SOPA talk, yo.

[Game_boy]

Did you read my post?

In that case the only bodies with sufficient power are foreign governments (likely UK, France, Germany would be acceptable) or the UN. If the US does one widely publicised manipulation of DNS, even to a site which is 99% certain was infringing, we will see one of those try and make something.

[Steax]

I love how they're saying the bill will give them back thousands of US jobs, completely disregarding the millions created by the tech industry that would likely go haywire if we have to go through the hell of switching DNS systems... or any other major interruption to the internet, too.

As I read it, if someone posts something to youtube, and another company holds youtube responsible, they'll have to shut down their servers completely. This means any random website who has their intro video hosted on youtube will have problems. And they'll have to start hosting their own videos, dealing with the resources to do so. If someone puts copyrighted material on Amazon's S3, it'll take down everyone, their grandmother and netflix.

On second thought, this is kind of cool. An orchestrated attack could pull down pretty much the whole internet.

[caisara]

If that happens the servers will just relocate outside the jurisdiction of the US.

If the US responds by making a super-firewall ala China, people will just use $5/mo VPNs based outside the US to access the sites (just like they do in China).

If, somehow, the US manages to stop that (and I've no idea how they could without hurting all legitimate businesses that rely on VPNs), websites will just go distributed on encrypted P2P networks - they won't exist in any country or on any server or at any IP address at all.

The only people inconvenienced in all this are the honest users. Those wishing to skirt the law will find it easy to continue doing so. Bulletin boards are still going strong, after all.

I'm currently located on the Mainland. The cheap VPNs were taken down in the last GFW upgrade. Right now, the only VPNs that work now are surprisingly expensive -- and even then to call/email their customer service every other week to get new port information. Even then I'm not sure it's secure. The next upgrade looks like it'll take down the premium VPNs and P2P services like Tor.

Given the way the U.S. has been going, I suspect it'll just say to hell with interference with legitimate business. I also suspect courts will interpret the existence of a VPN as evidence of guilt.

Here's my question: are websites like xxx.xxx.com.fr operated by Verisign or a EU company?

[elasto]

I'm currently located on the Mainland. The cheap VPNs were taken down in the last GFW upgrade. Right now, the only VPNs that work now are surprisingly expensive -- and even then to call/email their customer service every other week to get new port information. Even then I'm not sure it's secure. The next upgrade looks like it'll take down the premium VPNs and P2P services like Tor.

I'm on the mainland too and my VPN is only $5/mo and has worked flawlessly. The article mentions the US a lot - I wonder if it's cos I use a UK server I'm ok.

Guess I hope you're wrong on that.

Honestly, I can't see China interrupting VPN service universally - especially when they are seriously worried about how the slowdown in their economy is affecting business. Anyhow, the argument is about how the US might block all VPNs to prevent piracy and I say there is no chance in hell they would.

[AJR]

In that case the only bodies with sufficient power are foreign governments (likely UK, France, Germany would be acceptable) or the UN. If the US does one widely publicised manipulation of DNS, even to a site which is 99% certain was infringing, we will see one of those try and make something.

There are already suggestions floating about that a UN agency(typically the ITU) should be responsible for the DNS root, rather than the current arrangement. (The standard set of root servers are managed as one of the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) functions by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) as part of ICANN's agreements with the US government.) Actions by the US government which mess with DNS are only likely to increase support for these suggestions, especially if the brokenness is exported outside the US.

Here's my question: are websites like xxx.xxx.com.fr operated by Verisign or a EU company?

The relevant question when talking about DNS is who operates the top-level domain, which for country-codes is generally an organisation located in-country. So, .fr is operated by AFNIC (a French company), .uk is operated by Nominet (British company), .ir is operated by the Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences in Tehran. The full list is available on the IANA website, and shows a mix of companies, universities, and government offices.
That said, for your computer to know what DNS server to ask for a given top-level domain, it first has to ask one of the root servers, which are managed by ICANN. (Sort of: ICANN manages the content of the root zone, but the 13 servers are run by various different organisations. One of which is Verisign.)

[caisara]

Thanks AJR.

elasto, I think China talk may warrant a separate thread... :-/

[rath358]

I am watching them debate it live.
http://keepthewebopen.com/sopa
According to the woman currently speaking, 20% of DMCA takedowns are already fraudulent. I can only imagine what that will go to if this thing passes.

[matt198992]

I cannot believe how many people there are against the amendment proposed last night! The amendment insures that these big ISP companies and production companies have to go through the courts to VERIFY that these sites DO infringe on copyrights. WHY is this a bad thing? Not having this will remove checks and balances from the whole equation and give excessive amounts of power to larger companies to do what they want, all the while having complete immunity from the court systems if they screw up!! This is getting quite absurd.

