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?"

Comments

Best domain not to get stolen:

[Anonymous Coward]

.onion

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[North Korea]

I really wouldn't couldn't on TOR, especially considering that it's mostly US project intended to act against Iran. In paper it's a nice project - no, it's a great project.. but, the main reason for the existence of TOR is that it helps US to spy on Iran. And this isn't some tinfoil hat stuff either, it has been written on paper several times.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Anonymous Coward]

I can write 1+1=3 on paper thousands of times and it doesn't make it right. It's reputable sources which matter.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Omnifarious]

I know the people involved in writing Tor. And the EFF is involved in writing it. No, that's not what it's for. The people I know would be shouting that from the rooftops if the project they were working on had been turned to that purpose.

It might be that it has been used for that purpose because of some Iranians being incautious about how they're using Tor. Tor isn't magic, and you can destroy your anonymity while using it fairly easily.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[maxwell demon]

If a reputable source (like a math textbook) writes 1+1=3, it's still not correct.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Actually, I do RTFA]

know the people involved in writing Tor. And the EFF is involved in writing it. No, that's not what it's for.... It might be that it has been used for that purpose because of some Iranians being incautious about how they're using Tor.

The GP was talking about allowing people in Iran who wanted to communicate with the outside world to do so. It is most certainly what TOR was developed for.

And the US Navy was also involved in writing it.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Bucky24]

1+1=3 for very large values of 1

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Anonymous Coward]

1+1=10

What the hell is 3?

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Pseudonym Authority]

I see your using base 10. We use base 10 around these parts.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[jellomizer]

If we take 1 as a string "1" and the + for standard string concatenation
When entered "1"+"1" we get a string of "11"
And in binary 11 = 3. So in the right context 1+1=3

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I can write 1+1=3 on paper thousands of times and it doesn't make it right. It's reputable sources which matter.

I can write "US Navy and NSA" on a piece paper many times.. oh wait, it's already been done - what's these "funding" and "project" heading things mean? (duh). Your demand to be spoon-fed doesn't make you smart. Smug, stupid, and lazy - but not smart.

I can also write "everyone's opinions are equally valid" - but then I'd be a moron like you. Enjoy your opinion - you clearly deserve it.

The rest of the evolving planet thanks you for reminding us of the standards we are trying to raise.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[garyebickford]

Nicely done! :)

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[RoFLKOPTr]

I see your using base 10. We use base 10 around these parts.

Oh wow. I've never thought about that before. Clever.

Re:Best domain not to get stolen:

[nobodie]

Actually TOR was developed by/for the FaLunGong group to get around the Chinese firewall and allow them to communicate/ share data across the firewall. It has proved valuable against the Iranian firewall as well, but it also is still the baby of FaLunGong.

niggerland

[Anonymous Coward]

.nggr

Re:niggerland

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it. Why do posts that say NIGGER always get modded -1 on this site?

Re:niggerland

[JockTroll]

You wouldn't understand. It's a nigger thing.

It can't just be me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Nadaka]

To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy. Many of the seized sites never made a copy.

Re:It can't just be me

[gerumato]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[cheekyjohnson]

You can trust that the government won't confiscate any other domains because, well, they're the government! Who doesn't trust them?

Re:It can't just be me

[Desler]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Tsingi]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Tsingi]

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?

Re:It can't just be me

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:It can't just be me

[cheekyjohnson]

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?

Re:It can't just be me

[meerling]

First of all, no. Second, in practice it really only takes an accusation of infringement, not actual proof.

Re:It can't just be me

[geekprime]

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

Re:It can't just be me

[robot256]

I think I don't want to burden the government with the hassle of processing my tax dollars.

Re:It can't just be me

[gumbi west]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[geminidomino]

USA != PRC

Don't tell us, tell them!

Re:It can't just be me

[andymadigan]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Stellian]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[tomhudson]

The burden of proving that their website didn't have copyrighted content on it is on the person whose domain was confiscated.

Since when is it "guilty until proven innocent?" Ah, right kompade Amepikan ...

Re:It can't just be me

[EvilBudMan]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[thecatt]

Whoosh!

Re:It can't just be me

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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...

Re:It can't just be me

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[tehcyder]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[tehcyder]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[tehcyder]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[tehcyder]

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?

Re:It can't just be me

[tehcyder]

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!

Re:It can't just be me

[Demonoid-Penguin]

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.

Re:It can't just be me

[EvilBudMan]

Well I'm just a poor old guy that don't know much anyhow.

Re:It can't just be me

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

.onion

[TheCarp]

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.

Re:.onion

[Arancaytar]

.onion +1

Other than that, domains in alternate TLDs registered with OpenNIC.

Re:.onion

[TheCarp]

OH I get that, its just, I have no faith in any system that isn't well protected from it's association with a physical location in terms of being beyond the reach of major national governments, and particularly that of the Team America Police Force (fuck yeah!). If they want to get to your registrar bad enough, they will find a way. Best to trust a registrar that can't be bought and doesn't exist in only one place.

I, personally, favor abandoning traditional DNS in favor of alternatives like the .onion or, when they become operational, decentralized models like bitdns (not sure if that ever went anywhere) idea.

Without such things, the idea of a TLD that is beyond US thugs ability to take down is non-sequitor. Of course they can be taken down, it just requires the right pressure, and they have no scruples about turning the screws...especially if they can farm it out to someone else to do the actual screw turning.

Re:.onion

[GameboyRMH]

.onion is the most resilient but probably the least convenient. If it's for l33t haxx0r stuff then have at it - in fact I'd recommend hosting the site through an .onion and using a "mainstream" domain as a proxy to it (like your own personal tor2web) if you're worried about it being taken down, in any case, and it gives you a ready-made emergency failover solution.

