Godaddy, with all its built up infrastructure around policing the domains registered with them, has a major financial self-interest in supporting this bill. While it may or may not increase costs for GoDaddy given all the stuff their already do, SOPA would reduce competition and increase the barriers to entry. I'm sure GoDaddy sees SOPA as a way to further consolidate market share.
I've heard horror stories from webmasters that got their domains taken by GoDaddy after baseless IP-related accusations and forced to pay hundreds of dollars to get them back, so they not only have the infrastructure in place, they seem to be making a tidy profit off it.
As a high school student in 1988, I interviewed with Bob's previous company, Parsons Technology, for an after-school customer support position.
At that time Parsons Technology was known primarily as the publisher of a personal finance program called MoneyCounts, but they also released a formidable catalog of Bible-related software.
Much to my dismay, the interview process was heavily skewed toward determining how much of a believer I was and ran into all manner of private territory.
I did briefly meet Bob -- just a handshake and he was gone.
Very little of my computer experience was discussed and by the end of the rushed interview I was given complimentary copies of Parsons Technology Bible-related software.
I drove away from that interview disappointed and tricked.
Obviously you can't jump to conclusions from anecdotal data, but I wanted to share this experience and my personal opinion that Bob Parsons is an intensely self-righteous and dogmatic fellow.
Anyway, from my early experience with his first company, to his bizarre and narcissistic elephant hunt, GoDaddy's obnoxious objectification of women, and now SOPA... I've always felt the guy is just sort of twisted and unsavory.
Can someone cite a source either on the GoDaddy site or a .gov site? I don’t doubt it personally, but I’d like to see an official source for the statement. This being the Internet and all.
Holy mackerel! I hadn't realized how badly the deck was stacked. If you go to the page [1] that links to that document, you'll be horrified.
The official page of the House Judiciary Committee shows that the committee has completely made up its mind already. In addition to this list of supporters, they are full of links to supportive letters, pro-SOPA press releases, etc.
There is not one single item on that page to reveal that anyone is opposing this.
It seems to me that before a bill is approved, and especially at this point, still in committee, the legislature ought to try to maintain some balance. They ought to at least acknowledge that there are alternate points of view, and show those alongside the supporters.
UPDATE: I just called Rep. Lamar Smith to complain about this, since he heads the committee. The person taking the calls said that's a committee issue, and forwarded me to them. As soon as I started explaining my concern to the committee phone-answerer, they stopped me and forwarded me to another line, that allows me to record comments "for the full committee", and which is "checked periodically". In other words, there doesn't seem to be any real way to complain to the committee about this.
UPDATE 2: I talked to my own Representative (or rather, his assistant). There doesn't seem to be any process where he can feed comments about this to the committee.
I wonder if GoDaddy supports this because it gives them a clearer legal framework for dealing with complaints of piracy problems on domains they have under management. If I were them I would be concerned about my legal responsibilities to the parties whose domains I manage and to the complainants and would want specific legislation that can allow my business to address complaints in a standardized manner that is unlikely to make me look worse than the other guy down the block.
If this is the case then as a business they pretty much have to support it -- it would be their obligation to shareholders to do so.
As responsible morally or legally? Their moral obligation would be irrelevant to them as a business, their legal responsibilities right now might be unclear. If SOPA clarifies it for them in a way that they think will improve their business it makes sense for them to support it on that basis.
Perhaps the parallel you draw is useful, if a business is doing something illegal and someone demands that their yellow page listing be pulled so that the phone company is not seen as supporting the business and sues them to get them to do so is there legislation to cover that? Legal precedent? Remember the Crag's List flap over "erotic services"? GoDaddy does not want to be put in a similar position of having to decide between Legal/PR battle to defend their customers vs. just giving in. Maybe SOPA gives them that clarity?
From the post: "protecting American consumers from the dangers that they face on-line"
Seriously? I dont need someone to protect me online. It's. It the Wild West. Who will protect me from the crap they sell on late night TV? Maybe we should put a stop to infomercials next.
I thought the supporters of this were supposed to be anti "big government". Seems like this bill is just imposing more government regulations.