There are a few representatives I will be calling when this is all over and done with. Some to thank, some to give an ear-full to point out their ignorance in the topic matter.

[Dauric]

I cannot believe how many people there are against the amendment proposed last night! The amendment insures that these big ISP companies and production companies have to go through the courts to VERIFY that these sites DO infringe on copyrights. WHY is this a bad thing? Not having this will remove checks and balances from the whole equation and give excessive amounts of power to larger companies to do what they want, all the while having complete immunity from the court systems if they screw up!! This is getting quite absurd.

There are a few representatives I will be calling when this is all over and done with. Some to thank, some to give an ear-full to point out their ignorance in the topic matter.

To preface, let me stress that I agree wit the need for the courts to oversee actions taken under SOPA, I have a post on page 2 of this thread that details how I see SOPA being used to suppress protected speech.

Now, that said any time that anything is suggested that it go through the courts you're going to see the rationale that the courts are dealing with massive backlogs of cases already and there's just not enough capacity of courts and judges to be able to hold all these cases in a timely manner. Typically the remedy that is suggested is "Binding Arbitration", arbitrators are running businesses and (in theory) as long as there's people seeking arbitration there's a market for lawyers to set themselves up as arbitrators. Courts on the other hand are set up by counties, cities, states, the federal government, etc. and if you want to expand the capacity of the courts you have to get these government agencies to spend more money (which grinds against the Small Government Republicans who favor the business model of independent arbitrators anyway).

[Obby]

Not having this will remove checks and balances from the whole equation and give excessive amounts of power to larger companies to do what they want, all the while having complete immunity from the court systems if they screw up!!

Er, you mean more than they already do, right?

[matt198992]

Er, you mean more than they already do, right?

Haha! Yes, but this would give them the power to do virtually anything they want on a mere whim. As was pointed out in the debate, this not only takes out piracy (which is fine), but this will negatively impact competition. As representative Lofgren said, If these companies are able to do what the bill currently states, they can just submit a fancy-worded letter to a major ISP saying that they THINK this "site" (their competition) is infringing on copyrights and have their competition effectively removed. These ISPs, just like the courts, are not going to have time to review every such case, and confirm that each case is valid. No, they will most likely just take the site down without so much as a second glance. Then, they cannot be held liable for any part of this because of their immunity!

This is how I am interpreting it, correct me if I am wrong.

there's just not enough capacity of courts and judges to be able to hold all these cases in a timely manner.

Why is this bill being proposed then? If we truly want to protect our copyrights, the main reason this bill was brought into creation, there has to be a way to do so. Giving ultimate "judge, jury, and executioner" power to these companies and allowing NO room for rebuttal or defense to the people on the receiving end of the blow, is just too much! There either needs to be more stipulations in place (many of which have been proposed and shot down), or a court system regulating such a process.

This is just a mess, and many of the people inside that hearing room quite obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Some of them cannot even pronounce any technical term without some degree of difficulty. It's just sad imho.

[Dauric]

there's just not enough capacity of courts and judges to be able to hold all these cases in a timely manner.

Why is this bill being proposed then? If we truly want to protect our copyrights, the main reason this bill was brought into creation, there has to be a way to do so. Giving ultimate "judge, jury, and executioner" power to these companies and allowing NO room for rebuttal or defense to the people on the receiving end of the blow, is just too much! There either needs to be more stipulations in place (many of which have been proposed and shot down), or a court system regulating such a process.

This is just a mess, and many of the people inside that hearing room quite obviously have no idea what they are talking about. Some of them cannot even pronounce any technical term without some degree of difficulty. It's just sad imho.

The means to enforce the bill is that the bill completely sidesteps the judicial and allows corporations to enforce their own copyrights. The thing that is.. audacious and troubling about the way SOPA is set up is that the usual default arrangement for dealing with getting out of courts because of case backlogs is binding arbitration, but this goes even farther to sidestep binding arbitration by granting the whole legal enchilada to the copyright holder.

Of course that wording was suggested by the copyright lobby organizations, like the RIAA and the MPAA, to legislators who as you note have no idea what they're talking about.

[LaserGuy]

As a related, but interesting development, Wikipedia is currently doing a straw poll to see if they should take any sort of action in response to SOPA. Some context: earlier this year, Italy tried to pass a similar, but not quite so draconian law, and Wikipedia protested by shutting down their Italian version for three days in October. There are some discussions about similar actions underway, which could possibly effect all of English Wikipedia.

