| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 63 ( 1 2  ) || |
|US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction|
| 1:37 pm on Jul 5, 2011 (gmt 0)|
This sounds pretty radical to me:
|The US's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) is targeting overseas websites it believes are breaking US copyrights whether or not their servers are based in America or there is another direct US link, said Erik Barnett, the agency's assistant deputy director. |
As long as a website's address ends in .com or .net, if it is implicated in the spread of pirated US-made films, TV or other media it is a legitimate target to be closed down or targeted for prosecution, Barnett said. While these web addresses are traditionally seen as global, all their connections are routed through Verisign, an internet infrastructure company based in Virginia, which the agency believes is sufficient to seek a US prosecution.
As well as sites that directly host or stream pirated material, ICE is also focusing on those that simply provide links to it elsewhere. There remains considerable doubt as to whether this is even illegal in Britain – the only such case to be heard before a British court, involving a site called TV-Links, was dismissed by a judge in February last year.
|Erik Barnett, assistant deputy director of ICE said told the Guardian that the agency will actively target web sites that are breaking US copyright laws even if their servers are not based in the US. According to Barnett, all web sites that use the .com and .net TLDs are fair game and that, since the Domain Name Service (DNS) indexes for those web sites are routed through the US-based registry Versign, ICE believes it has enough to "seek a US prosecution". [theinquirer.net...] |
| 6:48 am on Jul 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Also, how many have registered through anonymity services or other agents of the real owner.
I assume those numbers are based on the address of the registrant?
| 10:39 am on Jul 27, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Considering where the likes of Maltusi et al are actually based for fiscal reasons, and those like myself ( all mine are private anonymous registrations ) who though far far far smaller in the number of domains they hold register their dotcoms through US registrars ( because they are cheaper, or have been so in the the past compared to non US registrars ), I think it is highly likely that the figures are based on the address of the registrar.( ie; who you buy them from )..some holding companies own hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of domains.
Which skews the figures enormously ..as for years the only dot com registrar was USA based,( monopoly with high prices ) and thus all dot com domains were done through them ..even now the biggest are all US based, and the US based ones also offer almost all of the other country TLDs even those whose registration requires special conditions such as residency, citizenship or registered businesses in the country of the TLD..eg Godaddy ( USA) sells dot Frs ( special conditions apply ) ..I doubt if all the owners of dot co domains actually have addresses there..
And if all the dot TK owners actually lived there they would outnumber the indigenous population.
btw..I discovered yesterday that "privacy" as offered by the major french registrar Gandi, when applied to dot coms ..( first and last dotcom I've registered with them ) actually means, one's name is made public and one's address is private, they will see no more of my business..ever...dot Frs are automatically fully private ( by law )..but the difference in what they consider "privacy" to mean when ticked and applied to dot coms.. is not mentioned by them anywhere, before one runs a whois check after purchase..a little warning for those of you who thought privacy meant just that everywhere.
| 1:35 am on Jul 28, 2011 (gmt 0)|
In that case the numbers must massively overstate US use.
So the US is claiming jurisdiction on a global generic tld within which only a minority of domain owners are American?
| This 63 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 63 ( 1 2  ) |