The .cn domains actually seem to be pretty resilient, I think that was Wikileaks' only domain that was never taken offline.

Re:.onion

[Kalriath]

Uh no, it was the .ch that survived. That's Switzerland.

Re:.onion

[mordur]

wikileaks.is has never been taken down. And it never will, if this news item is to be believed,

https://www.isnic.is/en/news/view?id=204

where ISNIC states that it will take a police officer carrying a court order from an Icelandic court. And those court orders are very, very hard to come by. In nearly 25 years of .is this has never happened.

Also, remember IMMI:

http://immi.is/

Iceland will hopefully be a safe haven for freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the very near future.. The parliament has passed the resolution and the legislation is in the making.

Re:.onion

[HopefulIntern]

Yes, Swiss, not Chinese lol

Swiss TLD is certainly a good choice, what with Switzerland being very independent, and often resilient to pressure from other countries.

Re:.onion

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Anguilla

First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[hedwards]

It's not a free speech issue. You're still free to say what you want, it's just that people have to locate you by IP address rather than domain name. A problem which really needs to be remedied.

As for the topic, none of the ones people use in a browser are going to be safe as long as ICANN is responsible ultimately.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[PPH]

How can you speak if you have no mouth, Mr. Anderson?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Paracelcus]

You have no rights!
Once more for emphasis, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!

And you can't sue the government, if you make too much noise you'll get a flight on a Paul Wellstone plane!

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[thePuck77]

No, the First Amendment means nothing. What are you, new?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[DrVxD]

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

I think it says a lot about dubya and the population that elected him ; I don't think it says much about the document itself (although Shitehouse sources claim that "it's soft, strong and very very long")

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dubya is long gone. I was told there would be change. What happened?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it says a lot about the general /. population that you'd accept such a claim about what someone said without checking to see whether it was TRUE or whether it was FABRICATED.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[c6gunner]

You have no rights!

Move to Saudi Arabia. They'll give you all the rights you can buy.

Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.

When you get to Saudi Arabia, learn to fact-check.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[the_saint1138]

Fact check first... The "piece of paper" quote is phony.

As far as i can tell, this is the original article (it has been retracted): http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
FactCheck.org: http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah it doesn't seem that he ever said that (although it's easy to believe he did, considering the other things that came out of his mouth):

http://factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constitution-a-goddamned-piece-of-paper/

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[GameboyRMH]

There was a big change. The moment Obama was elected he changed from a liberal to a neoconservative.

"What a TWIST!" - M. Night Shyamalan

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

sources claim that "it's soft, strong and very very long"

But is it down to get some friction on?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Americano]

you'll get a flight on a Paul Wellstone plane!

So is a Wellstone plane a plane that is piloted by two borderline-incompetent pilots with a history of needing corrective reminders? Pilots who failed to maintain a safe airspeed and put the plane into an unrecoverable stall because they weren't paying attention to the instruments while looking for the airport that they were having difficulty finding under IFR flight? I don't see what incompetent pilots making a mistake have to do with a lawsuit against the government, perhaps you could explain this a little more, using facts and logic?

I think it says a lot that you appear to believe the tripe you're spewing. Let me guess: 9/11 was also an inside job, and the Illuminati control all the world governments from the shadows?

from FactCheck:

The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers.

From Capitol Hill Blue:

I also let my prejudices get in the way. When some White House sources came to me with a story that claimed George W. Bush called the Constitution a “god damned piece of paper, I believed it without question because of my personal prejudices against Bush. I now believe I was wrong and that the incident never happened. The story in our database was modified to reflect my belief that I was lied to about the statement and I was wrong to print it.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah I'd be more concerned about being put on a torture taxi.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[wed128]

nope, he's still liberal. He's just been stiemied from doing too much damage, that's all.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[PoopMonkey]

He was never liberal. He's always been right of center. He's just closer to center than the others. Someone branded a democrat doesn't make them actually liberal.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the name of fuck does that help? "Go to Saudi Arabia / Somalia / some other shithole" is not a valid answer to the problems caused by the US government. But it sure is a popular one.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[c6gunner]

How in the name of fuck does that help?

It's not meant to be taken seriously. The only difference between my comment and his it that I was intentionally being silly, whereas he was actually trying to be serious.

Of course, I'd be a lot happier if people like him really did move, instead of clogging up the intertubes with pointless bitching about how their horrible nation doesn't let them do anything. Unfortunately it's not likely to happen. So I figure mocking them is the next best thing. If the only response they get is laughter and mockery, maybe they'll go mutter to themselves in a corner and let the rest of us have productive discussions.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[tehcyder]

How can you speak if you have no mouth, Mr. Anderson?

Yes, stopping me from copying stuff that doesn't belong to me is such a fundamental infringement offree speech it's like cutting out my tongue and sewing my mouth shut.

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[tehcyder]

How in the name of fuck does that help? "Go to Saudi Arabia / Somalia / some other shithole" is not a valid answer to the problems caused by the US government. But it sure is a popular one.

I disagree. Once people move beyond detailed criticism of the current government to saying "all governments are wrong, and are in fact the most evil thing that can happen to a society" it is a perfectly legitimate response to say "go and live in Somalia then and see how much you enjoy having no effective government at all".

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[PPH]

Boy, do they have you drooling at their dinner bell.

Neither this thread nor the article I replied to have anything to do with copyright infringement. But they sure want people to believe that this is what its all about. And how they need an unfettered ability to shut down anything, anytime. To protect copyrights. Not to pull the plug on WikiLeaks, for example.

Because social order as we know it will collapse if someone rips a few Lady Gaga tracks. Right?

Re:First Amendment mean nothing?

