
GoDaddy is exempt from SOPA - kevingadd
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/sopa-hearing-will-never-end.php
======
kevingadd
Relevant snippet from the article:

 _Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), the only member of Congress present at the hearing
with any tech experience, having founded several web companies, introduced two
amendments: one to exclude universities and non-profits from being subject do
having to shut down their own domain servers if accused of piracy under SOPA,
and the other to exempt dynamic IP addresses, such as those found on web-
enabled printers. Both were voted down.

Polis pointed out that SOPA and Smith’s amendment already excluded certain
operators of sub-domains, such as GoDaddy.com, from being subject to shutdowns
under SOPA.

“If companies like GoDaddy.com are exempt, why aren’t non-commercial domain
servers exempt?” Polis asked._

~~~
draggnar
just imagine if a debate about land allocations or subsidies or - basically
anything else that goes through washington - had the same level of attention
as this.

~~~
maaku
I think there's some selection bias on your sources. Of course the Internet is
talking about this Internet bill. On the other hand, I don't watch TV but I do
listen to NPR and news radio, and I haven't heard SOPA come up once.

------
MaxGabriel
I couldn't find anything in the bill text that seemed to exempt anyone, except
for immunity under specific circumstances (like voluntarily trying to take
down infringing sites). I don't think that's what this is about. But the
article seems to mention it being part of an amendment, maybe they're
referring to Lofgren's amendment 051?

"Zoe Lofgren has an amendment that says a DNS operator should have no
obligation to block a website if doing so would impair the security or
integrity of the domain name system or the operator's system or network. I'm
sure opponents will say this makes the blocking toothless, but what they're
really saying is they don't care if censoring websites they don't like harms
the security of the internet." [1]

However, as per this [2], that amendment failed.

[1]
[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111215/01322617096/tons-a...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111215/01322617096/tons-
amendments-proposed-sopa.shtml)

[2]
[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12152011Lofgren%20Am...](http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/12152011Lofgren%20Amdt8%20-%20FAILED.pdf)

edit: switched links

edit2: No, here's where that comes in, from Smith's amendment:
[http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/Summary%2...](http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/Rouge%20Websites/Summary%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf)

I'm not very familiar with the technology behind the Internet, so the
terminology is confusing to me. Could someone explain if the exemption comes
from the DNS Protections section or the Subdomains and Portions of Sites
Section?

------
rawrly
The exemption clauses in SOPA are not specifically for GoDaddy or anyone.
There is a section that clarifies this as an ISP/host who "voluntary removes"
unwanted content, which basically pisses all over due process etc..

~~~
mythz
hmmm new user created 46 mins ago, posting "Pro GoDaddy" propaganda. Not here
thanks.

~~~
rawrly
The events of the day (godaddy, SOPA, etc...) had me join the site. My
postings thus far are pretty much SOPA focused in hopes to bring a bit more
knowledge about, but I didn't think my comments are in any way promoting
godaddy as a service provider! If anything, I'm looking at them with a more
neutral approach ( Perhaps that is "pro" compared to most other's comments
bandwagoning godaddy's demise). Personally I couldn't care less about the
elephant shooting, woman degrading leadership they have, or their practices as
a business (I dropped them as my registrar years ago.)

~~~
mythz
Nice try, but I'm still not buying whatever you're selling.

------
davidu
I've read most iterations of the bills in the house and senate. I was one of
the first to point out it wasn't limited to just DNS blocking.

I'm not caught up on the amendments but I don't see any evidence GoDaddy is
exempt, outside of the fact that they are not the kind of ISP or DNS service
provider that SOPA targets. They are a registrar and Authoritative DNS
provider, neither of whom are targeted by the foreign infringing sites
language as I understand it.

IANAL, etc.

------
fragsworth
Other than the fact that Polis said they're exempt, there is no other
information about how exactly they are exempted from it. I didn't see any
wording like that in the bill. Was something changed recently?

------
Rusky
_Watt, who openly admitted he was an “old-fashioned guy,” earlier compared the
Internet to Las Vegas, saying there were some who thought that it should
remain essentially lawless “what goes on there stays there,” but that it
should be treated more like a “pawn shop” and subject to raids from law
enforcement._

SOPA would be more like cutting power lines to Vegas than raiding it. No real
effect on what they're trying to stop, ruin things for everyone else.

------
thebigshane
Anyone have any insight into either:

1) How they are exempt. They aren't mentioned in the bill itself. So what
provision allows them to be exempt?

2) How they were actually involved in drafting the bill. I know they claim
they helped in their press release but that rarely means anything.

------
daimyoyo
I strongly suspected godaddy would flip flop on supporting SOPA(which is why I
didn't transfer the 6 domains I have with them) but this is totally
unacceptable. Once my domains expire, I'll be taking them off godaddy and
never going back.

~~~
Kliment
Much safer to do this before they expire. Transferring domains does not makes
you lose the duration you have paid for. In fact, you get an extra year of
registration automatically tacked on with each transfer. It's not safe to
transfer around expiration time.

------
Newgy
GoDaddy's leadership helped write SOPA, of course they dealt themselves into
the bill!

~~~
RexRollman
Can you support that statement? If GoDaddy helped write it, then they are
worse than I thought.

~~~
rawrly
For newgy:

"Fighting online piracy is of the utmost importance, which is why Go Daddy has
been working to help craft revisions to this legislation - but we can clearly
do better," Warren Adelman, Go Daddy's newly appointed CEO, said.

Source is pretty credible: [http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-
view.aspx?news_ite...](http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-
view.aspx?news_item_id=378)

~~~
mythz
ProTip: If your a new User <1hr old wanting to paint GoDaddy in a good light,
the trick is to make it somewhat plausible you don't work for them.

~~~
rawrly
I work for GoDaddy's competitor. If anything we've seen a windfall from the
day's events due to our outstanding approach against SOPA. See my other
comments/submissions and you'll figure out I'm legit.

~~~
mythz
Oh I did check your profile to form my conclusion.

~~~
nitrogen
Maybe "Source is pretty credible" means something different to you? With the
meaning it has in rawrly's comment, you could replace it with "Straight from
the horse's mouth."

------
jiffylu
Does anyone have a list of lawmakers who are supporting SOPA?

------
zoowar
So what if they are exempt, supporting SOPA is unacceptable.

~~~
mythz
You don't think it's a bit strange (read: corrupt) to be pushing a law you're
exempt from but negatively impacts everyone else?

~~~
1010011010
It's definitely corrupt. Buying legislative advantage for yourself -- or
buying barriers and expenses for your competitors -- is what many companies
and groups try to do. It's a terrible, corrupt, corporatist abuse of power.

