I know this is a horribly humiliating bump but the "I use 10 rooms in my hotel for child porn, the rest have regular guests, I'd would be arrested etc etc" analogy is a load of BS. These domains are more like apartment towers, you have a landlord (domain holder) who gets paid by the tenants (users) the landlord owns the building (the domain, like mooo.com) and the tenants live in the rooms (sub-domains).
If one tenant is a paedophile (I'm British, I shall use the British spellings) then it would be HIM that would be arrested and HIS room searched, not the landlord and the whole tower. Then the paedo-tenants room would be closed off (seized). How would the landlord be responsible for the tenant in this way? How would the landlord be arrested for the actions and possessions of the paedo-tenant?
If the landlord had a few rooms that he had specifically dedicated to paedophilia, that the tenants (or multiple tenants) used then, and only then, would the landlord be prosecuted, along with the tenants. In a domain, if the owner had created or been into a sub-domain, with the intention of sharing child porn, then the whole domain may be under scrutiny, but the whole domain should not be seized unless there is irrefutable proof that the whole domain was dedicated to illegal activities, if it is only a few sub-domains, then those sub-domains would be seized. Only if the owner was involved and had knowledge of his involvement should the domain be under scrutiny as a whole.
Seizing a domain for the actions of a few users, or the contents of a few sub-domains would be a bit like getting rid of UPS because somebody had cocaine smuggled to them via UPS (without UPS' knowledge) or because a few people within the company were part of a drug smuggling operation. If it's not the whole domain causing the problem/ spreading the problem etc, then it should not be the whole domain that takes responsibility for the problem.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by P3wnd_666.
Hotel analogy, really?
I know this is a horribly humiliating bump but the "I use 10 rooms in my hotel for child porn, the rest have regular guests, I'd would be arrested etc etc" analogy is a load of BS. These domains are more like apartment towers, you have a landlord (domain holder) who gets paid by the tenants (users) the landlord owns the building (the domain, like mooo.com) and the tenants live in the rooms (sub-domains).
If one tenant is a paedophile (I'm British, I shall use the British spellings) then it would be HIM that would be arrested and HIS room searched, not the landlord and the whole tower. Then the paedo-tenants room would be closed off (seized). How would the landlord be responsible for the tenant in this way? How would the landlord be arrested for the actions and possessions of the paedo-tenant?
If the landlord had a few rooms that he had specifically dedicated to paedophilia, that the tenants (or multiple tenants) used then, and only then, would the landlord be prosecuted, along with the tenants. In a domain, if the owner had created or been into a sub-domain, with the intention of sharing child porn, then the whole domain may be under scrutiny, but the whole domain should not be seized unless there is irrefutable proof that the whole domain was dedicated to illegal activities, if it is only a few sub-domains, then those sub-domains would be seized. Only if the owner was involved and had knowledge of his involvement should the domain be under scrutiny as a whole.
Seizing a domain for the actions of a few users, or the contents of a few sub-domains would be a bit like getting rid of UPS because somebody had cocaine smuggled to them via UPS (without UPS' knowledge) or because a few people within the company were part of a drug smuggling operation. If it's not the whole domain causing the problem/ spreading the problem etc, then it should not be the whole domain that takes responsibility for the problem.