[GameboyRMH]

That's a totally valid argument to make from his voting history, but he did advertise himself as a liberal during his campaign (even if he never really was one).

Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free, home of the brave! (If you still buy that, you must really be a Believer.)

Contributory or vicarious infringement

[tepples]

To infringe copyright, you actually have to make a copy.

Is this also true of contributorily infringing copyright or vicariously infringing copyright?

Re:Contributory or vicarious infringement

[gmuslera]

What about sites where users/visitors can put content? What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere or your domain confiscated?

Does not matter

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:Does not matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not quite correct. The US Govt. would require the AUTHORITATIVE name server to redirect, which is why the usual .com, .net etc are vulnerable. By switching your TLD to .tv for example, your authoritative name server is outside of US jurisdiction.

Link to a brief but informative DNS primer: http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/support/dns_history.html

Re:Does not matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not quite correct. The US Govt. would require the AUTHORITATIVE name server to redirect, which is why the usual .com, .net etc are vulnerable. By switching your TLD to .tv for example, your authoritative name server is outside of US jurisdiction.

Link to a brief but informative DNS primer: http://www.comodo.com/secure-dns/support/dns_history.html

Still not quThey did actually also seize a .TV domain - keep in mind that the .TV registry is operated by Verisign, a company located in the US. http://movies-links.tv/

Also the root servers are sourced from the US at the moment, so in theory (as Kevin from Unrest.ca pointed out) there could be an override line be entered for any ccTLD.

Re:Does not matter

[Kalriath]

They'd have to hijack the entire TLD to achieve it though.

Re:Does not matter

[garyebickford]

Wasn't it last year when a router 'configuration error' resulted in something like 20% of all DNS requests being routed through a Chinese DNS server? Any upstream DNS server has a de facto capability to reroute any domain to any place desired. No, it's not legal, and not according to the RFCs but hey. Your cable provider could do it, and so could the root servers. Do they? I don't know.

Does it matter?

[sohmc]

If the server is on US Soil, can't they just confiscate the rack or demand that the data center remove the site?

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

who says the server is on us soil? most knowledgeable people know better than to buy a server in the us. netherlands ftw.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

To do that, they need to do troublesome things like get a warrant. Domains aren't property (except when they are), so the US can confiscate them at will without having to provide any real reason for suspicion.

Re:Does it matter?

[Sloppy]

And what if the server isn't on US soil?

But let's say it is.

Confiscating a rack actually requires effort, manpower, expense. If a few guys have to go over to the data center, there is a reasonable chance that at least somebody might stop and check to see that what they're doing makes sense. ("Hey guys, this piece of paper says whitehouse.com; I'm not sure we should be pulling the plug on this computer that has a posit note on it, saying whitehouse.gov.") There will be witnesses at the data center. There will be more documentation. There won't be due process as we normally think of it, but at least there's a process of some sort, and our bizarre seizure laws are something that the public at least has the theoretical ability to lobby for change.

Subverting DNS requires a button click, can be done accidentally, and can be done by anyone who finds flaws in the authentication system. Some day your .com domain may go offline via the government's censorship mechanism, simply because some script kiddie wanted to show off that he could do it, not because you embarrassed the government.

Requiring physical action improves security. It filters out less-committed adversaries (and there's a countless horde of those out there on the internet) and creates more opportunities to detect errors.

Re:Does it matter?

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm seriously looking: I could use some ISP's (as well) in germany or holland or maybe sweden (?) to host the content as well as be the registrar. any tips on ISP's that are going to offer reasonable pkgs for small businesses (ordering, shopping cart, some static content, some update/blog stuff, some user forum stuff; you know, the usual small company-with-a-product kind of website who enjoys that format of customer support and dialog).

but I don't want it US hosted. the US has lost its 'rating' in my view and I'd like to go outside for a bit more insulation.

TIA.

Re:Does it matter?

[jtara]

Confiscating the rack doesn't make the site go away. You could just set up shop at another hosting provider. They have to confiscate the domain to make sure the site doesn't pop back up. So, the only way it can pop back up is on a different domain name or with just an IP address. Either way, it will be difficult for people to find the replacement.

Re:Does it matter?

[GameboyRMH]

Or host on an .onion site and use the domain as a proxy. Boom, untraceable hosting.

Re:Does it matter?

[sohmc]

I guess that does make the difference: physical manpower and cost verses a computer button.

It's the same argument I here for allowing the police to put a GPS device in your car. Yeah, they could spend the manpower to follow your car but they make it cheaper by just putting the GPS device on your car.

I've seen various jurisdictions on both sides of the fence. At some point, we as a people are going to be okay with zero privacy. I hope this point is after I'm dead.

Re:Does it matter?

[Bucky24]

I agree. I've been in data centers before. It's hell to get into some of them even if you DO have clearance. My favorite requires a biometric scan and a keycode to get into the lobby (though security can let you in in special cases, like if you need to get your hand scanned and have an appointment set up), another scan + keycode to get into an airlock type room (and another scan to get out of it), then a scan to get into your data center room, and ANOTHER key on the server cabinet itself. There is an override to the cabinet that the data center themselves keep on hand, but I don't think they would give it out without a court order. Hell I doubt anyone trying to just confiscate a server would even get into the airlock. It would honestly be simpler to just order the data center to cut internet access but I don't think that would be easy either.

Re:Does it matter?

[i.r.id10t]

Unless you didn't use a domain name, and just published by ip address from the beginning...

How do I avoid copying?

[tepples]

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?

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Desler]

And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation Needed.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[ByOhTek]

Rather than saying citation needed on something like this, why not show *ONE* case of the opposite?

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proving a negative is usually pretty difficult. If none have been seized, there wouldn't be a story about it. If you happen to have one, please feel free to post it though.