[Роберт]

As a related, but interesting development, Wikipedia is currently doing a straw poll to see if they should take any sort of action in response to SOPA. Some context: earlier this year, Italy tried to pass a similar, but not quite so draconian law, and Wikipedia protested by shutting down their Italian version for three days in October. There are some discussions about similar actions underway, which could possibly effect all of English Wikipedia.

That would be incredible. They would only need to be "down" for a day or two to make huge waves. And it would probably be worth it to them, because the new law could easily make them vulnerable.

[dragonmustang]

Latest news has it that Smith has agreed to a hearing with internet security experts, and the committee has delayed passage until after New Year's. The petition groups are now more concerned with PIPA. Reid's saying he's going to call for a vote first thing after the Senate comes back after New Year's.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246433/house_committee_postpones_action_on_sopa.html

[Zarq]

As a related, but interesting development, Wikipedia is currently doing a straw poll to see if they should take any sort of action in response to SOPA. Some context: earlier this year, Italy tried to pass a similar, but not quite so draconian law, and Wikipedia protested by shutting down their Italian version for three days in October. There are some discussions about similar actions underway, which could possibly effect all of English Wikipedia.

That would be incredible. They would only need to be "down" for a day or two to make huge waves. And it would probably be worth it to them, because the new law could easily make them vulnerable.

Combine that with this Redditor's idea and you've got a giant international awareness campaign.

[Feddlefew]

SOPA tabled until next year so that congress can figure out how the internet works.

In other news, the lyrics of "The Internet is for Porn" are now part of an official congressional record, and I have some demotivators to go make.

[Zarq]

And now it got forwarded to next Wednesday.

[MisterCheif]

SOPA tabled until next year so that congress can figure out how the internet works.

In other news, the lyrics of "The Internet is for Porn" are now part of an official congressional record, and I have some demotivators to go make.

Well, hopefully now that it has been delayed it won't get the momentum again to be passed. Though I still doubt it wouldn't be struck down in violation of the constitution.

[Ghostbear]

Senator Wyden (for the curious: D-Oregon) intends to filibuster the senate version of the bill, PIPA. There wasn't any information on if he has other support- so there's a risk this will just end up being an ineffectual filibuster a'la Bernie Sanders' recently(ish). There's a lot of BS a single senator can do to slow a bill (or the whole senate) down if they're willing to go all out though, so hopefully he'll go that route.

Article spoilered below:

Spoiler:

As the Senate aims to consider a bill next month that would clamp down on music, movies and counterfeit products peddled illegally online, the proposal’s foremost opponent promised Saturday to fight it to the bitter end.

Taking to the floor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he will “follow through on a commitment I made more than a year ago to filibuster this bill when the Senate returns in January.” Wyden emphasized in his brief speech that the bill — known as the PROTECT IP Act — has already raised alarms among Internet engineers, tech entrepreneurs and free speech advocates.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made it official earlier Saturday that the Senate will hold a key procedural vote on the bill not long after Congress returns from its holiday break. The Jan. 24 vote on a motion to proceed was praised by the bill’s author, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who said Congress can “ill afford to save the debate on how to counter online infringement for another day.”

But Wyden said the bill “could deal an enormous body blow to a vital job engine for our economy.” He also raised more indirect alarms about the bill’s cousin — the Stop Online Piracy Act — under consideration in the House. If the chamber is in session this week, the Judiciary Committee intends to resume its marathon markup of the bill.

Opponents of SOPA have put forward their own proposal, the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, known as the OPEN Act. And Wyden said Saturday he and his colleagues will unveil a version of that proposal, too. The senator promised to work with “colleagues on both sides of the aisle to explain the basis for this widespread concern” about PIPA.

[Triangle_Man]

SOPA tabled until next year so that congress can figure out how the internet works.

In other news, the lyrics of "The Internet is for Porn" are now part of an official congressional record, and I have some demotivators to go make.

Make sure to post them here when you are finished, okay?

[KnightExemplar]

I'd like to transition into something a bit more forward looking...

There seems to be a genuine effort to fix the bill. If we look at the link posted earlier, there is a debate on fixing the bill with the OPEN act instead.

http://keepthewebopen.com/open

I haven't read through the entire legalize, but it would be far more productive if we were to contact representatives and say "We don't support SOPA, but this is what we'd support instead". Obviously, the MPAA has already issued a response to OPEN. They don't support it, thinking its too light on pirates.

[dragonmustang]

Big suprise, looks like Smith was full of crap just kidding about delaying SOPA- apparently markup will start up again on Wednesday.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222759/House_committee_to_push_ahead_on_SOPA

Looks like he's trying to sneak certain amendments through while potential opponents may be out of town and unable to fight them.

[etherealg]

Hi

I noticed that xkcd is using go daddy as their dns provider (http://who.is/whois/xkcd.com/). I wanted to bring attention to the author as this company is supporting SOPA and it could have serious negative impact on the free internet as it is today.

