Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Best ccTLD To Avoid Confiscation?
First time accepted submitter Pete McCann writes "Given the recent spate of domain seizures by the U.S. government, it seems that registrations in any U.S.-hosted registry (like the gTLDs .com, .net, and .org) aren't stable places to put content that the U.S. government might find objectionable. I am wondering, are there any ccTLD registries out there that have an open registration policy and are willing to stand up to censorship demands from the USG? There is this list of ccTLDs with open registration policies, and the current MAFIAAFIRE redirection list looks very Tuvalu-heavy. Where would you register a site for maximum resistance to confiscation?"
.onion
The best TLD out there, and the only one that you can be sure you will not be taken down from.
Overall...the only way to really avoid it is to avoid central registrars that are beholden to their political masters.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
You have the right to free speech. Let them take it down and then sue the pants off of them. Make it into a big fight for Free Speech. and tell the Government to go F*** themselves.
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?
Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.
Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?
Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.
Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy.
Is this also true of contributorily infringing copyright or vicariously infringing copyright?
My understanding is that the domain seizure by the U.S. government works by requiring DNS servers to resolve the domain name to a government IP address in cases where the domain is registered/hosted outside the U.S.. I really don't think it makes much difference what tld you use.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If the server is on US Soil, can't they just confiscate the rack or demand that the data center remove the site?
We don't live in Shouldland.
Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?
Say I write and record a song and put it up for mp3/ogg download on my web site. How can I be sure that I wasn't subconsciously copying a song that had been written a decade ago?
You can trust that the government won't confiscate any other domains because, well, they're the government! Who doesn't trust them?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I started being partial to
Trolling is a art,
False. You can be liable for copyright infringement even if you don't do the copying yourself. This it's decades old precedent in the US.
Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?
Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. (LOL!)
But only slightly less well known is this, never assume that the US government acts in accordance with the public good. You don't have to infringe copyright to have your website confiscated any more than you have to commit an act of terrorism to be branded a terrorist. Or vice versa.
I suspect that you are correct in suggesting that normal websites with normal website crap aren't going to attract any attention from the government, or anyone else for that matter, but attack Big Business or suggest that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern, and you will attract their attention.
.I2P
http://www.i2p2.de/
I'm not sure I agree. Look at the recent USA tax-grab on former USA citizens living in Canada, even if the Canadians have not lived in USA for thirty or more years. The USA is becoming more and more draconian every year. Who is to say they wouldn't simply annex a domain that was making a lot of money and re-purpose it if they can do so using whatever draconian false-hope reason they can come up with?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
How about just create domain names using letters A through F and get creative with IPv6 hexadecimal abbreviated addresses. ;)
No DNS to legally hijack, as long as you can reasonably hold the IP address and scale solely through anycasting.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. -Thomas Cardinal Wolsey
Yes, he's a true douchebag for wanting his day in court and a chance to defend himself BEFORE the gov seizes his domain. What an ass. Next he'll be asking for something silly like being considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Spoken like a true douchebag. Fuck everyone, gimme free shit.
That's freedom. As in
All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
not pretty damn close. It's a shame that the douchebags make up the majority, i.e. the public, i.e. the people that the government is supposed to represent. (As opposed to the people that OWN the government, you know, the corporate persons who hold all the marbles?) Who the fuck are you?
Make a web site worth visiting and it will be found no matter what any government does.
Make a web site none cares about and well none cares about it.
Are you claiming that any of these confiscated domains was shut down just for "attacking Big Business or suggesting that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern"? Citation needed!
USA != PRC
The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated. Having to go to court for things such as this would just burden the government. What a bother! You don't want to burden the government, do you?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They are very good at "convincing" other countries to do what they want.
They not only forced many offshore banking countries to give up their customers' account details, they got it retroactively so years of bank records were compromised. Don't assume that you can trust anyone if the bad guy is rich and powerful enough.
First of all, no. Second, in practice it really only takes an accusation of infringement, not actual proof.
You apparently haven't been paying attention to what is actually going on.
Here, educate yourself.
http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Puerto+80
From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml
-------------------
Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures
While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.
Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:
The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.
On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.
As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.
The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances ar
In the long run, .cn seems to be the only one that won't bow down quickly to US demands.
It's kinda hard to stand up against the schoolyard bully if everyone's sucking up to him so they don't get beaten.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What content are you going to offer that you feel may be subject to American censorship?
Okay, for starters you say you're worried about the U.S. gov't seizing your domain, but then you go and mention the MAFIAAFIRE list. Okay, so you want to run a torrent tracker... big surprise.
I see an inherent problem with CCTLDs: you may expect the ones from obscure nations to be "safer", because, well, they're obscure and that government might not give two shits about U.S. laws. But then on the converse, they may give a shit about U.S. money. The poor nations love bribery just as much as the militarized corporatocracy some 300 million people call "home".
The only real way to dodge the MAFIAA is thus:
1. destroy the MAFIAA
No, really. You either take the risk, and best case some ungrateful leech stools your site to the authorities and you lose your domain, worst case you get sued for six quadrillion dollars. The only other option is to launch World War 3, win, become supreme leader of earth, have every last motherfuckin' corporate robber baron drawn and quartered, and then you're pretty much free to post whatever the hell you want on (what's left of) the internet.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
What about sites where users/visitors can put content?
Sites to which subscribers contribute material are covered by the OCILLA safe harbor, codified as 17 USC 512.
What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere
In that case, I'd be not liable under U.S. copyright law unless I had first received and ignored a takedown request. But the limitation on liability appears to apply only to material contributed by a subscriber, not material contributed by the operator of the site.
NameCoin is a non-centralized, peer-to-peer DNS using the .bit TLD. It cannot be confiscated unless the entire p2p DNS network is shut down.
Demonoid.com moved themselves over to Demonoid.me precisely for this purpose...
"There *IS* no patch for stupidity" -www.sqlsecurity.com
It's the goats, see?
There are various P2P based DNS and TLD systems out there, be it Tor network, I2P or others. .onion hidden site, or an eepsite page on I2P.
These systems have various ways of letting you host content, such as having a
I'd suggest using the latter for not-stupidly-illegal content since it is a little bit faster at the expense of security, but if the content is just in a current morality war with some industry, it won't be removed and that is all that matters.
Well, this was at least the last time I used both Tor and I2P, haven't used them in years so speaking from old experience, test them out yourself of course.
If you are hosting potentially illegal material in the eyes of the US, just host it outside the US in a country that isn't run by greedy companies under the guise of government.
If you are hosting potentially illegal material in the eyes of most of the world, host it on the above networks. (and possibly feel bad depending on the content)
If you just fear your entire domain being blacklisted for no real reason, just host it in the US and don't bother with the paranoia.
Unless you piss off a megacorp, nobody is going to care about attacking you.
Better yet, if you have the cash, just buy all the domains on all TLDs, let them have fun with that one.
I would not recommend .tv as VeriSign is the registry operator and they would be happy to disable your domain name, just like .com/.net.
Tonga is another tiny island nation - .to - but the registry has a web portal for direct registration (so you don't have to use a registrar which may bow to pressure) and they have a very private WHOIS policy. Almost no details can be gleaned from putting accurate information as the registrant contact.
I would recommend any ccTLD that allows direct registration through an HTTPS session. Avoid the registrar middlemen for ultimate control over your domain. However, you will be responsible for manually renewing your domain! And be sure to read the registry's fine print for how they may revoke a domain. Ensure the contact data is accurate so you can get any email / snail mail correspondence. This will help you defend your domain in case of a dispute, and help prevent against unauthorized transfers of the domain. Make sure the email account on record is not easily hijacked.
Does OpenDNS need to obey government seizure demands, or can they list whomever they want directed to whatever IP address they feel is correct?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Vanuatu. .com confiscated, and continues to have a presence on .vu and .biz
Inhouse pharmacy had its
As DNS is inherently a "third-party" service when used in the context of the Internet at large, it is always vulnerable to censorship, whether by a governmental entity or operators of the service.