Mij

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[tepples]

Start with Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Desler]

It's posting a "citation needed" as ac the best comeback you got tepples?

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Anonymous Coward]

While not a domain confiscation, there have been instances of mistaken DMCA takedown notices from the *AA companies. It's not really being paranoid to worry that mistakes like that would result in mistaken domain seizures now that copyright holders have that recourse.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[PIBM]

You should look around, even in this slashdot threads, there are a lot of cases where it's not clear cut, and you can find one sample here, as in geekprime post (10 minutes before your post, we can accept that you had not been aware of those cases if you never stumbled on them)

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 [techdirt.com]

From the page
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110906/15132515831/puerto-80-responds-forcefully-to-dojs-claims-concerning-domain-seizures.shtml [techdirt.com]

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[ArhcAngel]

Yeah but let's say the internet had been around while Ray Parker Jr. was still writing and recording songs...

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[ByOhTek]

That is not only not a domain confiscation, that's not even the government. It's a misuse of the courts/legal system on par with a SLAPP, and something rather different. Yes mistakes happen, yes there is some worry.

However, my problem with the "citation needed" comment, is it often very hard to impossible to find a reputable "none have existed" source, without pointing to *every* example where it could happen. In particularly large data sets, this isn't even terribly useful.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[nabsltd]

And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.

True, but some sites were shut down because they had downloads of music that were sent to the site by the record companies for promotion of the music.

Unfortunately, the lawyers don't bother talking to the promotion people.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[GPLHost-Thomas]

Sure, no problem! The AMEN BEAT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

The record industry is full of such things. As a more recent example, ever heard about "girl's talk", which does some mash-ups? Would you say that his work isn't creation? That's what the record industry thinks, and of course, I don't share that point of view.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Kalriath]

Viacom's done that several times to themselves on Youtube. In fact, Viacom once got their own Youtube account banned for getting too many takedowns from Viacom.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

And how many sites were actually shutdown for that reason? Oh right, none of them.

True, but some sites were shut down because they had downloads of music that were sent to the site by the record companies for promotion of the music.

Unfortunately, the lawyers don't bother talking to the promotion people.

Um, maybe they do, and maybe Marketing thought the whole thing was a good idea.

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[tehcyder]

Yeah but let's say the internet had been around while Ray Parker Jr. was still writing and recording songs...

I don't see what your point is. Ray Parker Jr was sued for copying a song and lost. If the ripped-off Ghostbusters theme had been put on a web site why shouldn't they be forced to remove it? Couldn't you get an injunction to prevent sales of a record that was blatantly copied from your own?

Re:How do I avoid copying?

[ArhcAngel]

I don't see what your point is.

Perhaps had you read the thread it might have been clearer.

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?

Ray's defense was he did it subconsciously which is plausible since I didn't make the connection at the time until it was pointed out to me and I liked both songs. Yes Huey Lewis sued and won but in today's society all he would need to do is send a takedown notice to get the song pulled. No court needed. circumvention of justice accomplished.

well...

[grub]

I started being partial to .cx soon after starting to read slashdot. No idea why...

Re:well...

[dalias]

And look what happened to that site's domain....

Re:well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that goatse.cx (.cx is Christmas Island) was taken down after offended people kept emailing them to complain about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx#Domain_suspension_and_sale_of_domain_name). That's just one jpeg offending people which wasn't even illegal. I think any TLD that gets pressure from American Government Organisations will bow to that pressure -- regardless if it's the right thing to do or not.

Invisible Internet Project

[gellenburg]

.I2P

http://www.i2p2.de/

Not sure.

[mfh]

Like, if you have a normal website with normal website crap, it's not going to be confiscated.

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?

Perhaps with IPv6...

[seanmcelroy]

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.

Re:Perhaps with IPv6...

[usmc4o66]

Doing this would break the system of distributing sub-networks based on geographic/network location. Breaking it would negate one of the points of IPv6: Smaller routing tables at the carrier level.

Re:Perhaps with IPv6...

[seanmcelroy]

Completely agreed, the suggestion was in jest. :)

Re:Perhaps with IPv6...

[Anonymous Coward]

so deadbeef? or cafebabe?

Re:Perhaps with IPv6...

[johny42]

How about just create domain names using letters A through F and get creative with IPv6 hexadecimal abbreviated addresses. ;)

I need to friend you on faceb00c::

Content is what matters

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Don't underestimate the US government

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Odd as it may sound

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Odd as it may sound

[nullchar]

But then you're at the whim of The People's Republic. Even Go Daddy is no longer a registrar for .cn domains after last December's registry rule change (which caught all registrars by surprise).

Re:Odd as it may sound

[IgnoramusMaximus]

It's kinda hard to stand up against the schoolyard bully if everyone's sucking up to him so they don't get beaten.

So your solution is to go suck up to the competing runner-up schoolyard bully?

Re:Odd as it may sound

[Bucky24]

If the competing schoolyard bully doesn't care about you smuggling crayons (I know it's a weak analogy but it's been ages since I've been to middle school) then you do. If you're gonna get beat up anyway might as well pick the lesser evil. Heh... Kinda funny to consider china as the lesser evil, but as far as copyright violations are concerned....

Re:Odd as it may sound

[Dachannien]

Actually, PRC is always looking for ways they can mollify the US government in terms of fair trade and intellectual property without actually having any downsides for themselves. Turning over .cn domain names that point to services not run by government-run entities or Chinese nationals would be a juicy target for that purpose.

Re:Odd as it may sound

[SomeStupidNickName12]

Not funny, rather sad - shows you how screwed peoples priorities are when they believe that compare to the US China is the less of the two evils.