Please consider changing your dns provider.

Not sure if this is in the right place, if not please feel free to move it.

[xkcd follower]

This bill is pretty much a fail in a little box ready to be opened for the new year. Congress doesn't know what this even is, let alone how it works. To allow someone who doesn't know the complexity of the Internet decide it is like letting a baby fly a plane. Sounds just about the same as a pilot.

I found a short (21 minutes is short for this thing) video of how the bill complex and all of Congress Idealism is not working. Link is below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM

Please help do anything to tell others about this. I have never petitioned in my life for anything, not even lower oil costs (Supply and Demand, trade, yada yada). But this is the ONE time I will break my on rules and sign stuff. The internet connects billions of people to many hundreds of millions of sites. A bill like this could easily crush most or all of these sites. Ignore me if you wish, but those still reading obviously see the importance of this bill being killed. Please post anywhere to stop PIPA and SOPA!!

[gametaku]

Hi

I noticed that xkcd is using go daddy as their dns provider (http://who.is/whois/xkcd.com/). I wanted to bring attention to the author as this company is supporting SOPA and it could have serious negative impact on the free internet as it is today.

Please consider changing your dns provider.

Not sure if this is in the right place, if not please feel free to move it.

Good news everyone, GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA.

[Griffin]

Near I can tell, they still support it but really want people to stop leaving.

Let the bastards sink, I say.

[The EGE]

Jared Polis (possibly the only guy there with any relevant web experience) points out that GoDaddy is specifically exempted. So their reversal is quite clearly a PR stunt.

[xkcd follower]

GoDaddy will don stuff like this in the future. They lost my business forever.

Also, who let the lobbyists of movies to have more power then those of the tech lobbyists? I think this is skewed in so many ways.

[Ghostbear]

Also, who let the lobbyists of movies to have more power then those of the tech lobbyists? I think this is skewed in so many ways.

I've wondered this in the past (though in a more general sense- why entertainment has so much more influence) and I've had some ideas for why:
1. Movies & music are probably two of the most exported sections of the economy. Many (most?) big budget movies now make more money abroad than they do in the US.
2. Entertainment can be fairly easily outsourced to anywhere that tends to have lots of people that speak English- there isn't as much institionalized knowledge needed (which is not to say that there isn't any at all), unlike much of the tech world.
3. Entertainment is hugely consolidated. Three music labels make up ~80% of the music industry by revenue. Of those three labels, two of them are also major movie publishers- Sony & Warner. The third, Universal, is a subsidy of Vivendi, another huge media company. Between movies and music, there are probably less than a dozen companies* that control ~80% of the revenue. Contrast this with technology, in which there are many big-weights, all pulling in various directions. And some of the tech companies get absorbed (either by being purchased, or being subsumed after being the purchaser) by media companies: see Sony & Comcast.
4. Entertainment makes a lot of stars, and those stars will frequently play a big part in campaign contributions on top of the money provided by the companies themselves.
5. Entertainment is heavy in California, even more so than technology, which while being solidly democratic in presidential elections, has a lot of house seats in play, and doesn't seem to have the state legislature consistently dominated by either party.
6. Tech companies don't have a strong history of lobbying- from what I can gather, they're still figuring it out. Entertainment companies, on the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to learn if they were the ones that invented lobbying.

Or, in short, my assumption is that it comes down to: media throws more money around, and does so with a more consistent message. If Microsoft, Intel, IBM, GE, Westinghouse, Apple, Google, Oracle, and so on, all agreed on a message and lobbied for it together, I'd bet they'd actually get what they wanted. In practice, even the tech companies that work together frequently (such as Intel & Microsoft, or Apple & Google), seem to hate each other.

As per GoDaddy, I have to agree with Griffin- this is just a retraction of public support. They still want it happen, they probably already played most of their hand to get it passed, and they aren't going to go ahead and try to oppose it. So, essentially, they're jerks.

* EDIT: I didn't check by revenue, but the Big Three music labels (Sony, Warner, and Universal) are ~80% of their revenue, while the MPAA has only six members: Disney, Sony, Paramount, Fox, Universal, and Warner. All three music labels show up in the MPAA member list in some form, so there's only about half a dozen companies making up most of money in entertainment.

[KnightExemplar]

The big weights all got together to denounce the bill however.

The BSA (Business Software Alliance) has openly denounced the bill at this point.

Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill. It is intended to get at the worst of the worst offenders. As it now stands, however, it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. To fix this problem, definitions of who can be the subject of legal actions and what remedies are imposed must be tightened and narrowed. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights cannot be compromised. And the security of networks and communications is indispensable to a thriving Internet economy. Some observers have raised reasonable questions about whether certain SOPA provisions might have unintended consequences in these areas. BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet. All of these concerns should be duly considered and addressed.

