Namecheap.com: We say no to SOPA
community.namecheap.com
community.namecheap.com
Although I support the idea of switching domains from GoDaddy to protest their support of SOPA, I sort have to wonder why anyone technically oriented hasn't done so already. Is there ANYTHING to recommend them other than name recognition?
But i'm sure there are lots of other registrars that support those domains and not this act.
Maybe that's unfair to Namecheap, but at any rate, all these issues with GoDaddy that people seem to suddenly care about just now are the reasons I have given NFS all my domain registration business for years now.
Just being anti-SOPA isn't good enough.
A history of backing up those words with actions that match would also help.
Sorry NFS, I'm moving away.
I would love to hear about others that hold the same standard.
Good or bad, they aren't giving their customers up until the law orders them to do so. They've never acted as if they were the law as far as I know. So if you want to talk about walking the walk and core values, NameCheap has been doing it as far back I can remember. Their owner owns quiet a few very high profile names and cares very much about the rights of a domain holder.
Disclaimer: I may be biased, I know the owner and think very highly of him.
What people protest about SOPA is that it gives tools to companies (with a history of abusing the recourses granted to them by law) that are akin to a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. Sure, you'll get the fly, but you're going to take out three walls, a couple of load-bearing columns, and an unfortunate cat in the process.
I firmly believe that the issues of content and software piracy are distribution issues, rather than legislation issues. I also believe that it would be silly to say "Welp, things are good enough, no more changes needed ever". To say "We will never support IP legislation" is an untenable position, and I'd be wary of any company that would make such a broad statement. Namecheap made the right one by saying "We support internet freedom".
Sane IP legislation is no IP legislation. I don't know why we are still clinging to the ridiculous concept of being able to own abstract concepts. The true insanity is IP in the first place.
For those who simply want to protest, though, people have been using terms like 'intellectual monopoly' or 'imaginary property' or the like. But that gets you right back to lumping them all together again.
Also, while it's clear that there are different motivations behind Copyright, Patents and Trademarks and it's often important to make a clear distinction between them, I object against them due to the same reason (owning abstract concepts is absurd to the point of insanity), so I do tend to lump them together in a context such as this.
The big questions aren't "should IP even exist as a concept", but instead "how limited IP should be", "what rights IP ownership should give", and "what avenues are available to enforce those rights".
Don't forget, "IP protection" is a really broad concept, and it's more than just patent trolls and DMCA takedowns issued by corporations on content they don't even control: It also includes, for example, the ability to release code under your open source license of choice and then see it enforced through the courts.
Who decided that?
Government grants you a monopoly on an idea, and uses violence to stop other people from infringing on your monopoly. But, usage of these non-scarce resources takes nothing from the originator aside from this monopoly power.
I meant to say that while you have to be insane to support legislation like SOPA, most normal people who don't live in castles made of double-platinum records aren't opposed to much more moderate and appropriately-scoped legislation. Some very sane people are opposed to it, and that's okay.
Too ambiguous and vague. IP legislation that was written at the time of the constitution is perfectly suitable for the modern age without the need to extend forever.
> It's perfectly reasonable for IP holders to want to have legal recourse against the bad guys.
What is reasonable is a LIMITED monopoly on the copying of an artistic medium as long as it 'promotes the arts and sciences'. The goal of copyright and patent law is to maximise the benefits of art and technology TO SOCIETY, not to some corporation. The method of doing this is to grant a LIMITED TIME monopoly over a creation as an incentive to create, not to make corporations more profitable. Once that LIMITED TIME has passed, the creation enters the public domain and society as a whole accrues the benefits. Having infinitely extendable copyrights/patents, copyrights owned by corporations renders the purpose of copyright/patents NULL AND VOID, because society never accrues the benefit associated with the cost (i.e. the monopoly).
> There are lots of people making a lot of money selling a lot of illegal merchandise online.
No, there isn't. There are some, always have been, always will be, because when a market for goods or services is inefficient, it changes the risk/reward ratio for 'cheaters'. Look at the market for drugs for example. The risks are huge, but the rewards are ridiculously higher in proportion. As long as the risk/reward ratio is skewed (i.e. the market is inefficient), there will always be 'cheaters' or 'criminals' in that market. Turning your country into a police state might be one way to stop that, but it may also kill the market you are trying to protect.
This has nothing to do with a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. This has to do with fundamental human rights. This is more akin to the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This is George Bush telling people that they need the "proper tools to fight terrorism" and it's OK because these are not US citizens and so they shouldn't have any rights.
Why can't they just say they do not support the bill. Or, better, that they oppose the bill? Does "as currently proposed" add anything?
Namecheap was one of the first registrars to accept Paypal, and this helped me get started when I was first developing my passion for web development.
I've been using them for years and plan to continue using them for a long time.
Also, whats the cost of transfering?
SOPA finally made me get off my lazy ass and do something about consolidating all of them to namecheap.
http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-g...
PS> I didn't write the guide. I am not affiliated to Namecheap. I just found it useful.
There's not much after that except for BitCoins.
Apparently you can use the coupon code BYEBYEGD and save some money transferring to Namecheap.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...
The bundle code could be an extension of the discount code, like Foo would enter BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Bar while Bar enters BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Foo. That type of structure would limit the bundling to two customers coordinating with each other (so Namecheap doesn't lose out on handing out too many discounts). Other structurings of bundles are possible, of course, depending upon Namecheap's internal sales and marketing goals.
Many do not advertise it but will do a bulk discount if you ask. I'm pretty certain Namecheap is one of them (if you have more than 50 I think).
I Wish there was a bulk discount. Pity namecheap couldn't come up with tiered bulk domain transferring pricing.
P.S. I <3 namcheap
Yes that's very clear, the agree is some kind of SOPA...