- Impact
- 205
problem resolved, thanks everyone for your comments.
Last edited:
This is a threat to freedom of the Internet. There is no end to this kind of practice. After the pharmacy industry, other industries might line up on the front door of White House. For instance the music and film industry might try the same path.
You could lose a valuable domain without warning just because those legitscript guys decide that a link on the landing page leads to a pharmacy website they don't approve.
I think the point that a few of the people are triyng to make here - and one that most domain investors should be weary of - is that domain registrars have the power to suspend a domain name without warning, without notification, without any sort of way of proving a "fix".
Its all great being on a high moral ground on how its against TOS, how a registrar can do what it wants, and how great Obama is for making these policies - but as someone said earlier, look at the bigger picture. If the content of a site is illegal - then leave it to the hosting company to take down the content - it really shouldn't be up to the registrar to take things into their own hands.
Shutting down pharmacies / illegal sites should be up to the host / to the ISP - and if all else fails then - and only then, it should involve the registrar.
If eNom is so affiliated with such actions with legitscript, then all domain investors should be made aware of this.
In this case, perhaps the domain was worth $0-regfee, but what if it were Property.com which had a dodgy (according to LegitScript) link? The name gets taken away? What if one of those links came via a parking script or via 3rd party advertising links? Get real here - whatever the "new rules/policies" are, it doesn't make it right. Domain investors are losing power each and every single day. For now its legitscript, next it'll be imdb or fox or whoever.
Like I said before and I'll keep repeating this - it should be the content, the hosting account which gets shut down/suspended. Not the domain name.
Actually, lets take this a little further.
What if the domain name Health.com got shut down for a similar situation. What then happens to the domain name? Do you think it gets made availble to someone else? Or will it get auctioned off at Snap or another big aftermarket/drop seller? Where does it go?
Bingo.Here we have an organisation that protects the interest of the pharmacy industry and they decide what sites should be taken down.
Same as above. Politicians are protecting 'certain' interests because they are on the payroll of 'certain' industry lobbies. In the case of KY, their own interest, and not that of the public.The Kentucky gambling domain case is very disturbing because you apply a local law to a website from anywhere in the world and then seize the domains. This is not right.
The U.S. government simply got tired of watching abuses occur on the web and decided to step in.
Get used to it.
I don't have anything against them shutting down the websites. This is an issue to be dealt with by the hosting company. However suspending a domain because of it's content is overreach. And giving the decision making power to an industry organisations that represent the bigger companies is wrong.www.drugshome.name Directi
www.pain-relief.name Directi
www.drugstores.name GoDaddy
www.steroids.name GoDaddy
www.generic-pills.name Key-Systems
www.infection.name Key-Systems
source:www.legitscript.com/blog/124
The correct way being? Either it is the right thing or a domainer is being screwed - you are kind of hedging your bets hereThe issue here is not whether it is right to take down illegal online drug stores. Of course this is the right thing. But the way they are doing it is wrong.
Is this a real life example? The only one I found was taken down by he Hosting provider - which, in itself, was a ridiculous thing to do.I will give you an example. Somebody found a few mp3 files on a amateur website and reported it to a copyright protection organisation that protects the interest of recording companies. They had an agreement with registrars and the site was taken down.
You might say, "Yeah yeah take them down. It is the right thing to do." The problem is those mp3 files were copyright free. The site owner was an amateur musician and he recorded the files himself.
I think its generally accepted that this is not going to be a precedent. It's a rather odd case though that went to the court of Appeals and then the Kentucky Supreme court (current position is that they can take the domains I think).. though the United Kingdom has said they can't take .co.uk domains so there!Other domains might be suspended because of online gambling which is legal in countries those gambling businesses are established.
Ky. court tells online gambling owners to show up - BusinessWeek
The Kentucky gambling domain case is very disturbing because you apply a local law to a website from anywhere in the world and then seize the domains. This is not right.
This is an easy one to find flaws in. EMUSIC is a TM in France. So EMUSIQUE would be confusing in France. It's also not a generic... but that I don't think would have done it....but add in:There is also the risk of losing domains to UDRP which gets worse with time. Somebody recently lost lost "emusique.com" because the panelist decided it is confusingly similar to "emusic.com".
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-0131
The domainers always get screwed no matter what the dispute is. Looking at some of the posts in this thread I wonder if they deserve it.
Get real, all these rules and TOS only keep the rich man richer, The American government, for ages regulate their money flow by making outrages laws to shut off every one that is not a "Under the table" tax payer (off shore pharmacies etc...).
THE MOST ASININE thing about this is that 4RX.com is STILL UP. :lol:
I am surprised "enetwork" Richard Kirkendall has not responded to this post as he usually responds to most NameCheap related posts on the internet.