I've used Namecheap for a couple a while back, and had no problems. Their online interface is quite nice and a lot better than GoDaddy's. I recently heard of some people saying their customer support isn't very good though, so that may be something to look out for.
I use gandi.net - I've found the prices to be great. They're also based in France, which means they won't be victim to any of this SOPA idiocy (until the EU passes something similar, I suppose).
Another vote for namecheap here. I switched over when old man Parsons took a lot of pride in his hunting videos. I'm not an activist or anything, but he could at least conduct himself with a bit of tact.
You could always use a dynamic DNS service[0] for your DNS A record, like dnsdynamic.org, then set up your 'main' domain name to be a CNAME record to your free dynamic DNS one. Most home routers have built in support for dynamic DNS already. It does add a level of indirection/potential failure, but then you aren't restricted to registrars with APIs for changing DNS.
e.g.
ryandvm.com (CNAME) -> ryandvm.dnsdynamic.org (A) -> 123.123.123.123
This is what I use for my home server, and it seems to work well.
Everyone always says that but I've had nothing but trouble with gandi.net.. not their registration system but their payment system.
Two separate times, I've had them recommended to me and both times I gave up on the transfer. Last time my payment (to my Amex card that I've had no other issues with) was rejected and this is what they said:
So that your order can pass this time, we require : A valid Government-issued Drivers License or Valid Government-issued passport with recognizable photo
AND A document from your telephone service provider that clearly states
the telephone number and the address as presented in the whois as
belonging to the registrant.
So I gave up instead. They never told me exactly why.
My gandi.net experience is ~7 years out of date, but I also eventually gave up after difficulties with their payment system (a year or two into using them). Other than that, they were fine - pretty much invisible.
The thing is, you can find lot of companies that will register your domain, take some money, and not make another sound until your domain needs renewal. I've always been surprised at the loyalty gandi.net has engendered for a service that's so thoroughly commoditized.
Seconded Gandi. I've moved my domains to them over the past year as they've come up for renewal and I can't fault the service provided.
They aren't the cheapest, but they aren't exactly pricey either, and I feel safe in the knowledge that my domains are well looked after, within Europe, and I have full control over the DNS records and so on.
I'll third gandi.net. I use them for all my US-based domains. Their slogan is "No Bullshit" -- and they live up to it.
My only complaint is that DNS changes through the webapp take 10-15 min to propagate to their authoritative zone files, making DNS cut-overs a little slower than I'd like.
I am moving all my domains to DNSimple.com now... I have hated GoDaddy for so long, and started registering all new domains at DNSimple but hadn't taken the time to transfer all my old domains... Finally doing that now... They have a nice API.
Dreamhost has an API for this -- contact me, email is in my profile. I have written a script that updates a DNS record with my current home public IP, before I got a static one.
The CEO of GoDaddy is a hardcore Republican. They tend to be more authoritarian than other people. Like you, I see no direct financial benefit to GoDaddy in supporting SOPA. I suspect this is simply that authoritarian tendency in action.
This is simply rent-seeking on GoDaddy's part. It's not authoritarianism. It is just greed.
SOPA will increase cost and complexity for all providers. GoDaddy figures they're better at coping with SOPA's implementation than potential competitors. Thus, SOPA will be a useful barrier to the entry of disruptive competition, which will have to develop their
own SOPA compliance systems.
This is not a partisan issue. One of the most vehement opposers of SOPA is Darrell Issa, a staunch California conservative. On the other hand, Dianne Feinstein, whose constituency includes the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, is for the bill.
Perhaps I should have emphasized "authoritarian" more.
And Sen. Feinstein's constituency is the entire state of California. She has received a lot of money from the entertainment industry, including the MPAA, Disney, Sony, and others.
But you are correct: this is not a partisan issue. I was simply trying to guess at the motives of GoDaddy's CEO. Since it was a guess, it will obviously be imperfect.
But you derived your guess from his political party. This is fundamentally incompatible with thinking that this is not a partisan issue. So your guess isn't consistent with your own beliefs. (Unless you've changed them since the other comment.)
