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.
Please don't copypaste as code. It forces us to scroll from left to right (at least on Firefox).
Same copypaste but more readable:
> 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.
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.
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." 
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?
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..
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.