Domain seizures...

[kolaps]

Seems that domain seizures keep going on...

http://torrentfreak.com/us-resume-file-sharing-domain-seizures-110201/

Even domains with non-us registrars seem to be at risk..

Don't really understand the legal procedure behind that though..

Anybody understands?

Anyway, do you see any way to protect our websites against that?

As it's coming from the us, one may think that non-us domain names are better, like .eu, .in etc - but for how long?

At the same time some domains like thepiratebay are still up - maybe because they don't use domain privacy thing (all the domain i noticied had been taken down where using a domain privacy system)...

 

[Rocke]

The safest place of the battlefield are actually the most dangerous according to the strategic plan, which is BEHIND ENEMY LINES.

lol, I'm talking non-sense xD

no... really, as long as you're cooperative by complying to the DMCA or any copyright terms, you'll be alright even if you're hosted onshore.

There are many high rank warez sites hosted onshore; tehparadox, BayW, freshwap, mechoddl, platinumw, losslessalbums (etc) are some of them.

 

[delboy]

no... really, as long as you're cooperative by complying to the DMCA or any copyright terms, you'll be alright even if you're hosted onshore.

Sorry but that is a load of rubish, some of the sites confisated claim they where complying with dmca, e.g. removing stuff when they recived a notice, so i dont see how you can say with such certainty that someones domain will not be confiscated by complying with dmca.

Yes dmca has safe harbour previsions for internet service providers aslong as criteria is met, e.g. if you as a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer is liable for monetary damages and the service provider for which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.

This does not per say stop the usa confiscating your domain, just like Rojadirecta, which two spanish courts declared legal in spain where the company resides yet the usa still took the .org domain, which is why we should move to non-usa domains, .co.uk, .es etc.

Delboy

 

[kolaps]

The safest place of the battlefield are actually the most dangerous according to the strategic plan, which is BEHIND ENEMY LINES.

lol, I'm talking non-sense xD

That makes sense actually

This does not per say stop the usa confiscating your domain, just like Rojadirecta, which two spanish courts declared legal in spain where the company resides yet the usa still took the .org domain, which is why we should move to non-usa domains, .co.uk, .es etc.

Delboy

All those domain had private whois, that might be the reason (violation of icann rules) - as one of them had a non-us registrar & another one still have his prq.se dns servers, it seems like it's not played at the registrar level..

Anyway, moving to other zones will probably be a bit safer, but for how long? Hum...

 

[okone]

I'm gonna just start by saying that I don't believe it has anything to do with where you're hosted. You are defiantly not protected if you are hosted in the US. Regardless of whether you comply with dmca or not, they can still seize the domain.

Why? The US government has a lot of influence over ICANN, which controlls the internet domain root, for all tld's! So potentially, they can seize whatever they want, as seen with the recent case of tvshack.cc, formally a .net domain.

I would also further refute it has anything to do with Whois protection because well...read the god damn seizure notice!

 

[ShareShiz]

dont go with godaddy.

also. dont understand why US government is going after sites when in the past in court they are told they are doing everything legally.

the main question is....

Who owns the World Wide Web?

the answer is no one.

what the US is doing is completely retarded.

 

[Rocke]

delboy & okone, you're both right... but there are also still a lot of warez sites which had their domain hosted in the US but they still alive and kicking, I've named some of them.

There might be some kind of random stack of blacklist, and we're all bound to be noted...

 

[delboy]

Why? The US government has a lot of influence over ICANN, which controlls the internet domain root, for all tld's! So potentially, they can seize whatever they want, as seen with the recent case of tvshack.cc, formally a .net domain.

While this is in part true, that the us goverment does own a share in icann i believe it was verisign & Afilias that they are ordering to change name servers and lock respectively, Both USA companies, which could in theory mean that by using a domain which is not managed by a usa company e.g. a .co.uk domain, which is controlled by Nominet UK, their is less chance of it being confiscated.

Your example of .cc is slightly misleading becuase it is actually managed by VeriSign in disguise, therefore at this time, it would appear the only domains that have been confiscated are either managed by verisign or Afilias, which means if you bypass those and choose a .co.uk domain for example you should in theory be ok, becuase .co.uk is managed by a uk company (Nominet UK) it should come under uk law, the problem with the others is they are saying it comes under usa law becuase the tld is managed by a usa company, a very loose link which with two people sounding like they will challage in court it will hopefully be proved that this link is insufficent to seize domains.