These guys represent Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, McAfee, Rosetta Stone, Siemens, Mathworks and others. It seems like they had some early input into SOPA and played a more conservative message. As in, they supported the bill's idea, but denounce the current implementation.

--------

Combined with the efforts of other internet giants (Twitter, Google, Flickr, Yahoo, LinkedIn, HuffingtonPost, Youtube, Paypal, eBay, Craigslist): http://venturebeat.com/2011/12/14/tech- ... pa-letter/

It is VERY clear where the software giants stand on this issue.

[Ghostbear]

Well, as I said, those are only ideas. All the same, is the money-trail there to go with their stated opposition? It doesn't matter (politically, anyway) if the BSA says "we don't support this" if they haven't tossed money at people to try to convince them to vote against it. Or more specifically, money on the same scale as the RIAA and MPAA are willing to throw at the issue.

[KnightExemplar]

I can't blame the issue here on money.

At the beginning, BSA was supportive of the bill. I do think that this bill started off with the best intentions... before it got turned into the steaming pile of crap that it is now. Ultimately, BSA supports stronger anti-piracy controls. It is clear on that stance.

Lets be honest here, the US does have a problem with enforcing international copyright infringement. There is virtually nothing that the US Government can do to the Pirate Bay, except plead with Switzerland to do us a favor. SOPA started off as a methodology to give the US the power to shut down the Pirate Bay... but in its current form, it also gives the US the power to shut down a hell of a lot more than just the worst offenders.

I'm not entirely sure what the best option is or how to fix the bill. (I haven't read OPEN yet). But lets not just blame money here. There is a legitimate effort here to solve a difficult problem. Congress is just failing epic-hard on it, like they always do.

[Ghostbear]

That doesn't really answer the question why media companies are more political influential than tech companies, which was what I was trying to answer. The BSA coming out against a bill doesn't mean much, if the RIAA & MPAA donated $millions in reelection funds to various politicians, unless the BSA also donated $millions.

That aside, I'd also disagree that this is a legitimate attempt to solve a problem; I doubt that any variation of this bill would exist if not for lobbying. Money, and lobbying money, are huge parts of this. I'd also go so far as to say that anything that would give us the power to enforce our copyrights internationally, especially with respect to the internet, would require draconian, free-speech weakening provisions. I have other disagreements, but I don't want to turn this into a repeat of the Switzerland thread from before, so I'll just state that I don't particularly agree with most of what you said on the matter there.

[Steax]

Good news everyone, GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA.

This whole case made me dislike GoDaddy even more. Their retraction statement was pretty much "um sorry, I didn't really know much about that, wasn't me. we'll go now." They didn't oppose SOPA, only basically say that they don't support it and they're not going to take a stand at all.

Mostly "sorry, pretend we don't exist, we need your business. Now go fight, everyone."

Pretty much the most stupid thing I've seen a large internet company like them do.

[nitePhyyre]

I can't blame the issue here on money.

At the beginning, BSA was supportive of the bill. I do think that this bill started off with the best intentions... before it got turned into the steaming pile of crap that it is now. Ultimately, BSA supports stronger anti-piracy controls. It is clear on that stance.

The question was how did a bill that started out with support get turned into a steaming pile of crap?

[KnightExemplar]

Good news everyone, GoDaddy no longer supports SOPA.

This whole case made me dislike GoDaddy even more. Their retraction statement was pretty much "um sorry, I didn't really know much about that, wasn't me. we'll go now." They didn't oppose SOPA, only basically say that they don't support it and they're not going to take a stand at all.

Mostly "sorry, pretend we don't exist, we need your business. Now go fight, everyone."

Pretty much the most stupid thing I've seen a large internet company like them do.

There seems to be evidence of GoDaddy losing domain names. However, upon further investigation, it seems like redditors are just overhyping the story a bit. Nonetheless, there seems to be a glimmer of truth in there... and the threats against GoDaddy are quite possibly still active.

I did do a bit of searching, and apparently this is GoDaddy's original text (Apparently, the text they gave to the House):
http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/15/he ... -tomorrow/

Spoiler:

Background

First, let me thank Chairman Smith for the opportunity to provide a written statement in support of the Stop Online Piracy Act and on the critical issue of combating illegal activity on the Internet. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Watt, as well as the other bi-partisan co-sponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) for all of your efforts in addressing this important issue. This bill is the result of previous hearings, and months of meetings and discussions with all interested parties. I know that this Committee took into consideration the concerns of all parties during this process, and I applaud your efforts. Go Daddy looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee to fine-tune this critically important piece of legislation in the coming weeks.

