Feeds

back to article Boycott forces Go Daddy U-turn on anti-piracy law backing

Hosting provider and registrar Go Daddy has done an abrupt about-face on its support for the controversial US Stop Online Piracy Act following calls for a boycott of its services. "Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA," the company said in a statement late Friday. As we reported last week, Go Daddy customers were being …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge

Well, well

So public opinion actually does matter for some companies. I suspect that while there may not have been a measurable effect from the boycott clamour, the margins which some of these companies work with doesn't allow them to get too cavalier.

2
0

Don't take this at face value. They've said that they're making a U-turn, but there's no *action* to back up the statement.

AFAIK, they're still listed as a corporate signatory of the bill itself (i.e. indicating support) and have neither removed their name, or added their name to the list of opposition. To me, this indicates it's PR rather than actual activity. Wait until they actually put their money where their (oversized) mouth is.

17
0
FAIL

Indeed... no evidence of change

This is simply damage control; there is no evidence that GD has stopped supporting SOPA.

After all, they have three years of collaboration invested in it, and they stand to benefit from its passage. Even the latest weasel words from the CEO make that clear: "Getting [SOPA] right is worth the wait. Go Daddy will support it when and if the internet community supports it." Replace the last phrase with "when the internet community forgets about it" and you've got the truth.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Full of lies

My mind is free. As a result, I am able to spot corporate lies a mile away.

1. There are no actions by Godaddy to indicate they don't support SOPA, other than their statements and it looks like they are made just to help keep customers.

2. If the boycot has almost no effect, then why the 180° turn on their position? Corporations like to project their success much higher than it actually is.

3. It is hurting their business. Let the boycot continue, and spread. In fact, I would suggest boycot anybody that supports GoDaddy by hosting on their domain.

7
2
Anonymous Coward

It is nice, but probably too late.

What will happen with the domains hosted with go daddy after it goes bancrupted?

0
1
FAIL

U-turn? No.

"Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA," is not a U turn.

Go-Daddy actively opposing SOPA would be a U turn.

11
0
Thumb Up

Agreed

More like a 90° turn to sitting on the fence 'la-la I can't hear you'-land.

1
0
Meh

Probably has more to do with....

.... the new ownership. New owners of companies are notoriously more cautious than founders. Founders get where they are by blackmailing, stealing, lying, thieving, cheating and basically being as underhanded and down right dirty as they can possibly be, people taking over a company are always far more concerned about public opinion and share value, if public opinion begins to affect or look like it's going to affect share value, the new owners back things off, apologise and do damage control, this looks to be what's happened here I'd guess. That's also not to say they won't start supporting it again around March?

1
0
Silver badge

Does that mean the elephant murdering git has left?

0
0
Silver badge

Yorkshire's own WMD

Now are there any other bad guys we can unleash the awsome power of the Boycott against?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Who cares

As long as pirates go to prison, that's all that counts.

0
7
Bronze badge
FAIL

I disagree. I'd rather see murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers and burglars, and all other violent offenders banged up. White collar crimes should be dealt with by means of, in the first case, community orders of some form. Sticking them inside prison offers society little changes in protection, whereas sticking violent offenders behind bars MEASURABLY protects society.

6
0
Silver badge

You missed out politicians.

I agree re community sentences and fines for that type of offense, depending on the severity.

0
0

@ Roger

"I'd rather see murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers and burglars"... Unless I'm mistaken, piracy IS thievery. Furthermore, the douche-bags who write scare-ware and randsome-ware can be classified in the same light as muggers, robbers and burglers.

Just because nobody is physically injured doesn't make it any less wrong. It's still theft, illegal and unethical. While I haven't read through the proposed SOPA legislation, maybe its time for something/somebody to sack up and do something to discourage people from stealing content, software and material from others.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, and while the data maybe nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's, when they are arranged in such a way that takes money out of your pocket, drains your bank account or puts your employer out of business, then I'm thinking it's time to do something.

I have had digital property stolen and even though it's not the billions that most of the software publishing and recording industries have lost, I felt the impact financially. But not being able to justify the cost of all the legal fees against the total amount of revenue lost, I'm screwed.