"They tend to be more authoritarian than other people"
The left is just as authoritarian. Mostly revolving around taxes (IE: forcing one group of people to pay more taxes than another because they don't need or deserve it).
That's a misrepresentation of gun control. There may be certain individuals who'd prefer to do away with the second amendment but as a group, gun control supporters are more about making sure guns are owned and used responsibly. What you said was such an oversimplification and oversimplification or "bumper sticker politics" is what's wrong with political discourse in the US. Without getting into a whole gum control debate I'll just say I think we can all get behind keeping guns out of the hands of known criminals, the mentally unstable,
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment confers the right to keep and bear arms on individual Americans.
Interpreting the 2nd Amendment, as many politicians still do, in a way that nullifies it ("I believe in the 2nd Amendment but not that it applies to individuals") is indistinguishable from believing in its abolition, and no different in theory than supporting the abolition of any other part of the Bill of Rights.
I have no issue with people who seek a constitutional amendment to remove the 2nd Amendment. I do have an issue with people who favour gun control measures that have been ruled by the Supreme Court as violations of the 2nd Amendment but still claim to support the Bill of Rights.
Americans have an individual, inalienable and fundamental right to possess firearms. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the highest court in the land, and the only body with the constitutional authority to decide this issue. If you disagree, you do not support the Bill of Rights in its entirety.
Your strawman arguments about things that are already illegal and have never been in dispute (did the NRA have a "let convicted felons own guns" campaign I missed?) may not be bumper sticker politics but that is only because they are verbosely misleading rather than concisely so.
"Shutting down freedom of speech, indefinite detention, arbitrary expropriation are authoritarian. A non-flat tax is not."
I'm not talking about taxes now. I'm talking about what taxes would be if the left had it their way (much higher), which in my mind, is authoritarian. Take a look at every single hard-left country in Europe: taxes are astonishingly high and the government has much more control over citizens' daily lives.
When lots of people are dependent on the government through large social nets, they will almost never vote against the hand that feeds them.
As you go too far right or left, you meet in the the same place and it's something I really don't want running my life.
Taxes are important, but we need to have a balance.
In politics especially, it takes a constant struggle to keep in mind that words have actual meanings. They're not just matters of opinion, and "authoritarian" isn't just a gussied up way of saying "ewww gross!" about a political matter or position. It is a real word with a real meaning and a real history.
Consider, for instance, the Kirkpatrick doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkpatrick_Doctrine). It's possible to debate the plausibility and soundness of it as a foreign policy principle, but that's because authoritarian has a real meaning beyond "ANTI FREEDOM!! (TM)". It has to do with how the center of political power interacts with its opposition, particularly in contrast to how totalitarian states do so.
Note that the countries which had the greatest amount of government intervention in the economy and actually did take a bunch of guns from people are very explicitly not authoritarian: they're used in contrast to the authoritarian states of (mostly) Latin America, which were hardly high-tax or anti-gun.
It sounds like you would regard any form of taxation as authoritarian. I'd like to know of a system of taxation that _doesn't_ "[force] one group of people to pay more taxes than another..." for one motivation or another.
Though really, higher or lower taxes are in practice beside the point. Whether it's the government, or the employer, most people will never be financially independent and will always find themselves beholden to whichever hand --government or boss-- feeds them.
I argue that if our ultimate goal was financial independence for each and every citizen as opposed to partisan quips about "job creation" and "taxation" and "regulation" then we wouldn't have any major concerns about those things to begin with. They'd be non-issues; ancillary concerns rather than concepts at the forefront of everyone's minds. Precisely because every player has the capital necessary to make a sufficient stand for themselves.
For some reason though I don't think most would approve of such a citizenry.
scarmig is right. Authoritarian does not mean the existence of coercive laws and institutions, it is about how power is distributed and the manner in which is it exercised.
If a given tax regime has democratic support, collecting the tax will be coercive but the institutions that collect it need not be authoritarian.
So far, there is a very clear picture emerging to me of who the anti-SOPA people are. It looks a lot like the Occupy Wall Street images. I'm not for or against SOPA so far, still making up my mind but the people who are against it so far aren't helping their case much with all the arm waving and now veteran hating that I see in the comments on this page.