Re:Odd as it may sound

[Opportunist]

Hey, that bully just doesn't want me to talk back, but he doesn't care that I copy the homework. For some odd reason the other bully doesn't want me to do that, I think he has some sort of deal with the teacher.

Re:Odd as it may sound

[Opportunist]

Depends on what you want, free speech or free Hollywood blockbusters.

Judging by the way people act ... I guess most would prefer China over the US...

And THIS is sad!

content

[nnet]

What content are you going to offer that you feel may be subject to American censorship?

Re:content

[TheGratefulNet]

that's not the question.

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'. haven't you been paying attention to how foul our laws have gone?

what's safe today may not be safe tomorrow. its wise to assume the US is hostile to free and open internet communication. essentially, this is the root of the problem and we have lost our trust from the world by our own bad behavior. I LIVE HERE and I don't trust us, fwiw.

Re:content

[ScentCone]

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'

If by "anything," you mean "domains used by web sites that are set up explicitly to rip off other people's works, conduct fraudulent transactions involving counterfeit designer goods, fake drugs, and identity theft... then, sure. Because that's all that's been involved in such actions. Thousands of web sites ranting about the government and spewing every sort of ugliness are left unmolested because - odious as they are, it's free speech. Committing actual crimes isn't protected by the first amendment. So, what sort of crime were you planning to conduct using free and open communication?

Re:content

[DrVxD]

The truth?

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you didn't catch the part where they said "what's safe today may not be safe tomorrow".

Paranoid person is paranoid. News at 11.

If you don't want to help and only want to baselessly accuse people of crimes, go become a police officer. Otherwise, answer the damn question or keep your mouth shut.

Re:content

[cheekyjohnson]

We can trust the government with the power to confiscate domains because they're the government. Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right? They only get the big, bad criminals!

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Wow, way to tow the studio line there, Mr. "Artist"

Firstly, most of the recent ICE seizures are taken without any form of due process. As someone who seems to support the correct application of the law, perhaps you can provide for all of us uneducated village idiots a precedent under which the Department of Immigration is given the right to unlaterally sieze domains being used to break a domestic civil law without a hearing or any procedure for appeal, even after the fact? Yanno who would support this? Not George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps Moussilini. Maybe Hitler. Sounds like something Kim Jong I'll might support as well. Yeah, way to go "freedom"

Second, only one seizure in 4 has EVER been shown to contain ANY infrengine content. Wanna know what awful dangers have been cleansed from the internet? How about 819 cooking blogs? We certainly don't want our children being taught how to eat healthy food, do we? And thank god we took down those 484 shopping blogs. God forbid we allow the purchasing of clothing and shoes to be well informed! This is EXACTLY why we have due process. To avoid collateral damage. Even if you support use of ICE to enforce CIVIL law, you have to admit it should be done in a much more ACCURATE manner. But the government doesn't do accurate, it does "en mass"

So no, this is bullcrap. Whether or not the OP is intending to post infringing content is not the issue here. Who knows, maybe he's trying to start a wikileaks competitor and lives within the US, thus needing a foreign host to protect himself? After all, nobody has ever held evidence of misdeeds by then government and just "disappeared" have they? The question is what OP can use to achieve his goal. Either answer him, or take your misguided blind support of every word exiting Uncle Sam's mouth elsewhere.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Thousands of web sites ranting about the government and spewing every sort of ugliness are left unmolested because - odious as they are, it's free speech.

and as the GP said, just because that's true today doesn't mean it will be true tomorrow.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you don't have to actually break the law. You just have to annoy somebody into saying that you broke the law. Like the hip-hop blog that was taken offline: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101222/02112912376/more-bigger-mistakes-discovered-homeland-securitys-domain-seizures.shtml

Or heck, maybe you didn't annoy them, maybe they just misspelled somebody else's domain name and took down yours instead. I have no doubt this could happen, and it's clear you'd have little to no recourse if it did, even if it cost you thousands in lost business and reputation.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

> What content are you going to offer that you feel may be subject to American censorship?

Anything.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that's all presuming that all laws are just and all crimes should be criminal.

Re:content

[barv]

Ask Julian Assange. He was the second victim after copyrights. Probably real original reason that any seizures happened.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that competes or disagrees with one friend of one congressman. I.e. pretty much anything.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is, the US thinks linking to a criminal website is a crime.

mere linking should be considered free speech, but in the US there's really no such thing.

Re:content

[ScentCone]

answer the damn question or keep your mouth shut

I'm sorry you're so rhetorically impaired that you can't understand that an honest question wasn't asked, any my question in return served to point that out. Excellent discourse on your part, though.

Re:content

[ScentCone]

Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right?

I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.

Your local police have probably mis-handled at least one 911 call, too. I would recommend that you disband your local PD, since they can't be trusted. Better to have no police to take care of armed robbers, rapists, burglars, con artists and the rest than run the risk that they might make a judgement call you don't like somewhere along the way.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'

If by "anything," you mean "domains used by web sites that are set up explicitly to rip off other people's works, conduct fraudulent transactions involving counterfeit designer goods, fake drugs, and identity theft... then, sure. Because that's all that's been involved in such actions. Thousands of web sites ranting about the government and spewing every sort of ugliness are left unmolested because - odious as they are, it's free speech. Committing actual crimes isn't protected by the first amendment. So, what sort of crime were you planning to conduct using free and open communication?

You are either really ignorant or you are a right-wing nut job.

Re:content

[Anonymous Coward]

ANYTHING can be viewed as a take-down 'reason'

If by "anything," you mean "domains used by web sites that are set up explicitly to rip off other people's works, conduct fraudulent transactions involving counterfeit designer goods, fake drugs, and identity theft... then, sure.