2
4
Silver badge
Stop

@ zen1

"I have had digital property stolen... I felt the impact financially."

No you didn't. That's absolute bullshit. Because anyone who copied your shit wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so you didn't lose any sales worth mentioning. You've bought into the old fallacy of one download being equivalent to one lost sale, which has been shown time and again to be clearly false.

Because if it was true, the record companies in the last five years would have made many times over the total amount of money that actually exists on the planet, by their own admission. That fact alone should clarify the extent to which this kind of thinking is fallacious.

7
1
Silver badge

@Roger Stenning

So what's your point? The original poster didn't say "As long as pirates go to prison and murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers and burglars, and all other violent offenders don't" He/She merely expressed an opinion that those who break the law should be punished. You might argue that some crimes are more unpalatable than others but that is no reason to suggest that the criminals you favour should be let off lightly.

Freetards are a sensitive bunch.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Arrrr, Jim M'lad

"As long as pirates go to prison, that's all that counts."

I agree but since when did Go Daddy mount maritime operations off the coast of Somalia?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Oh noes!!!one1!!

"Just because nobody is physically injured doesn't make it any less wrong."

I agree it is wrong.

"It's still theft, illegal and unethical. "

No, it isnt theft. At this point you have lost my support.

Why do you feel copyright infringement needs to be bigged up as theft to get your "I'm sad and hurt" point across?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Stolen is near Sto-Lat

"I have had digital property stolen"

I bet you wish you had kept a back up copy.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Sensitive but can read

"So what's your point? The original poster didn't say "As long as pirates go to prison and murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers and burglars, and all other violent offenders don't""

As I read it, the point was the Prison is not the correct punishment.

Roger Stenning goes as far as to say what he thinks the correct punishment is - you might have missed it when your eyes misted over at the thought of a CRIMINAL not going to jail for eleventy hundred years irrespective of the magnitude of their crime.

I appreciate that you want to ruin the lives of people who you see have copied something they wouldnt have bought (damn that recording off the radio and lets burn the photocopiers....) but that does seem a bit archaic.

If you take the oft-bandied figures of how many people share downloaded content in contravention of copyright rules, you are basically looking at imprisoning a huge percentage of the population. While the cost of building and staffing the new Centres of Excellence would help the economy it would be short lived, very soon the lack of a work force would cause problems.... Equally, I cant imagine too many prisoners would be buying the content they were downloading, so no extra sales would be realised.

It is interesting that you see "White collar crimes should be dealt with by means of, in the first case, community orders of some form" as being "let off lightly."

Prison is there, in part, to protect society from dangerous people who, left out will continue to harm the public. This is not what downloaders do, but sod it, eh, let BURN THEM ALL so we dont look soft, sensitive and god-forbid "soft on real crime.."

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Sensitive but can read

Can you really read? Then maybe you can point exactly where I agreed with the original poster. I merely pointed out that calling for the punishment of one crime does mean he/she wants others to go unpunished.

As for white collar crime. This is where Mr. Stenning went off the rails. As he was ranting on about violent offenders I assumed he was then commenting on white collar crimes and not illegal downloads. A white collar crime is one facilitated by the position one holds in the course of their employment, such as embezzlement. In certain instances it could be extended to copyright infringement but only if it was an inside job which in the cases we have in mind is not often the case. You might think that embezzlement, insider trading and the like should be punished by a community order but I think something stiffer is called for.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

@Chris W

On reading.

@Roger Stenning: "I'd rather see murderers, child molesters, rapists, thieves, muggers, robbers and burglars, and all other violent offenders banged up."

Can you show the bit where that is taken to say the OP didnt ask for them to be banged up AS WELL as illegal downloaders?

No one as far as I can see has said what you are arguing against.

The OP is calling for an excessive punishment of illegal downloaders and from what I can see that is what Roger Stenning has said.

You then build a nice strawman about it being jailing one not the other, which it never was.

You @Chris W then state: "but that is no reason to suggest that the criminals you favour should be let off lightly."

Who said anything about letting off illegal downloaders lightly? Where have you got that idea from?