Not to fear, for two reasons:
- Fortunately the hosts file has always been part of the standard TCP/IP stack in many operating systems. So, freedom-of-information-loving people, it is time to start publishing some hosts.txt files, and possibly develop some utilites can allow Joe Sixpack to install, track the age of, remove, and edit entries within prevalent operating systems.
- Nothing really stopping anyone (other than time, money) from starting their own DNS root servers, or DNS servers that resolve certain domains locally and recurse resolution of other domains to other "standard root" DNS servers. Get an EC2 instance and put BIND on it. Always thought there should be a reserved "private" TLD for this purpose.
Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?
Try theft, larceny, deprivation, mugging, etc.
I think I don't want to burden the government with the hassle of processing my tax dollars.
Liberties must always be balanced when my enjoyment decreases your enjoyment.
Example, you want to do target practice on your neighbors wall (it's a free country!) and your neighbor doesn't want to die or have walls riddled with holes. The government helps sort out who has the right to exclude whom.
In this case, your neighbor needn't even tell you and you can't use their wall for target practice. Similarly, copyright material cannot be shared in certain ways without permission from the owner. The copyright owner can restrict your for any reason they want: i.e. they may be fine with you sharing 256k/sec mp3s but don't wan their expression to sound like shit in a 96k/sec encoding.
You really think if the US takes the time to take down your site, some other country won't? Believe it or not, the US is the freest country in the world, give or take periods when your Lord of the Manor legalizes prostitution to pacify the masses.
Logical fallacy of the world #1: absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence
Just because you don't know if your government seizes domains doesn't mean they don't. It just means smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel don't give a shit about your country. /thread
'Nuff said.
smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel
Wake me up if they ever hire any.
ROFL you think THAT is a thread ending argument?
US government worker, are we?
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
USA != PRC
Don't tell us, tell them!
What about .ru? I think it would be best to use a domain from a country that isn't easily manipulated by USA foreign politics.
I recommend .info, .me, and .ph
http://icefilms.info/ have been around several years now and moved to .info and are hosted in amsterdam I believe.
http://kat.ph/ kickasstorrents changed to .ph to avoid domain confiscation
http://demonoid.me/ Demonoid moved to .me to also avoid domain confiscation as the .ph and .me ignore US requests
You will also have to check into hosting that ignores DMCA requests which are plenty, check Amsterdam hosting sites
http://www.dot.ph/ for registering .ph domains
http://www.domain.me/ for registering .me domains
I've also had a .me domain and I link to torrents, megaupload, rapidshare sites, I had to move my site to a hosting company that ignored DMCA since US sees posting links as illegal which is bullshit. So I moved to a host in amsterdam who told me they do not agree, abide or listen to US laws regarding DMCA when it comes to linking as long as I'm not hosting which was good enough for me.
Now I get tons of spam whining and begging me to remove links... which I just laugh instead of going after the hosts they try to stop me from linking which they can't now.
You also have to make sure you're not on a host or DNS server that handles anything the DHS claims is infringing copyright, they've taken down entire hosting services (84,000 sites) for 10 bad sites before (and later claimed it was perfectly legitimate).
It was covered by slashdot:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/2239245/US-Govt-Mistakenly-Shuts-Down-84000-Sites
So, no, following U.S. law won't prevent U.S. authorities from taking down your site. Your best bet is to do what this guy is doing, find a host safe from U.S. law enforcement.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
The submitter did not mention infringement and I think the question should be approached in the general "what if I want to host things the US government does not approve of" manner. Things like whistleblowing, gambling, consensual porn illegal in US, "hate" speech, anti-US islamic propaganda, selling patent or trademark infringing stuff (that's not copyright), unregulated financial services, recreational drugs etc. Any of these could easily determine the US authorities to seize your domain - and for each and every one of them we can have a long discussion if it's seizing the domain is a legitimate act.
As for the question itself, I don't think there's an answer. The island nation TLDs (.tv .tk .cx etc.) are usually leased to for-profit US or European corporation that pays a rent to the island government; that corporation will drop you instantly if there's any threat they might see legal issues - they are in it for the profit. Any of the national TLDs are usually just as evil as the US government if you cross them - your only hope is to have different touchy points compared to the US. For example the .ch Swiss TLD was fine for Wikileaks, but it probably not be a good idea for deregulated financial services.
