Simple fact of the matter is Nominet has always reserved the right to discontinue your domain name if you don't play by their rules. This is nothing new. Domain names so far as I know are effectively rented for a minimum of 2 years.
So who makes the final decision? Likely Nominet in the first instance. However they are a British company operating under British law. Which means they must abide by certain trading standards.
Now if the Police take improper action and pressure Nominet to take down a site without sufficient evidence purely on the say so of the MPAA. The you could conceivably complain to the Police Complaints Commission.
Where I find ICE particularly controversial, which is what the article seems to be comparing this policy review by Nominet to, is that ICE seems to operate beyond USA borders. Which is actually more of a case for each country managing it's own registries than it is an anti-IP case.
The UK is not the USA. Our Police aren't nearly as trigger happy as in the US. And technically speaking domain names could probably already be seized if there was evidence to support the seizure. This is not a new law or the establishment of a new body. This is an existing company reviewing it's policies to formalise what they're already doing.
Considering Nominet have stated civil requests should be excluded. Meaning the record industry can't just ask Nominet to do a seizure and they're considering an appeals process and have excluded requests that would suppress free speech. I think we should wait until the screw up before we shoot them.
I also think a few more people here should actually read the PDF.
"Draft recommendations – key principles
Nominet should have an abuse policy that specifically addresses criminal activity in its terms and conditions.
Nominet should be able to act under an expedited process to suspend domain names associated with serious crime when requested by a law enforcement agency.
An expedited procedure to suspend domain names should only be available where a) it is the last resort in dealing with the domain name, following requests with registrar, ISPs etc in the first instance or b) it is the most viable option to prevent imminent or ongoing serious consumer harm.
• The policy should exclude suspension where issues of freedom of expression are central aspects of the disputed issue.
• Nominet should consider establishing a registrant appeal mechanism.
When the policy is operational, Nominet should set up an independent panel to review how the policy is working.
• Nominet should exclude civil or third party requests from this policy (which is focused on criminality), but these merit further discussion under the policy process.
Nominet should communicate the outcome of its policy development to Government to inform its own deliberations in this field."
Capitalism has always been broken. Capitalism in practice doesn't operate on the premise of doing enough to survive and grow at a sustainable rate. It operates on the principle of greed. Grab as much as you can, as fast as you can, from whomever you can.
It's the same flaw that brought the Soviet Union to it's knees. The only difference in a capitalist culture is the masses are kept in the dark by filling their brains with meaningless drivel on TV and pressure to always have the next upgrade.
The majority are so distracted by trivial material concerns they can't see the majority of the worlds wealth being concentrated increasingly in the hands of a minority of very, very few individuals.
By the time the world wakes up. It will be too late.
Drugs and Piracy fund terrorism. So clearly we must cut off the funding. So expect for searches of everybody's houses. Terrorists blend in and are thus indistinguishable from people. So every body is now guilt until proven not guilty yet. Innocent has been dropped as a verdict. We're all guilty of something.
I think the question that seems to have been over looked is, has Google removed the copyrighted content as requested by the copyright holder? Surely if they ignore that part of the request they would be liable?
Now from what I've read here it seems Google hasn't actually refused to comply with the request to remove copyrighted content. All they've refused is a request not to publish the DMCA.
I thought everybody knew the Google anti-trust investigation was just Microsoft pulling string trying to harm Google? So yes, it's a waste of time.But it's nothing like the Microsoft anti-trust investigation.
"If you use anything Google, you are tracked. Google is involved in so many different projects, in so many different things, and appears on so many websites in so many ways that it is all but impossible to keep from doing business with them, even if you don't want to."
So you think nobody else is tracking your movements?
The USA steals your laptop at the border and the government there wonders why the USA's economy is crap?
This actually means doing business with the USA almost by default increases the TCO of a laptop since you need to by a spare in the event the first one gets confiscated. But at the same time since you can't afford to lose your data to ICEbaby you'll keep everything in the "cloud" and make do with a cheapo laptop anyway lowering your TCO of a laptop.
America is a very confusing place to be. It's better to stay at home.
Given that this scientist is about to attend a judicial inquiry I'd say it does make some kind of sense that she shouldn't be talking to the media. In fact isn't somewhat standard practice that people brought before a judicial inquiry don't talk about the subject matter of the inquiry in any great detail?
At least so far as I can see that's what happens in the UK. Maybe Canada is different and those called before a judicial inquiry immediately give all kinds of interviews to as many media organisations as possible.
I think people are jumping the shark here. I don't see anything fishy happening just yet. Let the inquiry run it's course and then see if this scientist takes the bait and gives an interview.
If this case demonstrates anything it's that the US market is no longer a viable place to do business. It seems you can't design, manufacture, market, buy or sell anything in the USA any longer without someone trying to sue you for some patent or copyright infringement.
Personally think this case is a lesson in drawing proper contracts and making sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed.
I'd be surprised if this is the first time a court has taken the laws of another country into account when it comes to dealing with cross border business disputes. But given that we're all part of the American economic empire anyway what's all the fuss about?