Namecheap.com: We say no to SOPA(community.namecheap.com)
community.namecheap.com
Namecheap.com: We say no to SOPA
http://community.namecheap.com/blog/2011/12/22/we-say-no-to-sopa/
24 comments
Actually, NameCheap has had one of the best records in terms of defending domain registrant rights out of almost any registrar. For example, http://www.domainnamenews.com/featured/namecheap-sued-domain...
Good or bad, they aren't giving their customers up until the law orders them to do so. They've never acted as if they were the law as far as I know. So if you want to talk about walking the walk and core values, NameCheap has been doing it as far back I can remember. Their owner owns quiet a few very high profile names and cares very much about the rights of a domain holder.
Disclaimer: I may be biased, I know the owner and think very highly of him.
Good or bad, they aren't giving their customers up until the law orders them to do so. They've never acted as if they were the law as far as I know. So if you want to talk about walking the walk and core values, NameCheap has been doing it as far back I can remember. Their owner owns quiet a few very high profile names and cares very much about the rights of a domain holder.
Disclaimer: I may be biased, I know the owner and think very highly of him.
I too have been a satisfied customer for years. After reading that article about the court case I think even more highly of them now.
Just FYI, nearlyfreespeech.net is a name.com reseller. name.com did speak out against SOPA too, but only after namecheap did.
Does that mean that you need to raise the issue in your brand name to have freedom and anti-censorship as a core everyday value?
Nope. Talking about it normally, and not just when it's a convenient hot-button issue, would be sufficient.
A history of backing up those words with actions that match would also help.
A history of backing up those words with actions that match would also help.
I like NFS, but apparently they have some caveats, such as you cannot set up a domain to use its' own nameservers (buy foo.com, setup nameservers as ns1.foo.com ns2.foo.com with dedicated IPs) without them charging you $50 (?) /hour in tech support... PER nameserver.
Sorry NFS, I'm moving away.
Sorry NFS, I'm moving away.
That's because they are a webhosting company, not a domain registrar. They offer domains at a cost-covering price as a service for their webhosting customers. Technically ns.phx1.nearlyfreespeech.net works just as well as ns1.yourdomain.example, but the latter one requires manual work (adding glue records) because their control panel does not support it.
Thanks for pointing that out. I had no idea that this wasn't a "standard" registrar feature. I'm with 1&1 and have been dying to switch forever, but this will make me look twice at any alternatives.
I'm sure NFS isn't the only registrar that fits my description. They're just the one I know about.
I would love to hear about others that hold the same standard.
I would love to hear about others that hold the same standard.
[deleted]
I've been a very happy Namecheap customer for years, and I have steered everyone I know looking for a registrar to them. I moved from EasyDNS and never regretted it. Now, I'm glad to see they are politically enlightened.
Here's a step-by-step guide on how to transfer domains from Godaddy to Namecheap:
http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-g...
PS> I didn't write the guide. I am not affiliated to Namecheap. I just found it useful.
http://blog.jeffepstein.me/post/14629857835/a-step-by-step-g...
PS> I didn't write the guide. I am not affiliated to Namecheap. I just found it useful.
I'm glad I started using Namecheap instead of Godaddy. I was inexperienced about registrars at that time...it was Russian Roulette choosing the right registrar. Thank goodness Namecheap's interface wooed me over GoDaddy's. I beat the bullet.
Just moved my two domains over to Namecheap from Godaddy. I then went and purchase a third domain directly from Namecheap that I want to use for a side project. Not a crazy amount of money by any means but ever little bit counts.
Namecheap was the most referenced domain registrar when I was planning on moving away from GoDaddy. They really have their act together and I've been happy with them ever since. Way to go on your SOPA stance.
If anyone here works at NameCheap, can I catch a break somehow if I try to transfer all of my domains over? I've got 20+ and hate spending extra money if they aren't up for renewal anytime soon.
From the Reddit thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...
Apparently you can use the coupon code BYEBYEGD and save some money transferring to Namecheap.
Apparently you can use the coupon code BYEBYEGD and save some money transferring to Namecheap.
A manager from Namecheap said that there's a deal when you transfer 50+ domains. You might be able to work something out with them for 20+, but the manager didn't respond to a request for a 43 domain transfer, so it seems unlikely.
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nmnie/godaddy_supp...