This is the best line:
The U.S. military has unintentionally procured counterfeit products that could easily have put our troops in grave danger had they gone undetected.
The military gets conned into buying counterfeit products, but somehow it is the fault of the inter-tubes that that occurred.
from the article:
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.
Good men had to die to give me the freedom this man is trying to take away. This man made his fortune in a country founded on what he is actively destroying. Lets take away some of godaddy's freedom. Lets make this an unprofitable year for them.
Good men had to die to give us due process; yet our government can now officially assassinate citizens without trial.
Good men had to die to firmly establish habeas corpus; yet today our government detains people indefinitely without trial.
Good men had to die to ban unlawful search and seizure; that right lies in ruins amid warrantless phone wiretaps and a farcical law that says email left on a server for more than 60 days is abandoned property.
SOPA is terrible and the right of startups to avoid prosecution for user piracy is important — but for you to invoke the death of American soldiers across countless wars in support of this relatively narrow cause, when there is so much other injustice going on, greatly undermines your point. A little perspective goes a long way.
I think you're missing the fact that SOPA can be easily abused to shut down sites like wikileaks, or sites which would otherwise be documenting and broadcasting the injustices carried out by your first three points.
The government could kill, detain and illegally raid citizens who oppose them - and with SOPA, the internet will be censored such that people will be in the dark on these issues.
I think you're being facetious in turn by summarizing SOPA as the revocation of "the right of startups to avoid prosecution for user piracy".
SOPA is dangerous because it gives the executive wide power to deprive private citizens of their property, without any due process, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.
"Parsons enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was assigned to the 26th Marine Regiment which was attached to and operated as part of the 1st Marine Division. In 1969 he served as a rifleman in the Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 26th Marines, during a tour of duty in Vietnam, in the Quảng Nam Province."
Looks like the owner of GoDaddy fought for your freedom as well.
Is it possible for a member of the US military to refuse to participate in an armed conflict that is not being wage in defense of the US Constitution?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (the Wars Power clause) grants congress the right to declare war and Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the US President the title of commander in chief.
The legitimacy of military power in the US derives solely from the US Constitution. If war is waged in a way that does not support the Constitution, I would imagine it should not only be every soldier's right, but duty to disobey an order.
The Armed Forces Oath even suggests that should be the case:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Oath states that they are to defend the Constitution, not Congress, not the President, not Wall Street, etc.
When soldiers take the Oath, are they also required to learn the Constitution in detail? If not, how are they to know whether or not their actions are in defense of it?
Losing the massacre in Vietnam seems not to have had any negative impact on the freedom of Americans though (it only had on the lives of millions in south east Asia).
Respect a soldier but not necessarily a war. The US did not need to be in Vietnam. We were not defending our country. It was a huge game played by certain people in power, and a military adventure that cost tons of money and ended thousands of lives. Big payday for military suppliers, much devastation for the people living there.
They seem to want to dumb down the Internet. Their reasons for support, with all the "safety online" rhetoric made me want to vomit. The number one registrar obviously doesn't get the Internet. The Internet isn't about safety and we don't need anyone to protect us online. That responsibility should fall upon each of us. They're playing off people's ignorance to try to make us all believe that they support SOPA for out own good.
I don't want to be protected online. I'll take my chances in exchange for being able to decide for myself what is safe and how I behave even if I decide wrong.
Can we get the word "Godaddy" to link to homosexual images on google images for that keyword? make it a meme like pedobear. Make them change their brand name.
and then what? even if they did change their brand name, they'll still act the same way.
I hope you aren't serious. Remember how Bank of America reversed their decision on the 5$ fee they were planning to impose, when people started moving their money to community banks? the only way to make these big businesses budge on anything is to take your business elsewhere.
I don't believe there was already well-established and popular Web-based brand named "Santorum" before that. There was just a rather backward politician. Your average politician is about as adept at SEO as your grandfather. You may as well show a video of you beating up a little kid to prove you could take Jason Statham in a fair fight.