Go Daddy devotes considerable time and resources to working to preserve the integrity and safety of the Internet by quickly closing down websites and domain names engaged in illegal activities. We not only work with federal, state, and local law enforcement, but also strive to have the most robust notice and take-down practices in the industry. A vast number of our customers earn their livelihood from the successful businesses they have been able to establish and grow online, and their ability to continue to do so is of paramount importance to us.

Go Daddy is committed to doing everything it can to ensure that the Internet is a safe and trustworthy way to communicate and conduct business. We are grateful that this Committee agrees that it’s time for increased enforcement action because U.S. businesses are hurting, and those of us in the Internet ecosystem are in a unique position to help.

It is ironic that some companies that initially opposed the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are now saying that it is working just fine, and that its notice and takedown procedures are sufficient to protect the rights of intellectual property holders. Although we believe that the DMCA works well in some contexts, its remedies are limited in that it does not include mechanisms for addressing trademark infringement, or for bringing enforcement actions against illegal foreign-based sites. It seems to me to be inherently obvious that we need new legislation to combat the problem at hand. The solutions outlined in SOPA clearly present a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. We can and should all work together in the coming weeks to address any remaining issues that might exist. And then this Congress should move swiftly for its passage.

Background on Go Daddy

Go Daddy currently has over 50 million domain names under management, and is the number one domain name registrar in the world. We are also the largest worldwide mass-market hosting provider – currently providing hosting services for millions of websites. Our 50+ additional products and services, including cloud-based services, website security (SSL certificates), website development, and online business tools, are all focused toward helping our customers establish a trusted presence on the Internet. We employ nearly 4,000 Americans – mostly in Arizona, Iowa, and Colorado, and we’re expanding. All this to say that we have serious equities at play here, and the risks are just as real for us as they are for others. We have legitimate businesses, American jobs, and loyal customers at stake. But, we’re still standing up and shouting from the rooftops that this is a problem that needs to be addressed by a comprehensive and thoughtful solution.

Our Enforcement Efforts

Go Daddy has made it a high priority to use its position as the world’s largest registrar and hosting provider to make the Internet a better and safer place. As such, we have a large 24/7.

Abuse Department whose mission is to preserve the integrity and safety of Go Daddy’s network by investigating and shutting down websites and domain names engaged in illegal activities. We work with law enforcement agencies at all levels and routinely assist in a wide variety of criminal and civil investigations. We are also quick to respond to public complaints of spam, phishing, pharming, and online fraud, and work closely with numerous anti-fraud and security groups. We also continue to lead the charge to stop the proliferation of rogue online pharmacies and websites selling counterfeit medications. In 2010 alone we worked with the Federal Drug Administration and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency to investigate and take down over 36,000 such websites. We founded and co-chair the Board of Directors of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, an alliance of private industry actors working together to eviscerate the online sale of counterfeit and otherwise illegal prescription drugs. We are responsive to copyright and trademarks holders alike – regardless of a clear mandate to do so. We take each instance of illegal activity very seriously and devote high priority to ensuring that websites containing any kind of illegal content are removed from our network. We are on pace to address over a million complaints of illegal content in 2011, and a non-trivial number of those complaints have or will result in a domain name redirection and/or a website suspension. We do this in support of American businesses and U.S consumers, and because it’s the right thing to do.

Our Support for SOPA

Go Daddy has a long history of supporting federal legislation directed toward combating illegal conduct on the Internet. For example, our company strongly supported the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, the Protect Our Children Act of 2008, and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (PROTECT IP). Go Daddy has always supported both government and private industry efforts to identify and disable all types of illegal activity on the Internet. It is for these reasons that I’m still struggling with why some Internet companies oppose PROTECT IP and SOPA. There is no question that we need these added tools to counteract illegal foreign sites that are falling outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement. And there is clearly more that we could all be doing to adequately address the problems that exist.

This Debate is about Jobs and the Rule of Law in the United States

As much as some would like to paint a bleak picture, this debate is not about Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley. This debate is about preserving, protecting, and creating American jobs, and protecting American consumers from the dangers that they face on-line. Americans should have ready access to purchase legitimate American products. But, this debate is also about how the Internet ecosystem can work together to make the Internet a safer place, while still allowing for job growth in multiple sectors.

The statistics speak for themselves. Whether we’re talking about copyright or trademark, software or American-made apparel, U.S. businesses are getting robbed and U.S. consumers are getting duped. You can still search for “drugs without a prescription” and yield natural search results for scores of illegal on-line pharmacies. We still see legitimate ads being placed on illegal sites dedicated to offering infringing movies or music. And thousands of sites still offer counterfeit products, many of which affect the health and safety of consumers. These sites are easy to locate, and you can still use your credit card to obtain these products. This problem is not going to just go away on its own.

