list had included a bunch of big name law firms as being in support of the law as well -- which is a little strange, since law firms usually don't take official positions on things like this. They may express opinions on such matters on behalf of clients, but outright supporting legislation is a different ballgame altogether.

A group of lawyers (most of whom have a long history of working with the entertainment industry) did send a letter to the Judiciary Committee to say that they agreed with Floyd Abrams' analysis of SOPA. That's it. They didn't say their firms supported SOPA -- and, in fact, there's an asterisk with the signatures noting that the names of their firms are solely for identification purposes. Yet the Judiciary Committee took those names anyway and put them on the supporters list. Expressing a legal opinion on a bill is extraordinarily different from supporting the bill. But the Judiciary Committee ignored that and listed them as supporters anyway.

From what we've heard, many of those law firms are not happy, and have been demanding removal from the Judiciary Committee's official list. Among those who have already complained/been taken off the official list are Morrison & Foerster, Davis Wright Tremaine, Irell & Manella, Covington & Burling. I would hope that the Judiciary Committee removes all the names and issues a rather public apology for blatantly including the names of firms who clearly made no statement in support of the proposed legislation. This is a pretty egregious move on the part of House Judiciary Committee staff. They're so eager to list supporters that they've been naming firms who do not support the bills. And then they've been using those claims to pretend there's widespread support...

So, between the US Chamber of Commerce stretching what many companies thought they were supporting and pretending it meant support for SOPA/PIPA, and the Judiciary Committee's over-eagerness to assume that a legal analysis of one part of the bill by a few lawyers meant their huge law firms supported the bill... it's looking like the facade of widespread corporate support for SOPA is crumbling pretty quickly...

Filed Under: house judiciary committee, law firms, legal analysis, pipa, protect ip, sopa, support
Companies: covington & burling, davis wright tremaine, irell & manella, morrison & foerster, us chamber of commerce

Gibson Guitar & Others On SOPA Supporters List Say They Never Supported The Bill

from the well,-look-at-that dept

I mentioned that we'd been hearing reports that some of the companies named on "the list" companies that are in favor of SOPA were surprised about this and wanted off the list. Gibson Guitar -- which has been dealing with its own ridiculous situation concerning the feds seizing property without a clear legal basis -- is now saying that it does not support SOPA, and has been asked to be removed from the list of supporters. It sounds as if the company doesn't know how it got on the list:

Hey guys - Gibson does NOT support this legislation. Gibson's CEO has demanded that Gibson be removed from the list of company's supporting SOPA. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!

For what it's worth, it looks like Gibson's "support" came from a letter sent by the US Chamber of Commerce in support of the general concept of PROTECT IP and SOPA, not directly about SOPA itself. It seems like this is a risk of just agreeing to sign on to something that the US Chamber of Commerce passes around without fully understanding the details or how it is to be used.

Gibson is not alone. Jim D'Addario from D’Addario & Company responded to a tweet by also saying that the company has not supported SOPA (though, he claims it might support a similar bill if it didn't have free speech implications).

So how did this happen? Well, Petzl provides some of the details. It's another company found on the US CoC's letter in support of SOPA/PIPA, but it has put out a detailed blog post of how the US Chamber of Commerce is being misleading here. The company says that it did agree to sign a US CoC letter in support of "government action against intellectual property theft via rogue websites," but that the letter they saw did not bring up any specific legislation. Thus, it says it's supportive of legislation to deal with counterfeiting, but not the approach taken in SOPA/PIPA:

To reiterate, Petzl America has not and does not support SOPA or the Protect IP Act. Nor do we support any legislation that would harm the freedom of the Internet. We are strongly against counterfeiting, especially, as in the case of counterfeited Petzl products, where the safety of the end user is concerned. By extension, we are for legislation that would help reduce the theft of intellectual property, production of counterfeit goods, and knowing sale of counterfeit goods. However, we believe that SOPA and Protect IP do not address these concerns in a constructive manner.

The issue here, yet again, appears to be one where the US Chamber of Commerce plays fast and loose with the truth, in order to exaggerate the real situation. These companies expressed interest in the general concept of dealing with counterfeit goods sold online. The US CoC then used that support to pretend that all of these companies supported a sweepingly broad set of bills that went way, way, way beyond just dealing with the narrow issue of counterfeit physical goods.

We've talked repeatedly about how ridiculous it is that supporters of SOPA/PIPA conflate physical counterfeiting with digital copyright infringement. The two are quite different in many, many ways. And here's a case where it's coming back to bite the supporters, as plenty of companies who would support a narrow action against a specific problem, are being used by the US CoC, who pretends they support broad, overreaching laws that touch on issues totally unrelated to the specific issue these companies wanted to discuss.

Filed Under: boycotts, protect ip, sopa, support
Companies: d'addario, gibson, petzl, us chamber of commerce