Someone could ask Namecheap to allow people to "bundle" a transfer to hit their discount levels. Enable customers to get together and transfer all their domains from a single registrar like GoDaddy all on the same day. Customer Foo has 43 domains, customer Bar has 7 domains, they both transfer all of these domains on the same day and both key in a bundle code. They both show up in the same transfer bundle, so both get the 50 domain discount.
The bundle code could be an extension of the discount code, like Foo would enter BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Bar while Bar enters BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Foo. That type of structure would limit the bundling to two customers coordinating with each other (so Namecheap doesn't lose out on handing out too many discounts). Other structurings of bundles are possible, of course, depending upon Namecheap's internal sales and marketing goals.
The bundle code could be an extension of the discount code, like Foo would enter BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Bar while Bar enters BYEBYEGD:Email-addy-of-Foo. That type of structure would limit the bundling to two customers coordinating with each other (so Namecheap doesn't lose out on handing out too many discounts). Other structurings of bundles are possible, of course, depending upon Namecheap's internal sales and marketing goals.
Happy to say I've been using namecheap for a little while now. Never had a problem with them.
Unfortunately you do not have DNSSEC or IPv6 glue record support though.
namecheap isnt saying "no" to SOPA; they are saying "yes" to all the transfers from godaddy.
P.S. I <3 namcheap
P.S. I <3 namcheap
Quote "Let us be clear: Namecheap is not in favor of SOPA as it has been proposed."
Yes that's very clear, the agree is some kind of SOPA...
Yes that's very clear, the agree is some kind of SOPA...
I moved all my domains from GoDaddy to Namecheap a while ago. The experience was really smooth, and Namecheap's interface is a TON easier to work with.
Although I support the idea of switching domains from GoDaddy to protest their support of SOPA, I sort have to wonder why anyone technically oriented hasn't done so already. Is there ANYTHING to recommend them other than name recognition?
Although I support the idea of switching domains from GoDaddy to protest their support of SOPA, I sort have to wonder why anyone technically oriented hasn't done so already. Is there ANYTHING to recommend them other than name recognition?
Historical reasons. I've had my domains with them for almost ten years. Ten years ago they were the geek registrar of choice.
Same here. I transfered all of my domains from Network Solutions to them about 10 years ago and have mostly been able to ignore them--I run my own name servers & hosting. More recently, I've been registering domains on namecheap, and this may provide the motivation to finally consolidate my names with a less offensive registrar.
I am planning to transfer my domains to nearlyfreespeech.net. The only thing stopping me is that I renewed them 30 days ago, and apparently you can't transfer a domain within 60 days of renewal for some reason.
I made the move back when GoDaddy pulled Fydor's domain w/o warning. I'm glad to see that I don't have to hunt down yet another registrar that supports freedom.
Prices. Nobody beats godaddy on prices when you use coupons (which exist everywhere). Also brand recognition, looking at their public support forum and Facebook I would suspect a large number of their customers don't know how registrars and hosting work, so they don't know anything beyond godaddy.
GoDaddy also has a larger variety of ccTLDs available (for instance, namecheap doesn't sell .it or .es).
But i'm sure there are lots of other registrars that support those domains and not this act.
But i'm sure there are lots of other registrars that support those domains and not this act.
Namecheap.com: We say no to SOPA but only accept Visa and Mastercard, both of whom support SOPA.
When I was growing up and learning about DNS, HTTP, protocols, and packets I really wanted to get my own domain, but being under 18, I had no easy way to pay a registar without a credit card.
Namecheap was one of the first registrars to accept Paypal, and this helped me get started when I was first developing my passion for web development.
I've been using them for years and plan to continue using them for a long time.
Namecheap was one of the first registrars to accept Paypal, and this helped me get started when I was first developing my passion for web development.
I've been using them for years and plan to continue using them for a long time.
Note that while Namecheap doesn't support SOPA, they clearly do support some form of new IP legislation: "not in favor of SOPA as it has been proposed", "... only a surgical strike is necessary." Whatever comes after SOPA/PROTECT IP - assuming they're defeated - Namecheap may well endorse.
Most sane people support sane IP legislation. It's perfectly reasonable for IP holders to want to have legal recourse against the bad guys. There are lots of people making a lot of money selling a lot of illegal merchandise online.