White Collar crime covers a gamut of activity, not all of it is economy shattering, and interestingly there is a significant body of work placing copyright infringement in the "White Collar Crime" category.

To imply that all white collar crime should result in jail sentences is as comical as saying all white collar crime is embezzlement or insider trading.

Finally you stated: "He/She merely expressed an opinion that those who break the law should be punished."

Actually no, the original AC said "As long as pirates go to prison, that's all that counts."

Unless it was you, and you now want to clarify what you meant, this can only be taken to mean that Pirates should go to prison. It may well have been meant ironically, but it has no bearing on what other law-breakers should suffer.

"go to prison" is not the same as "be punished"

Community orders and non-prison sentences are not "getting off lightly."

0
0
Silver badge

@AC

Your illogical rantings prove my point, freetards are a sensitive lot. When you have cooled down and can come back with a coherent comment I might consider further discussion..

0
2
Anonymous Coward

Oh noes!!!one1!!

@Chris W wins a Usenet debate.

It must be 1997.

Its ok, I understand that you didnt understand what any of the above meant. You dont need to feel bad about it, lots of people dont.

Lots of people think any court punishment short of life in solitary is just weak and lets crime win and lots of people think copyright infringement needs to be given different names to make it sound worse than it is.

Doesnt make any of them right though. Same as people who think I am either a "freetard" or an illegal downloader (I am neither, but dont let that spoil your rant).

But hey, you won with the dismissive response. You are my hero.

1
0
Silver badge

@AC

I'm sorry that you see this as some sort of battle. We were just expressing our opinions. If you are going to go thorugh life with such an attitude every time someone disagrees with you then maybe you should get a thicker skin.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Eh?

Why did you think I saw this as a battle?

Your only argument is to call anyone who disagrees with you "illogical" or "sensitive" and then you graciously remove yourself from the discussion. Except you dont.

As previously mentioned, its ok that you dont have a point any more and dont have anything to say - keep up your good work.

0
0

@ Mr. Roper

Wow, I've read some sanctimonious tripe in here before, but your reply takes the cake. First of all, you know absolutely nothing about my business, the product I sell or how much it costs me to produce a salable product. Since I deal in a very small niche market, that has a low but predictable volume of sales, when something happens and I see my sales dip, I know something is amiss. So, in my case, your generalizations are completely wrong.

But, I can't help but ponder what civilization would be like if we all followed your sense of entitlement. If you were an auto mechanic, I could take your tools and then demand that you fixed my car, with little or no fear of retribution. Better yet, say you owned a specialized retail store, I could simply walk in, take one of everything, make exact duplicates and then turn around and sell them at a substantially reduced cost, thereby running your ass out of business.

Don't get me wrong, you and I are in complete agreement over how the entertainment industry simply screwed the pooch, by not embracing the internet as a distribution mechanism. However, I completely reject your assertion that software and digital content piracy isn't a substantially more serious crime than you (and others) care to admit. This is completely your prerogative, but it's because of attitudes like yours that software publishers continually jack the price of their products up, and charge those of us who respect little things like, oh, THE LAW, in anticipation of a certain percentage of lost revenue due to piracy.

So, on behalf of those of us who pay through the nose for commodity products, while suck holes like you copy, dupe and blatantly steal, you're welcome.

0
1

Is why we have a system..

... so that someone not emotionally involved with the case does the justice. Otherwise we have vengeance. The bloke who keyed my car would have his arms and legs sawn off by me with a chain saw had I caught him that day. Fortunately I never caught him.

I am sorry you lost due to software piracy.

0
0
Gimp

Mirror, mirror

Perhaps when Go Daddy looks in the mirror they see AOL or maybe just a horses ass.

4
0
Unhappy

American online censorship bill

Perhaps when news style websites stop calling it an anti piracy bill and give it it's real name 'American online censorship bill'...

If a commentard on this site posts a link to a site that links to infringing copyright (a snatch of Universal Music playing on a radio in a YouTube clip for eg), bam! The Reg could be blocked from American audiences.

The powers that be have been trying to destroy the Internet, like, forever, this is just step one.

1
0
Coat

Well done, Geoffrey

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.