Live data from Hacker News

US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

theinquirer.net

51–60 of 159 posts

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#51
post #14

Barnett, assistant deputy director of ICE: "The idea is to try to prosecute." If I remember correctly, in the few cases that the domains were confiscated, there was no prosecution, no courts involved. The owners of the domains had practically no means to question or challenge the seizure. At least that's what the media reported at the time.

[deleted]

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#53
FYI, .com/net/org have always belonged to the United States.

In the same way that .ca belongs to Canada, com/net/org/us belong to the US. Think of them as the sponsoring organization that originally created them.

The only thing the US government has ever given up is control over the registry and DNS management. Under a MoU[1] that facility was handed over to ICANN with the understanding that they would select US based private sector companies to take on the duties.

Other TLDs that are sponsored internationally but managed in the US (like .me or .ws) is a whole different issue, but this one is pretty clean cut.

1. http://www.icann.org/en/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#54
post #47

Centralised DNS = bad. That's the issue.

It is a billion times better than decentralized DNS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file#History

I imagine a decentralized DNS service based on the bitcoin network would be kinda cool.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#55
post #7
post #6

Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. So instead of technology and business innovation, let's do legal innovation and sue them people regardless of where they are.

>Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. I want to agree with you, because I wish that was the case, but it isn't. The 15-25 set just doesn't care. If they can get a movie for free on bittorrent, or pay $20/mo to stream as many as they want, they'll go for bittorrent the majority of the time.

It's not that they don't care they just can't afford it. If you restrict yourself to legal stuff you have to consider the price and you may have to decide. If you can get everything for free you take everything.

This is very obvious with music. Everybody I know has a music collection far bigger than what they could reasonably afford.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#56
post #12

Everyone else claims .us is in the US jurisdiction. How will this stop anything? Wasn't .com handed to the UN to manage?

.com is managed by US company VeriSign with oversight from ICANN. Some people want to turn ICANN over to the UN or ITU, but the US Dept. of Commerce has held onto it with the argument that the UN allows evil countries to vote and we wouldn't want to give them any level of control over ICANN, however small.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#57
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. I want to agree with you, because I wish that was the case, but it isn't. The 15-25 set just doesn't care. If they can get a movie for free on bittorrent, or pay $20/mo to stream as many as they want, they'll go for bittorrent the majority of the time.

Steam. FTFY.

Also, GOG. It doesn't even use DRM.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#58
post #53

FYI, .com/net/org have always belonged to the United States. In the same way that .ca belongs to Canada, com/net/org/us belong to the US. Think of them as the sponsoring organization that originally created them. The only thing the US government has ever given up is control over the registry and DNS management. Under a MoU[1] that facility was handed over to ICANN with the understanding that they would select US base…

It does seem problematic that all the generic TLDs (whose value over ccTLDs is obvious) are US-controlled. Maybe the imminent explosion of new gTLDs will help.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#59
post #7
post #6

Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. So instead of technology and business innovation, let's do legal innovation and sue them people regardless of where they are.

>Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. I want to agree with you, because I wish that was the case, but it isn't. The 15-25 set just doesn't care. If they can get a movie for free on bittorrent, or pay $20/mo to stream as many as they want, they'll go for bittorrent the majority of the time.

I'm 24. I have only one friend who will pirate movies and tv if they are also available via a convenient legal means.

Re: US claims all .com and .net websites are in its jurisdiction

#60
post #7
post #6

Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. So instead of technology and business innovation, let's do legal innovation and sue them people regardless of where they are.

>Why is online piracy such a big business (and hence a problem to the rights holders)? Because there are no comparable legal alternatives. I want to agree with you, because I wish that was the case, but it isn't. The 15-25 set just doesn't care. If they can get a movie for free on bittorrent, or pay $20/mo to stream as many as they want, they'll go for bittorrent the majority of the time.

False dichotomy. You can't "pay $20/mo to stream as many as you want". The available selection from services like Netflix and Hulu is extremely limited.

Many in the "15-25 set" pay about $20/mo to download through an offshore VPS, private trackers and servers. This money would go to the content holders if they didn't cripple their "precious content" with bundling packages, intrusive advertisements, DRM and region restrictions.

Post reply on HN