What people protest about SOPA is that it gives tools to companies (with a history of abusing the recourses granted to them by law) that are akin to a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. Sure, you'll get the fly, but you're going to take out three walls, a couple of load-bearing columns, and an unfortunate cat in the process.
What people protest about SOPA is that it gives tools to companies (with a history of abusing the recourses granted to them by law) that are akin to a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. Sure, you'll get the fly, but you're going to take out three walls, a couple of load-bearing columns, and an unfortunate cat in the process.
>Most sane people support sane IP legislation.
Sane IP legislation is no IP legislation. I don't know why we are still clinging to the ridiculous concept of being able to own abstract concepts. The true insanity is IP in the first place.
Sane IP legislation is no IP legislation. I don't know why we are still clinging to the ridiculous concept of being able to own abstract concepts. The true insanity is IP in the first place.
I agree with you, IP is a bad idea to begin with.
Government grants you a monopoly on an idea, and uses violence to stop other people from infringing on your monopoly. But, usage of these non-scarce resources takes nothing from the originator aside from this monopoly power.
Government grants you a monopoly on an idea, and uses violence to stop other people from infringing on your monopoly. But, usage of these non-scarce resources takes nothing from the originator aside from this monopoly power.
I support, in principle, the concept of IP, and the right of IP holders to enforce their rights, and I hope everyone else on Hacker News does too.
The big questions aren't "should IP even exist as a concept", but instead "how limited IP should be", "what rights IP ownership should give", and "what avenues are available to enforce those rights".
Don't forget, "IP protection" is a really broad concept, and it's more than just patent trolls and DMCA takedowns issued by corporations on content they don't even control: It also includes, for example, the ability to release code under your open source license of choice and then see it enforced through the courts.
The big questions aren't "should IP even exist as a concept", but instead "how limited IP should be", "what rights IP ownership should give", and "what avenues are available to enforce those rights".
Don't forget, "IP protection" is a really broad concept, and it's more than just patent trolls and DMCA takedowns issued by corporations on content they don't even control: It also includes, for example, the ability to release code under your open source license of choice and then see it enforced through the courts.
Many people, myself included, are against the very principle of IP for good reasons: http://www.stephankinsella.com/ip/
"The big questions aren't "should IP even exist as a concept""
Who decided that?
Who decided that?
In this context, I mean IP to encompass non-tangible goods like software and music, as well as things like brands (half of SOPA is levied at people who produce counterfeits of popular brand items). Is there a better term I should use?
RMS, among others, objects to the very term because it encompasses so many different things and that leads to ambiguity, preferring instead to refer to rights individually, e.g. trademarks, copyrights, etc.
For those who simply want to protest, though, people have been using terms like 'intellectual monopoly' or 'imaginary property' or the like. But that gets you right back to lumping them all together again.
For those who simply want to protest, though, people have been using terms like 'intellectual monopoly' or 'imaginary property' or the like. But that gets you right back to lumping them all together again.
You are indeed correct, and I usually agree with RMS on this[1]. It's a bit hard to answer posts talking about IP without using the term yourself, though.
Also, while it's clear that there are different motivations behind Copyright, Patents and Trademarks and it's often important to make a clear distinction between them, I object against them due to the same reason (owning abstract concepts is absurd to the point of insanity), so I do tend to lump them together in a context such as this.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
Also, while it's clear that there are different motivations behind Copyright, Patents and Trademarks and it's often important to make a clear distinction between them, I object against them due to the same reason (owning abstract concepts is absurd to the point of insanity), so I do tend to lump them together in a context such as this.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
RMS is also batshit crazy.
Please do not create throwaway accounts to make one-off, potentially controversial comments. It dilutes the quality of the discussion.
Why? Because it has been a pretty good, if imperfect, solution to the provisioning of public goods problem, for some categories of public goods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions
We have pretty sane IP law already in the DMCA - IP rightsholders already have several avenues of recourse, including the US govt's warantless domain seizures. Anything new is going to beyond the DMCA, and probably far beyond. I am not in support of that and have a hard time cheering on any company that is in support.
I generally agree. However, I'm not going to categorically state that matters can't be improved, so I don't think that it's correct to always associate "IP legislation" with "RIAA/MPAA power grab".