Well those might have been the reasons stated, but was there a fair trial in convicting these entities of these accusations? If not then yes, anything. Seizing someone's property is supposed to only happen with a court order, to avoid it happening for false accusations.

Re:content

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Surely they couldn't ever do anything wrong, right?

I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc. Your local police have probably mis-handled at least one 911 call, too. I would recommend that you disband your local PD, since they can't be trusted. Better to have no police to take care of armed robbers, rapists, burglars, con artists and the rest than run the risk that they might make a judgement call you don't like somewhere along the way.

I suppose a sensible middle ground is completely out of the question? Or do you have an agenda/mental problem that prevents that possibility?

Re:content

[ScentCone]

I suppose a sensible middle ground is completely out of the question?

Why are you asking me? I think that the government's ability to shut down domains used by criminals is perfectly reasonable, and fits precisely in that middle ground. The paranoids are the ones you need to scold.

Re:content

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I suppose a sensible middle ground is completely out of the question?

Why are you asking me? I think that the government's ability to shut down domains used by criminals is perfectly reasonable, and fits precisely in that middle ground. The paranoids are the ones you need to scold.

It's the phrasing... (and there's no point scolding nutters or people intent on criminality)

I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.

I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the "we shut you down until you demonstrate we shouldn't have". It might not be what you meant - but it's how I read it. Your normally rational, reasonable response sounds fascist.

Yes - if the government fails to meet the standards or evidence or due process, and or affects the activities of people who aren't in the wrong - then "fruit of the poison tree". That's what I call a middle ground.

The government should be able to shut down crime - but not without applying the same standards that apply in the phsyical domain (eg - one shop sells stolen merchandise - don't lock down the mall). The problem is that it doesn't seem many people are saying that - it's either "the government is doing the right thing" or "it's an injustice to interfere in anyway with the tubes". So far the government side has been anything but the middle ground.

Re:content

[cheekyjohnson]

I see. So because not everything is done right, the government should have no power to shut down conterfeit operations, smugglers, scam outfits, etc.

No, but before being able to confiscate a domain, I think a court case is in order. As someone else said, it is absolutely trivial for them to take down websites. Not so much for physically having to do it. By requiring that they go through the proper procedures, you decrease the chances of this happening.

Re:content

[cheekyjohnson]

And I didn't mean to imply that there is some absolutely perfect solution out there. I just meant that I want to decrease the chances of abuse by making the act of confiscating domains more difficult (by requiring due process).

Double-gotcha

[billcopc]

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.

Re:Double-gotcha

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Informative

Re:Double-gotcha

[silas_moeckel]

And .cn all ready has more USD than it realy wants. Right now it's your best bet for not caring what the US wants.

Re:Double-gotcha

[Anonymous Coward]

That, or find a way to seize control of communications.

I'm just saying.

Re:Double-gotcha

[IgnoramusMaximus]

And .cn all ready has more USD than it realy wants. Right now it's your best bet for not caring what the US wants.

And then the only thing you have to worry about is what .cn wants! A mere humble requirement of photo ID, address, bank account numbers and a pledge of eternal obedience(1) of everyone who wants a .cn domain...

(1) so far only they got as far as photo ID and address (which caused nearly all non-Chinese registrars to stop selling .cn domains) but the hour is young yet.

Re:Double-gotcha

[Geminii]

Bribe some bland yet charismatic young senator with so much money that they are able to win the Presidency. Stuff the US Congress with paid tools of your own devising. Pass a law to squash the *AA very messily.

OCILLA

[tepples]

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.

Re:OCILLA

[trum4n]

Cause the safe harbor thing works for torrent sites....right? NOPE. Government does as they please.

Re:OCILLA

[nabsltd]

What dream world do you live in? First, your understanding of the law is flawed. A takedown request is not required before a lawsuit can be filed, and you can still be liable for copyright infringement. Righthaven started many lawsuits over copyright infringement without any DMCA takedown request preceding the lawsuits. Once you're sued, you have to spend time and money to respond. 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.

Likewise, just because a site has user-created content and responds to takedown requests doesn't mean they won't get sued. YouTube and various file lockers are in the middle of lawsuits even though they comply with the law.

Last, if you haven't been watching, the domain seizures by ICE happen to sites without any warning of any kind (no takedown request, no lawsuit, etc). And, they also happen to sites who are legal in their own countries, with the only connection to the US is that they use a TLD that is controlled by a US company.

Just use NameCoin

[brian0918]

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.

Re:Just use NameCoin

[eht]

Huh, when I go to dot-bit.bit I get server not found, just like the more than 99% of the population that won't be manually adding the dot-bit nameservers to their DNS. If this was the answer, he would just run his own home DNS and tell everyone wanting info from him to add that.

Re:Just use NameCoin

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Can you pay for registration in bitcoins?

Re:Just use NameCoin

[Anonymous Coward]

It cannot be confiscated unless the entire p2p DNS network is shut down.

From their website:

Number of public DNS servers : 2

I don't think that shutting it down would be a problem for any given government for quite some time...

Re:Just use NameCoin

[godofpumpkins]

You can exchange bitcoins for namecoins (there are a few exchanges that allow this) and then spend your namecoins to register the name.

ME

[H0bb3z]

Demonoid.com moved themselves over to Demonoid.me precisely for this purpose...

Re:.cx

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the goats, see?

As many have mentioned

[Anonymous Coward]

There are various P2P based DNS and TLD systems out there, be it Tor network, I2P or others.
These systems have various ways of letting you host content, such as having a .onion hidden site, or an eepsite page on I2P.
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.

.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registry

[nullchar]

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.

OpenDNS

[Nom du Keyboard]

Does OpenDNS need to obey government seizure demands, or can they list whomever they want directed to whatever IP address they feel is correct?