The registrar is fairly important - The Pirate Bay operates for years on a .org TLD with Key Systems GMBH as registrar, a German company. New generic TLDs are set to be available from 2012 - we can only hope to get a .free committed to freedom of speech, but we will probably get another batch of .coms and .bizs totally under ICANNs foot.
"the US is the freest country in the world" [reference needed]
Yeah that's why Wikileaks' .com domain and US-based hosting was taken down while the .cn stayed up. America, the freest country in the world!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
First, your understanding of the law is flawed.
I acknowledge this; I've never been to law school. But 1. it's a sorry state when people are expected to follow laws that they don't understand, and 2. it's your turn to show that these flaws are relevant.
Righthaven started many lawsuits over copyright infringement without any DMCA takedown request preceding the lawsuits.
As I understand it, that was about articles posted by the operator of the site, not about articles posted by subscribers. The liability limitation under OCILLA extends only to materials posted by subscribers.
If the party on the other side is big enough, it doesn't matter if you end up being "liable" or not...if they can prove they sued "in good faith", you probably aren't going to be awarded anything to offset your legal fees.
The courts are slowly getting around to interpreting OCILLA, defining what it means to sue in good faith. See Lenz v. Universal and Viacom v. YouTube.
YouTube and various file lockers are in the middle of lawsuits even though they comply with the law.
Once the big wealthy targets win these lawsuits, the little guys can use the precedents.
Last, if you haven't been watching, the domain seizures by ICE happen to sites without any warning of any kind
That's being litigated.
Google 'NameCoin' for info on the Bitcoin-Based TLD .bit
bitgamer moved from .com to .su to avoid confiscation .cd .me
what.cd doesn't seem to have a problem with
several trackers are on
Way to explain the obvious, retard.
Since when is it "guilty until proven innocent?" Ah, right kompade Amepikan ...
Seizure laws have been on the books since the 19th century. By the same token sites shouldn't be seized unless there is proof. Lets say the government thinks your car was used by your mother to deal drugs, then that's all they need to take it. I ain't no lawyer but I think innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to property.
A domain name is a valuable asset, and as such should be treated as property when it comes to 4th Amendment. Seizures require no indictment, no trial, no conviction. The owners get no notification, no chance to challenge the seizures.
The copyright industry directs its DoJ employees (yes, they have several highly-placed in the Obama DoJ) to take down a domain, the DoJ shows it to a magistrate that only hears their side, and he rubber-stamps the seizure.
They have seized domains so far that were shown to not be engaging in anything illegal. One was basically Google for torrents (of course they're not taking down Google or its torrent results), another was a rap blog that played music given to it by the record labels for promotion purposes, another indexed online sports, and had been twice declared legal in its home country of Spain.
It is a travesty of justice, theft under color of law. Some government employees and their copyright industry handlers need to be in prison.
Whoosh!
Last I heard, that's under US jurisdiction.
Facts have a liberal bias.
.info is a gTLD, running under ICANN rules. Since the only IP that ICANN cares about is Intellectual Property, not the Internet Protocol, you can expect that the Trademark Police want to control it. On the other hand, Afilias is registered in Ireland, not the US, so there's some chance of getting due process (to the extent that UDRP gives small players due process), compared to a US-based registrar (who tend to just roll over and play dead when requested.)
But .me is the ccTLD for Montenegro, so even if Afilias is cooperative about following ICANN's rules for .info, they should be using Montenegro's rules for .me. Hopefully you'd at least get a UDRP process before losing your name.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The USG does not achieve what TFA refers to as "confiscation" by requiring "redirects." In the latest rounds of domain name seizures, ICE has obtained ex parte seizure orders against the domain names in US federal district courts on the (legally uncertain) basis that the domain name is "property" being used incident to a crime, and, under recent amendments achieved by the Pro-IP Act, thus subject to seizure under federal law.
