GoDaddy Backs SOPA

redletterdave writes "Website hosting company GoDaddy has officially voiced its support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) Bill in 2012, which is designed to thwart movie and music piracy on the Internet by empowering copyright holders to effectively shut down websites or online services found with infringing material. If passed, the U.S. government could blacklist any website it deems in violation of copyright, which could range from a few posts in a Web forum to a few links sent in an e-mail. GoDaddy supports SOPA for 'protecting the intellectual property of hard-working Americans, U.S. business and the American public from the harm that necessarily flows from the purchase of counterfeit products.' Yet, of the 142 companies that support the SOPA bill, GoDaddy is the only Internet company on the list."

Comments

Re:So it must be time

[Lexx Greatrex]

Namecheap. They currently have a coupon code SOPASUCKS for domain transfers.

I can happily confirm that all of my godaddy domains have been successfully transferred to namecheap (eNom) without any noticable downtime. The geeks have spoken.

NSOL's SRS Plus

[jbov]

For anyone managing a large amount of domains, an SRS Plus partner account from Network Solutions would be the way to go. There are two benefits:
1) The prices are cheaper.
2) They are not GoDaddy


With a partner account you have access to change contact information, DNS servers, request auth codes, etc...

Oh, and like xombo said about internet.bs below, SRS Plus also has an API.

Re:GoDaddy

[AngryDeuce]

I started boycotting GoDaddy earlier this year when their CEO, Bob Parsons, went to Africa to get his rocks off killing an elephant for sport.

And no, I'm not anti-hunting, but I am anti-hunting endangered animals, especially if there is no cultural norms involved, and I am definitely anti-hunting if your sole motivation is just to kill something for fun.

Re:GoDaddy

[cybernanga]

While elephants are endangered globally, they are not always endangered locally if you see what I mean.

Some areas of Africa, have good conservation and wildlife management programs, and actually have too many elephants for their local environment to support. The funds they pull in from rich foreigners who want to kill something for fun, are used to sustain the management programs.

Supposedly they could move the elephants to areas where they are low in numbers, but this is not always sensible. Firstly, it costs money, which they don't have much of. Secondly, there is a reason why some areas have low elephant populations, usually lack of management programs or high numbers of poachers, in which case moving elephants to that location is non-productive, as they will be killed by poachers.

I know it is counter-intuitive, but sometimes killing elephants for fun, actually helps the elephant population to survive.

One way of looking at it, is that sport hunting attaches a monetary value to an elephant, turning it into an asset for people to whom an elephant is usually a liability. (They destroy crops, and large areas of vegetation). People tend to look after their assets.