

The case of vb.ly: NIC.ly was right to shut them down - aditya
http://dot-ly.of-cour.se/the-case-of-vb-ly/

======
tptacek
It bugs me to see people using logic to predict how Libya will handle its
registrar. I have zero sympathy for vb.ly, but, for what it's worth, I'm going
to have zero sympathy for bit.ly if Libya shakes them down too. You're dealing
with a company that has no rule of law. Caveat emptor.

~~~
AndrewDucker
Of course they have rule of law - _Libyan_ law.

~~~
tptacek
Libyan law is whatever the ruling party says it is this instant.

~~~
cottsak
As with many Islam/Muslim nations (not racism. a fact. i lived there).

~~~
swombat
And the point is, that doesn't qualify as "rule of law". "Rule of law" means,
very specifically, that everyone is equal before the law. This is only
possible when the law is somewhat fixed, explicit, and intelligible to the
people affected. What they have there is more like Roman law - i.e. everyone
is subject to the law unless the leader decides otherwise.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law>

------
nowarninglabel
Don't register a domain in a country whose law and regulations you don't want
to follow. Country-specific domains were meant for exactly that, country-
specific sites. Did they think there was no risk to doing business in a
foreign country?

~~~
dotBen
I am happy to follow the rules and regulations. Would you care to point out
Libyan Law to me where I can read it?

 _(I bet you cant)_

~~~
nowarninglabel
I don't need to, that is why I added regulations. Is there a law that says the
U.S. can detain an 'unlawful combatant' indefinitely? No. Did it happen? Yes.
Doing business in a foreign country brings inherent risk. If you want to
ignore risk because you don't see it written down on a piece of paper, then
you won't make it far.

~~~
dotBen
Um, my point was that the .ly domain regulations include that you must follow
Libyan law, so technically even the domain regulations are not explicitly
stated because Libyan law seems hard to track down.

------
wccrawford
I never doubted that NIC.ly was perfectly within their rights to shut down
vb.ly. The concern is that they are also perfectly within their rights to shut
down -any- other domain as well. Currently, they -say- they only shut this one
down because it promoted itself as 'adult friendly'. (Not 'sex friendly', just
'adult friendly', which in the end probably means the same.)

How do we know that they won't suddenly decide that bit.ly is 'adult friendly'
also? Or that failing to prevent sex sites is enough for dismissal?

They could change their terms at any time to say anything they want, too.
There's no stopping that. Sites like bit.ly are -built- around the domain
name. To change it is to destroy the business.

The previous blog posts have been correct in their concerns. It's something
that needs to be considered when choosing a domain name.

~~~
xelipe
I hate to say this, but this is true of any service. Facebook, Google, Twitter
is within their right to change their respective term of service at any time,
to enforce those terms of service at any time, and to even revoke the usage of
a service to a user. I find that this would be specially true when the doing
business with a foreign based company.

Another problem I have not seen anyone bring up, and the main reason I never
bought fugg.ly, is Libya's Axis of Evil status. The United States can can
potentially put an embargo restricting ownership to .ly domains.

------
sv123
So is it a porn site or is it a url shortener? I'm confused.

~~~
swombat
My understanding is, it's a url shortener that predominantly links to
erotically charged destinations.

------
tonystubblebine
So glad you posted this. Something about the original story just seemed fishy.

~~~
irons
Could you explain what about this explanation you find the least bit
reassuring?

~~~
tonystubblebine
The NIC.ly statement shows a clear understanding of user generated content. VB
was shut down because it's purpose is expressly against the TOS. Bit.ly is
safe because it's purpose is clearly not.

Also, I've heard other cases of VB trolling for publicity and assumed that
they weren't giving a complete explanation. For example, the initial reports
from VB focused on the arbitrary nature of the decision, which I think is
contradicted by NIC.ly contacting them beforehand.

~~~
dotBen
_The NIC.ly statement shows a clear understanding of user generated content._

Can you help me out with that - cos I received the statement personally (I was
a co-owner) and I'm not at all clear how this doesn't preclude user generated
content.

Perhaps you'd like to highlight your other issues with what has happened here.
If you think we're "trolling" for interest then consider the extent and
fallout of what has happened from this - Mitt Romney has removed his Mitt.ly
shortener, this has been picked up by major news - we're not the only ones
that are highly concerned.

Feel free to ask me here whatever you like about the situation here

~~~
tonystubblebine
I lost a lot of respect for Violet Blue in the dust up with Boing Boing.

<http://boingboing.net/2008/07/01/that-violet-blue-thi.html>

I don't see how Mitt's decision is evidence. It could just as easily mean that
you've successfully created a scare story that was big enough to scare his
tech team.

If there's a history here that doesn't involve you guys, I'd like to know it.
But your involvement doesn't carry any credibility with me.

~~~
dotBen
well, you've just slighted both Violet and kinda myself without any real
substance or explanation - it comes across bit troll-ish to be honest.

It's a shame cos I quite like the Crowdvine product and being in that space
I'd have thought you'd be more considerate of constructive + meaningful
contribution to community discussion.

If you have something to add or ask on this original topic, vb.ly, I'm happy
to participate and respond.