Because the USG can only seize property within its control, the TLD **registrar** must be under the jurisdiction of the USG. Once the domain is seized, the registrar is asked to redirect the traffic from the seized domain to an ICE splash page.
It is true that any name server could theoretically be required to resolve the domain name to another address. This is China's approach. But that's not how ICE has effectuated seizure until now.
Thus, to restate the question, you want to know which TLD registrars exist beyond the jurisdiction of the US Govt or other governments that seize domain names in the course of law enforcement.
http://tonic.to/
Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.
You've got that backwards. Spoken like a citizen of the United States, perhaps, but the American Tradition is founded on Liberty. Sadly, America is nearly extinguished in the United States.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Example, you want to do target practice on your neighbors wall (it's a free country!) and your neighbor doesn't want to die or have walls riddled with holes. The government helps sort out who has the right to exclude whom.
Government is completely superfluous in that situation. The Common Law certainly recognizes property rights. Government just provides a means for communal retribution if your property rights are violated.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't remember where I read this (actually it was probably here on /.):
"The only difference between the chinese and the americans is the americans think they are free"
Not ENTIRELY accurate but we're getting there.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
I think the problem is that the domain holder themselves does not get notified of the pending domain seizure so they can't fight it.
Why on earth am I replying to an AC... The last five have just trolled me. Oh well maybe someone else will read this and gain wisdom from it.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
.ch - Switzerland, not .cn, China.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The .is ccTLD has consistently rated as one of the best run ccTLDs out there. In this piece of news item on the ISNIC web site:
https://www.isnic.is/en/news/view?id=203
That basically says that they will take down domains only if one of three conditions is met:
1. Non payment of registration fees
2. If the whois records and registration information is incorrect (the are very strict about the technical setup of domains in whois and dns)
3. If the cops show up with a court order (has never happened in 25 years of the ccTLD
Also, let's not forget this:
http://immi.is/
The Icelanders are going to make their country a safe haven for freedom of expression and the press, so the legal framework will be there for this tld to be the safest in the foreseeable future.
Seizure laws have been on the books since the 19th century. By the same token sites shouldn't be seized unless there is proof. Lets say the government thinks your car was used by your mother to deal drugs, then that's all they need to take it. I ain't no lawyer but I think innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to property.
It's called "reversal of onus" - except that some Americans believe that by not calling it that, they can still be morally righteous. I wouldn't blame the whole problem on a degraded education system either...
Well, fuck.
Keep your eyes to the sky.
USA != PRC
Different dog - same leg action.
All governments are cocksuckers (History 101). The best you can hope for is lots of "honeymoon periods" when one type is overtaken/overthrown by another. Even then it can be personally bloody.
At least you can find some place to talk about your real feelings like here,, we are getting 'harmonious' every minute haha.... http://www.visitourchina.com/
Except Tonic's registrar is located in the U.S. So they can still be affected by a U.S. court order.
However, last I checked, that hadn't signed an agreement in ICANN and have a first come first serve domain registering policy. So you don't get screwed over by ICANN's bogus UDRP process.
"Given the recent spate of domain seizures by the U.S. government, " Let me guess - this is called USA freedom ?
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
.tv is run on behalf of the Tuvalan Government by Versign, an US company. Most of the smaller ccTLDs are actually run on the backend by large US companies, you'd probably be better going for a ccTLD such as .ca, .au or .nz; i.e. countries of medium size with a reasonable court system.
I noticed, as from now, access to slashdot is being blocked from work thanks to those facebook buttons... Please, take 'em off !!!
To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.
If you supply a loaded sniper rifle and a set of instructions to a hitman you're an accessory to murder.
Unless you're a libertarian, in which case you're just exercising your right to free speech.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Isn't the best way to avoid confiscation to not infringe copyright?
Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated. All the ones that are confiscated are either openly infringing, or pretty damn close.
Spoken like a true American. Fuck Liberties.
If you don't approve of the law on copyright, you need to get it changed, you can't just ignore it then moan when you get sued for breaking it.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Example, you want to do target practice on your neighbors wall (it's a free country!) and your neighbor doesn't want to die or have walls riddled with holes. The government helps sort out who has the right to exclude whom.