Delboy

 

[kolaps]

Yeah but to me it's weird that they seize only whois protected domains, and i would think that as hiding one's name is against icann rules it's a reason to turn off the domain via verisign - else i can't explain why they didn't shut down tpb...

Or it's some kind or weird list, but if so why don't they choose the biggers?

I feel like there is something we don't understand / don't have enough information on...

 

[delboy]

Yeah but to me it's weird that they seize only whois protected domains

This is not true "torrent-finder.com" was seized and did not have whois protection, if Whois protection was simply not allowed im sure Icann would simply threaten the registrars with withdrawal of their icann approval, which would i believe would stop then selling domain without using a competing registar. (e.g. you pay godaddy and manage your domain through godaddy however the sponsoring registrar for your domain would be enon for instance) where as at the moment you pay godaddy, manage with godaddy and the sponsoring registrar is godaddy.

Note: Godaddy is just one example of an icann approved registrar.

else i can't explain why they didn't shut down tpb..

I cannot answer that question as i simply dont know the answer to it, i can only assume they are attacking smaller sites in a hope to remain largerly unchallanged becuase most people will not take court action to recover the domain, out of the domains they have seized i have only heard of 3 planning on taking action or specific catagory of sites e.g. these recent seizures seem to be aimed at sports streaming sites, e.g. they where hassled by (rich usa company here) to take action against specific catagories.

 

[mackem]

With all of these seizures where would be the safest place to have a site with streams located.

I realise that the US is out of the question, and that Asia is a good bet, but what about the Netherlands, how safe is that?

 

[eLight]

no... really, as long as you're cooperative by complying to the DMCA or any copyright terms, you'll be alright even if you're hosted onshore.

Not at all... In order to be covered by DMCA, you need to have a registered agent who can receive take down orders (both mail and email alike). If you don't have a registered agent, you're not covered.

copyright -dot- gov onlinesp/list/a_agents.html

I really don't think there's much out of the USA's reach in all honesty.

 

[kolaps]

This is not true "torrent-finder.com" was seized and did not have whois protection, if Whois protection was simply not allowed im sure Icann would simply threaten the registrars with withdrawal of their icann approval, which would i believe would stop then selling domain without using a competing registar. (e.g. you pay godaddy and manage your domain through godaddy however the sponsoring registrar for your domain would be enon for instance) where as at the moment you pay godaddy, manage with godaddy and the sponsoring registrar is godaddy.

Note: Godaddy is just one example of an icann approved registrar.


I cannot answer that question as i simply dont know the answer to it, i can only assume they are attacking smaller sites in a hope to remain largerly unchallanged becuase most people will not take court action to recover the domain, out of the domains they have seized i have only heard of 3 planning on taking action or specific catagory of sites e.g. these recent seizures seem to be aimed at sports streaming sites, e.g. they where hassled by (rich usa company here) to take action against specific catagories.

I guess your right.

But the fact that one of the domain names from the last seizure was not registrered with an american registrar makes me wonder is there is much we can to do to avoid this american censorship...

 

[delboy]

But the fact that one of the domain names from the last seizure was not registrered with an american registrar makes me wonder is there is much we can to do to avoid this american censorship...

It was becuase Verisign is a usa company and Verisign managed the tld, in this whole thign THEY NEVER CONTACTED THE ACTUAL REGISRAR (e.g. godaddy, namecheap, internetbs etc) they CONTACTED Verisign, for the tlds they manage and Affilitas for the once they do, BOTH USA COMPANIES.

With .com you could buy from internetbs who is in the bahamas, and they could go around trying to order all these diffrent registrars to do it but they dont, and they dont need to becuase .com for example is run by verisign a usa company.

They just say Hey Mr Verisign, i have this usa court order, your in the usa change this stuff on this domain now, and verisign says Yes ofcource ill do that right away mr usa goverment.

 

[kolaps]

That makes sense.

And by the way they don't need the hassle of going to the bahamas (for example) court to get your personal information - they have an easy way to disable the website with a simple US court order..

That's pretty crazy..

We will have to see in the incoming month if they disable a lot of .com/net/org... If so I don't know if there is a real solution (before .p2p) - local tlds might be a temporary one though..

I'm curious of the legality of all this crap... might be fine as it's a us company & something is in violation with us law...