There are currently believed to be between 60,000 – 90,000 illegal online drug sellers in operation and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy estimates that well over 90% of all online pharmacies operate unlawfully. There are numerous incidents of U.S. citizens becoming sick or dying after purchasing prescription medication on-line. The U.S. military has unintentionally procured counterfeit products that could easily have put our troops in grave danger had they gone undetected. But the debate in recent weeks has not been about these statistics, the impact on U.S. businesses, or the dangers to American consumers or our troops. It’s been about who could be found liable and who has to do the work to shut these sites down.

We won’t get very far by resorting to the pointing of fingers.

Filtering

When the PROTECT IP Act was introduced, a number of tech engineers marched to the Hill and exclaimed that Senator Leahy was about to break their Internet. The theory was that allowing the Attorney General to seek a court order compelling an ISP to filter so that infringing sites’ URLs would not resolve, would force people to use alternative DNS. And by using alternative DNS, the users would subject themselves to malware and perhaps worse. This would wreak havoc on the DNS system and jeopardize DNSSEC. But, it’s hard to imagine that the limited times per year that the Attorney General seeks this remedy for a site dedicated to infringement will result in a mass exodus away from DNS as we know it. I have to believe that the average person doesn’t want to commit a crime. The people who seek to use alternative DNS to do so may just get what’s coming to them. I don’t wish malware on anyone, but we all know that criminals will always find a way.

The House bill also provides that if other methods are employed to disable access, ISPs won’t be required to filter at all. If they don’t have the technological capability to filter, and it would be an economic burden to add such capability, then they don’t have to take action. So, it does not seem to me that this legislation will cause a mass exodus away from the current DNS system.

I told this Committee when I last testified on this issue that filtering would not be as effective in fighting infringement as blocking at the Registrar level, and it won’t. But, it’s not going to break the Internet.

First Amendment Claims
The opposition has also argued that this bill amounts to censorship and that it will undermine our ability to oppose censorship by oppressive nations. This bill cannot reasonably be equated with censorship. This bill promotes action pursuant to preexisting criminal and civil laws. Not only is there no First Amendment concern, but the notion that we should turn a blind eye to criminal conduct because other countries may take oppressive steps in response is an affront to the very fabric of this nation – that we abide by a set rule of laws, regardless of what actions other countries choose to take or not take. Noted First Amendment expert, Floyd Abrams, testified before the House Judiciary Committee with me last time, and recently reiterated in a letter to this Committee, that nothing in the legislation would impose a prior restraint on free speech. I vote for upholding our rule of law over doing nothing because we are scared of reprisal from oppressive or undemocratic nations.

Definition of Infringing Sites/ Litigation Risk

Some have gone so far as to argue that rights-holders will be able to sue if there is one page of infringing material amidst “millions” of legitimate pages. This assertion runs contrary to the intent of Congress, the plain language of both the Senate and House bills, and is not a fair reading of either piece of legislation. The Senate’s standard for action is a site “dedicated” to infringement. SOPA’s standard is similar. It is unfathomable to me how one page amidst a million could possibly qualify under any such standard. It is not at all clear to me that this section should trouble Internet companies. I don’t believe that YouTube is going to be in danger of being starved of revenue because of one infringing page on their site. If they are afraid of that action, and agree that the page is illegal, then by all means – take the page down and be done with it.

Room for Improvement

I’m finding that most of the concerns on the substance out there are unfounded. The notion that the solutions that have been put forth will break the Internet, or that certain legal businesses will go off-line because of new mandates is utterly unconvincing to me. SOPA goes a long way toward fixing the existing problems. But, like any piece of legislation, there is always room for some improvement. Most importantly, we need to make certain that we are not putting at risk the legitimate social networking sites, search engines, on-line retailers, and cloud computing services that host or direct to the content of others. And the “no duty to monitor” provisions should apply to the whole Internet ecosystem. Legitimate U.S. businesses should not have to “police the Internet.” We need to make sure that there is an adequate appeals mechanism built in, and we should consider allowing punitive damages for frivolous claims. But these are relatively easy fixes or clarifications and many of them could be accomplished quite easily if we were all collaborating.

Closing

The purpose of this legislation is to target foreign sites that are stealing U.S. property. No one is arguing that the purpose is invalid or unjust. If the mechanisms by which we get there need to be tweaked, then let’s have that discussion. Let’s stop with the hyperbole and get down to the brass tacks. We need to find a way to preserve American ingenuity. Starting from a place of common ground will allow us to have the conversation about how best to achieve those goals. SOPA is a needed tool to get the ball moving. As President Clinton has said, there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured by what’s right about America. So, let’s get to it – together.