Government is completely superfluous in that situation. The Common Law certainly recognizes property rights. Government just provides a means for communal retribution if your property rights are violated.
A legal system is meaningless without some way of enforcing laws, and if it's just rich/powerful/well-armed individuals doing the enforcing it's no longer a Common Law system.
It's the same when people talk about "natural rights". If all you've got as a society is people with the most guns doing what they want, your notional rights are irrelevant.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The only way is to not have anything to do with them. Don't buy their shit and don't copy their shit either. Even if you think that because you don't pay them and just watch or listen to some of their content that doesn't help them but in fact that still affects your thinking and if you should happen to stumble upon something you like, you couldn't share it with anyone (without promoting RIAA/MPAA which we don't want to do). Also, if you can't kick the habit, you'll never feel the need to think outside the box. You'll miss a whole universe of really cool stuff.
I did it. At first it felt strange deleting the fairly respectable collection I'd hoarded and to start 'just saying no' but after some time you started to feel about it like the transition to GNU/Linux. So clean and rewarding. And just like with free software, there's no going back from free culture. And you'll feel free, you don't need The Man for anything. There is a massive expanding universe of good, freely licensed stuff out there. You can start with http://libre.fm/ (music) and http://www.getmiro.com/ (music and movies). I'm sure other people have more suggestions as well.
The MAFIAA is an extremely harmful group to the society at large in so many ways outside the scope 99% of people think of as their jurisdiction. They're boldly taking away our most basic human rights to perpetuate their outdated business model based on artificial scarcity. They must be killed before they do it to our way of life.
suggest that some semblance of real Democracy should be a concern, and you will attract their attention.
Oh, just fuck off, what has downloading something for free got to do with democracy?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
All governments are cocksuckers (History 101). The best you can hope for is lots of "honeymoon periods" when one type is overtaken/overthrown by another. Even then it can be personally bloody.
Yes, it's always best living through a revolution. Such fun!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, it's always best living through a revolution. Such fun!
Yep - as long as you're on the right end of the pitchfork that's as good as it ever gets for the majority of people, throughout the majority of history. Unless you believe all of history has (and will be) the same as that short period between the Black Death and now.
The .lu domain is one of the world's securest top-level domains (TLD). That is the conclusion of an annual survey by US security software company McAfee. Luxembourg ranks on the 2nd position among the 27 EU countries, just behind Ireland. Luxembourg domain is 4th among worldwide country domains tested, where Japan (.jp) is the safest country domain globally, Ireland's .ie domain came second, followed by Croatia (.hr) and Luxembourg (.lu). McAfee checked out more than 5.750 .lu websites to arrive at the rating. Cameroon (cm) is the least secure domain worldwide. The risk of being infected by a computer virus when surfing is 69,7 percent when visiting a website from Cameroon (.cm). In Luxembourg, by contrast, it is only 0,3 percent. Of all the websites tested worldwide, 5.8 percent are rated as insecure. .lu in the upper part of the worldwide security level", said Antoine Barthel, managing director of RESTENA Foundation which operates the .lu registry DNS-LU. "McAfee's findings confirm that our continuous efforts and investments to make the .lu domain one of the most secure produce outstanding performances".
"It is reassuring to see
www.dns-stock.com
Well I'm just a poor old guy that don't know much anyhow.
A legal system is meaningless without some way of enforcing laws, and if it's just rich/powerful/well-armed individuals doing the enforcing it's no longer a Common Law system.
Yes, but government is only one form of those guards, one that doesn't work so well (perhaps because it's the violent option). There are other ways.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
And do some research to find out what domain-stealing possibilities exist that are not listed on the contract. Who can put political and/or financial pressure on the registry operator? And who can put pressure on those people? At the top levels, are the political leaders of the country the registry operators operate in able to hold their own in international politics, or are they signatories of any international agreements the US (or any of its allies past or present) has created or been heavily involved in pushing?
Tonga is another tiny island nation - .to - but the registry has a...
TONGA! TONGA!