.Net privacy and seizures
- To: "net-agreement-renewal@xxxxxxxxx" <net-agreement-renewal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: .Net privacy and seizures
- From: Tony Lowe <tonylowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 12:11:04 -0700
To whom it may concern:
I fully agree with the unparalleled Cory Doctorow when he states:
To whom it may concern:
I am a co-owner and co-editor of BoingBoing.net, owned by Happy Mutants, LLC,
on whose behalf I write today. I am writing to express Happy Mutants'
objections to the comments filed by the Intellectual Property Constituency,
1. DOMAIN SEIZURES DON'T WORK AND ARE DISPROPORTIONATE
The past year has seen ample evidence that domain seizures don't work. The
extrajudicial, streamlined rough justice that the IPC and its members advocate
resulted in the erroneous seizure of 80,000 websites and their replacement with
an incorrect warning that they had previously hosted child pornography.
Meanwhile, practically every site seized went back up immediately. Of course,
some of the seized sites had been found legal in their local courts, so it's
Site operators accused of copyright infringement should be sued in the
appropriate courts, which can issue injunctions during or after the proceeding,
on the basis of evidence. It is not appropriate to ask Verisign to adjudicate
technically complex copyright claims. The outcome will be similar to what we've
seen already: overreaching claims, seizures of legitimate sites, and a
shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach characteristic of the IPC's members.
2. PRIVATE DOMAIN REGISTRATION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG
Unlike Happy Mutants or the IPC, many domain registrants are private
individuals, lacking a commercial office, PO box or other address for use in
domain registration. Compelling registrars to publish their customers' home
addresses on the public Internet isn't a "best practice" -- it's a privacy
disaster in the making, a gift to identity thieves and stalkers, and anything
but common sense. We don't publish our home addresses on the Internet, and
neither do the people who pay the bills at the IPC. Why should everyone else be
required to, just to save the IPC's members the trouble of securing a court
order when they believe their rights are being infringed?
For these reasons, we ask that you disregard the comments of the IPC in their
Happy Mutants, LLC
We hope that you agree with him too.
www.brokencities.com (and soon to be .net