Over the weekend, Christine Jones general counsel and corporate secretary of GoDaddy.com wrote a piece that appeared in Politico.com in support of the E-Parasite Bill.
In the piece Ms. Jones write in part:
“”It’s a welcome step in the right direction, and we at GoDaddy.com applaud the leadership in the House Judiciary Committee, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet and the Senate Judiciary Committee, for taking decisive, bicameral and bipartisan action.””
“”In our view, Internet policy should strive to balance the sometimes competing goals of the global free flow of information (which is clearly critical to U.S. businesses), with enforcement of the rule of law. We don’t see those competing goals as mutually exclusive, but rather, complimentary. In fact, that balance is essential to a flourishing, yet safe, Internet.””
“”Why some members of the Internet ecosystem do not believe it is their responsibility to participate in finding that balance is unclear to us. We’ve found that balance in the past in the child protection and counterfeit pharmaceuticals contexts, for example, where we voluntarily take action against customers whose websites or domain names violate the law. So far, none of our voluntary action has stifled legitimate capitalism online. And neither will robust intellectual property enforcement.””
“”The question should be how, not whether, we develop a notice and takedown regime in a responsible and responsive way.””
“”While increasing demands on intermediaries are less than desirable for all of us, we can’t just turn a blind eye to illegal conduct online.””
TechDirt.com has now ripped into Godaddy.com for supporting the bill saying in part:
“However, the really stunning thing is that Jones doesn’t even seem to understand the bill that she’s supporting. Specifically, she doesn’t seem to recognize not just the compliance costs it puts on GoDaddy
“She also doesn’t seem to realize that under the bill’s broad definitions GoDaddy itself is a “site dedicated to the theft of US property”.
“”That’s because among the definitions of a site that’s “dedicated to the theft of US property” is this: if the site “is marketed by its operator… for use in offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates… the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code.” In other words, if you operate a site that enables or facilitates the sale of goods that bear a counterfeit mark… you’re dedicated to theft of US property.”
“So, let’s take a quick wander over to GoDaddy… and, just for fun, let’s see what happens if we try to register the domain Rolex.com. Rolex.com is obviously taken, but… oh wait… what’s this… GoDaddy is recommending that I might want to register these other domains that are perfect for infringing sites.”
If you want to see screenshots of what TechDirt.com found as suggestions for Rolex.com check out the full article here