Re:OpenDNS

[GameboyRMH]

They can do whatever they want...until the US government gets pissed at them.

Re:OpenDNS

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean can they return the wrong result for your DNS request? Yes, yes they can. And do. This is why friends don't let friends use OpenDNS.

.vu

[Anonymous Coward]

Vanuatu.
Inhouse pharmacy had its .com confiscated, and continues to have a presence on .vu and .biz

DNS is a middleman

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

no domain

[mr100percent]

Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?

Re:no domain

[Skapare]

And go for IPv6 addresses. The MAFIAA probably doesn't even know what IPv6 is, yet.

Re:no domain

[Megane]

...and if you have to move to a different IP address, just post the new address on slashdot!

Re:no domain

[networkBoy]

I have one static/unshared IP at my ISP for this reason. I can serve content from it no matter what. They have a TOS, and they enforce it. I will play by those rules (no CP, no spam, that kind of stuff). But no one will take that server off-line. of course I don't really get all that much unsolicited traffic (which is fine by me), and I think Google severely demotes pagerank if you have no DNS entry.

Re:no domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?

Well, I think the general idea is that you may want to be able to move your servers from country to country as the political climate changes.

Re:no domain

[Kalriath]

Just get a direct portable allocation from an RIR.

Re:no domain

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with a domain name at all? Just use an IP address. Yes, unglamorous and looks uncredible, but it will stay up, right?

Until it's filtered at which time it cannot be easily changed.

Re:no domain

[HopefulIntern]

Nobody knows what IPv6 is. Still.

Re:no domain

[steelfood]

IP addresses change. If you move your non-existent torrent server from say, Ukraine to Russia, the IP will be different and nobody will be able to find it.

This is why people went with DNS in the first place.

Confiscation is such a nice word

[Quila]

Try theft, larceny, deprivation, mugging, etc.

Re:Confiscation is such a nice word

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, how dare we steal weapons from gang members that use them to commit crimes. Or for a less extreme example, steal computers from people like Mitnick for committing crimes.

You do something illegal, the authorities will take away the tools you use to commit said crime. Now, whether they are being 'nice' about it is a different story.

US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

'Nuff said.

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Anonymous Coward]

smart and intelligent people at the New York Times and Der Spiegel

Wake me up if they ever hire any.

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[imric]

ROFL you think THAT is a thread ending argument?

US government worker, are we?

In Soviet Russia, domain registers you!

[nkrzalic]

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.

Re:In Soviet Russia, domain registers you!

[Anonymous Coward]

.xn--p1ai, if you catch my drift.

My Recommendations

[Cito]

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.

Re:My Recommendations

[Anonymous Coward]

.info and .me are both operated and/or managed by Afilias, who should be treated the same as Verisign in terms of avoidance. That is, STAY AWAY!.

Regardless of how long some of these sites have been running or where they're hosted, they shouldn't be using these extensions, and they're pretty silly for doing so.

Re:My Recommendations

[HopefulIntern]

Which hosting company do you use?

Re:My Recommendations

[Cito]

I host at http://ecatel.net/ They ignore dmca requests, doesn't mean I can totally break laws, but they see links as just that, links... and not illegal so if I link to movies/or whatever they dont give a shit. Cause it's just a link they toss dmca's in the trash. but they aren't total anarchy :)

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Anonymous Coward]

"the US is the freest country in the world" [reference needed]

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[GameboyRMH]

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!

Precedents are trickling out

[tepples]

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.

Re:Precedents are trickling out

[nabsltd]

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.

That's not important. There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing, even if the content was posted by a user of the site and not the site operators.

Once the big wealthy targets win these lawsuits, the little guys can use the precedents.

If they can afford to, and they can convince a judge that their situation is exactly the same. Otherwise, prepare for a long and expensive battle.

That's being litigated.

No, it's not. The seizure has happened. What is being litigated is whether the US has to give it back. Regardless of the outcome, there won't be any legal fees awarded (since it's not a civil seizure). Maybe you can afford a couple of million just to fight to have a ".com" domain but I'd rather spend a few hundred dollars to get a relatively untouchable .me or .to domain. Note that this is especially important for companies based entirely in other countries. It is in their best interest to not have a TLD controlled by the US as their primary presence, because you never know what lobbyist will pay a congressman enough to get their domain pulled.

Re:Precedents are trickling out

[tepples]

There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing

If the copyright owner doesn't send the takedown notice before suing, the defense will be that the facts are close enough to those of Viacom v. YouTube. What part of "A service provider shall not be liable [...] for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider [participates in the takedown procedure]" am I missing, other than the fact that large companies will attempt barratry?

Re:Precedents are trickling out

[thecatt]

The part that ends with "expensive legal fees." Unfortunately, just having the law on your side isn't enough to prevail in the US legal system.

Re:Precedents are trickling out

[Teancum]

That's not important. There is still no requirement to send a takedown notice (or anything else) before suing, even if the content was posted by a user of the site and not the site operators.

There may not be a requirement to a takedown notice, but if one isn't made it can show bad faith on the part of the plaintiff in such a lawsuit that lesser measures weren't taken in the first place. This would be especially true if the infringement is relatively minor such as a couple photos out of hundreds of otherwise legal photos or related kinds of "intellectual property" that might be on the website or other medium which is being used to display the disputed content.

Certainly a judge would look at such a plaintiff as having a much higher bar to prove willful infringement and to a jury you could simply raise the lack of a takedown notice as a sign that the plaintiff really didn't care to negotiate in good faith or take any preliminary steps to enforce copyright in a reasonable fashion.