Lets be frank here, GoDaddy is a big player in the internet business. They certainly are a popular hosting company and hold a lot of domain names.

I can't blame the issue here on money.

At the beginning, BSA was supportive of the bill. I do think that this bill started off with the best intentions... before it got turned into the steaming pile of crap that it is now. Ultimately, BSA supports stronger anti-piracy controls. It is clear on that stance.

The question was how did a bill that started out with support get turned into a steaming pile of crap?

Because its very difficult to balance copyright protection with consumer rights. At very least here, you have to admit that the problem they're trying to solve is immensely difficult. There are a great many people who believe utter draconian copyright protection is the way the economy works.

--------------------------------------

BTW: I'm trying to parse through the bill... but I'm stumbling upon the Legalize. Geoff Brigham (Wikimedia Foundation) claims:

The new version continues to undermine the DMCA and federal jurisprudence that have promoted the Internet as well as cooperation between copyright holders and service providers. In doing so, SOPA creates a regime where the first step is federal litigation to block an entire site wholesale: it is a far cry from a less costly legal notice under the DMCA protocol to selectively take down specified infringing material. The crime is the link, not the copyright violation. The cost is litigation, not a simple notice.

I'm trying to find the language in the bill that causes this. I trust that it is there, but I am a poor lawyer. So if anyone can point it out for me, I'd be quite happy.

----------

EDIT: I mean, there are certainly provisions in SOPA that show that our Representatives are thinking. For example, section 103(c)(2)(C):

(C) DEFENSE. An entity against whom relief is sought under subparagraph (B) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the entity does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such parts of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection

If you can prove in a court of law that complying with a SOPA-takedown notice would incur "unreasonable economic burden", then you won't have to comply.

Of course, the issue is still that RIAA and MPAA can abuse the provisions of the law with frivolous lawsuits. However... the language of SOPA seems that these powers are only granted to the Attorney General. As in, SOPA is criminal law... not tort law??

Again, I'm not a lawyer. So I'd love to have a real lawyer prove me wrong. So help me out here

[Steax]

GoDaddy is acting like they usually are - a giant company, unfriendly like the many other smaller ones.

They sided pro-SOPA at first to gain support from all those people; it's clear from the way they mention all their previous pure and holy actions. Then when people start hating them - openly this time - they step back and basically say "okay, leave us out of this." They only retracted their support and mentioned stuff about passing the argument on to others. They just want out, now.

Their statement is extremely ignorant, which I find amusing. Say...

There are currently believed to be between 60,000 – 90,000 illegal online drug seller[...] over 90% of all online pharmacies operate unlawfully. There are numerous incidents of U.S. citizens becoming sick or dying after purchasing prescription medication on-line. The U.S. military has unintentionally procured counterfeit products that could easily have put our troops in grave danger had they gone undetected. But the debate in recent weeks has not been about these statistics, the impact on U.S. businesses, or the dangers to American consumers or our troops. It’s been about who could be found liable and who has to do the work to shut these sites down.

It's funny because everyone on both sides agree that piracy is a problem. The issue is about the mechanism used to fight piracy. This statement just makes it blatantly obvious that GoDaddy doesn't even get what the whole debate is about.

[KnightExemplar]

If you read through SOPA and trust the court of law... as well as can afford to go to court... then I don't think things would be so bad. The issue is that we don't even trust the courts that much... for good reason. With all of the fraudulent DMCA Takdowns over the years, smaller companies and individuals who can't afford legal departments are going to be at a disadvantage.

At the end of the day, just taking someone to court is a punishment in of itself. The legal threat in this country is pretty big, and we as a people are beginning to become scared of frivolous lawsuits.

Basically... from what I've read... It doesn't take much to have trust in SOPA. If you trust the courts and trust your lawyers, then you can trust SOPA. After all, with that section 103(c)(2)(C) defense, all legitimate sites are theoretically safe. But the vast majority of us seem to be warry about trusting our court system that much. Especially when this bill will do very very very little to actually combat piracy.

----------------------

EDIT: Anyway, for more good news about the GoDaddy Fiasco...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398045,00.asp

This makes it official at this point. If they're contacting (former) customers wondering why everyone is leaving... then they definitely feel threatened by the GoDaddy SOPA Boycott.

[kiklion]

I wouldn't wholly attribute that to the SOPA backlash. It is extremely common for companies to want to know why they are losing business. For instance, cancel your account in WoW and they prompt you for a reason. They are always adding current hot topics from their forums. Now if enough people responded that it was due to SOPA, they may change their stance further, but I doubt this started because of SOPA.