While not strictly necessary, a takedown notice is a pretty damn good idea and one that I would recommend to anybody trying to properly enforce copyright.... because it is cheap, usually effective in stopping infringement, establishes legal precedent that you in fact are enforcing copyright on that item, and continued infringement after the notice is prima fascia evidence that the defendant is a jerk (legally speaking with prettier words if you care for them). Essentially, it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate they have a legal right to the copyrighted content or forces the issue into if the content is even copyrightable (aka in the public domain or not or even who "owns" the content).

Basically, if you actually end up in a court room, having sent the takedown notice move the issues away from willful copyright infringement (those become incontestable legal facts instead... you either keep the content up or you take it down) and instead the arguments move to the copyright status of the content itself. If the ownership of the copyrighted material is quite clear, then the case is slam dunk and you've won even before you reach the courtroom as a plaintiff. If there is a dispute over the material, it is that dispute which is the focus of the trial where the plaintiff could even become liable if their copyright claim is weak or non existent.

Without the takedown notice, a judge and/or jury could simply treat the trial as a takedown notice with no award of damages. I'd love to see an IP attorney explain that one to a client where earlier they recommended against a takedown notice. A judicial warning of "next time, try the notice" would go a long way. The defendant would still be required to take down the content (this time as a judicial order instead of a takedown notice), but the end result would have been the same as if the notice had simply been sent.

BTW, I wouldn't necessarily quote Righthaven as an example of skilled attorneys that are effective in lawsuits. They have cut corners legally a few too many times and are getting judges to slap them down because of legal missteps and failure to even follow the law in many cases.

Re:Precedents are trickling out

[nabsltd]

Basically, if you actually end up in a court room, having sent the takedown notice move the issues away from willful copyright infringement (those become incontestable legal facts instead... you either keep the content up or you take it down) and instead the arguments move to the copyright status of the content itself.

Not even close.

If the response to the takedown notice is "it's fair use", then there are still lots of arguments that have nothing to do with who does or does not own the copyright. I know all the big media companies want to deny that fair use exists, but luckily they haven't come up with enough bribes to have that set into law.

BTW, I wouldn't necessarily quote Righthaven as an example of skilled attorneys that are effective in lawsuits.

Agree, but it could still cost you a great deal of money to fight a company who had lawyers that were just slightly more skilled and less stupid, even if you did eventually prevail.

NameCoin's .bit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google 'NameCoin' for info on the Bitcoin-Based TLD .bit

Private trackers

[Anonymous Coward]

bitgamer moved from .com to .su to avoid confiscation
what.cd doesn't seem to have a problem with .cd
several trackers are on .me

Re:.cx

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to explain the obvious, retard.

There is no due process

[Quila]

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.

OpenDNS is based in San Francisco

[grahamsaa]

Last I heard, that's under US jurisdiction.

Country Code vs. gTLD jurisdiction

[billstewart]

.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.

Re:Country Code vs. gTLD jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand what you're saying, but trademarks and UDRPs don't mean anything with the way the government has been seizing some domains. They've taken it to a whole new level, and due process doesn't mean jack if the government really wants to take you down.

If the domain is in the USA, move. If your hosting is in the USA, move. If the registrar, regardless of whether of not you're using a ccTLD, gTLD, etc., has any ties to Verisign or Afilias, or any other company with a presence in the USA that has shown they will bow down to government pressure, move.

Re:Country Code vs. gTLD jurisdiction

[Anonymous Coward]

.info and .me should be avoided. Period.

How domain names are presently being seized

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

.to

[xkocahete]

http://tonic.to/

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Bucky24]

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.

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Bucky24]

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.

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[Kalriath]

.ch - Switzerland, not .cn, China.

Iceland, IMMI, ISNIC and .is ccTLD

[mordur]

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.

Re:Iceland, IMMI, ISNIC and .is ccTLD

[Anonymous Coward]

This. My favorite host happens to be 1984Hosting, offers very friendly staff, and actually has a full English website.

Re:Iceland, IMMI, ISNIC and .is ccTLD

[Geminii]

Might be fun to set up a low profile Icelandic legal entity whose sole function is to automatically renew the domain and pay the associated fees for the next thirty years. Could really annoy someone who was screwing with your finances to try and prevent you paying the bill.

It'd make a fun scene in a story. "Actually, we can hold you for 48 hours without release - it's total coincidence that this timeframe will also prevent you from renewing your domain... unless you turn over all the information to US! Bwa ha ha! Wait - why are you not looking concerned?"

Re:US will and wont? LOL WUT

[boarder8925]

Believe it or not, the US is the freest country in the world.

Well, fuck.

At least you can find somewhere like here

[Solala]

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/

Re:.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registr

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

USA freedom fail

[luk3Z]

"Given the recent spate of domain seizures by the U.S. government, " Let me guess - this is called USA freedom ?

Actually .tv _IS_ vulnerable

[Anonymous Coward]

.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.

STOP THE FACEBOOK BUTTON

[lexa1979]

I noticed, as from now, access to slashdot is being blocked from work thanks to those facebook buttons... Please, take 'em off !!!

Re:stop the facebook button

[advid.net]

Did you tried to block it with NoScript ? Or AddBlock Plus ?
I don't have such buttons on /.
If your access is blocked between initial page load and page render, it may be a solution.

Re:stop the facebook button

[lexa1979]

Thanks for the tips, I'm going to finally try that NoScript thing !

Re:stop the facebook button

[lexa1979]

NoScript installed in Seamonkey, I didn't even bother to try to setup anything, and now it works !!!! and no more ads neither. Thanks again !!

To kill RIAA and MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

.LU

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
"It is reassuring to see .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".

www.dns-stock.com

Re:.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registr

[Geminii]

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?

Re:.to - Tonga, or other privacy-conscious registr

[Walter Carver]

Tonga is another tiny island nation - .to - but the registry has a...

TONGA! TONGA!