I firmly believe that the issues of content and software piracy are distribution issues, rather than legislation issues. I also believe that it would be silly to say "Welp, things are good enough, no more changes needed ever". To say "We will never support IP legislation" is an untenable position, and I'd be wary of any company that would make such a broad statement. Namecheap made the right one by saying "We support internet freedom".
I firmly believe that the issues of content and software piracy are distribution issues, rather than legislation issues. I also believe that it would be silly to say "Welp, things are good enough, no more changes needed ever". To say "We will never support IP legislation" is an untenable position, and I'd be wary of any company that would make such a broad statement. Namecheap made the right one by saying "We support internet freedom".
I do not agree with your argument because you're ignoring one very damaging trait of SOPA ... penalty without trial and guilty until proven innocent.
This has nothing to do with a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. This has to do with fundamental human rights. This is more akin to the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This is George Bush telling people that they need the "proper tools to fight terrorism" and it's OK because these are not US citizens and so they shouldn't have any rights.
This has nothing to do with a wrecking ball intended to be used as a flyswatter. This has to do with fundamental human rights. This is more akin to the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. This is George Bush telling people that they need the "proper tools to fight terrorism" and it's OK because these are not US citizens and so they shouldn't have any rights.
I think in the analogy either the load-bearing columns or the cat represented our human rights.
May I inquire why cheald was downvoted? His post seemed reasonably well written, and, at least in my opinion, contributed to the conversation. I was to be under the impression down-voting in regards to disagreement was discouraged.
Perhaps his implication that those who disagree with IP are insane offended some folk.
Re-reading that this morning, I see how I communicated that. Sorry.
I meant to say that while you have to be insane to support legislation like SOPA, most normal people who don't live in castles made of double-platinum records aren't opposed to much more moderate and appropriately-scoped legislation. Some very sane people are opposed to it, and that's okay.
I meant to say that while you have to be insane to support legislation like SOPA, most normal people who don't live in castles made of double-platinum records aren't opposed to much more moderate and appropriately-scoped legislation. Some very sane people are opposed to it, and that's okay.
> Most sane people support sane IP legislation.
Too ambiguous and vague. IP legislation that was written at the time of the constitution is perfectly suitable for the modern age without the need to extend forever.
> It's perfectly reasonable for IP holders to want to have legal recourse against the bad guys.
What is reasonable is a LIMITED monopoly on the copying of an artistic medium as long as it 'promotes the arts and sciences'. The goal of copyright and patent law is to maximise the benefits of art and technology TO SOCIETY, not to some corporation. The method of doing this is to grant a LIMITED TIME monopoly over a creation as an incentive to create, not to make corporations more profitable. Once that LIMITED TIME has passed, the creation enters the public domain and society as a whole accrues the benefits. Having infinitely extendable copyrights/patents, copyrights owned by corporations renders the purpose of copyright/patents NULL AND VOID, because society never accrues the benefit associated with the cost (i.e. the monopoly).
> There are lots of people making a lot of money selling a lot of illegal merchandise online.
No, there isn't. There are some, always have been, always will be, because when a market for goods or services is inefficient, it changes the risk/reward ratio for 'cheaters'. Look at the market for drugs for example. The risks are huge, but the rewards are ridiculously higher in proportion. As long as the risk/reward ratio is skewed (i.e. the market is inefficient), there will always be 'cheaters' or 'criminals' in that market. Turning your country into a police state might be one way to stop that, but it may also kill the market you are trying to protect.
Too ambiguous and vague. IP legislation that was written at the time of the constitution is perfectly suitable for the modern age without the need to extend forever.
> It's perfectly reasonable for IP holders to want to have legal recourse against the bad guys.
What is reasonable is a LIMITED monopoly on the copying of an artistic medium as long as it 'promotes the arts and sciences'. The goal of copyright and patent law is to maximise the benefits of art and technology TO SOCIETY, not to some corporation. The method of doing this is to grant a LIMITED TIME monopoly over a creation as an incentive to create, not to make corporations more profitable. Once that LIMITED TIME has passed, the creation enters the public domain and society as a whole accrues the benefits. Having infinitely extendable copyrights/patents, copyrights owned by corporations renders the purpose of copyright/patents NULL AND VOID, because society never accrues the benefit associated with the cost (i.e. the monopoly).
> There are lots of people making a lot of money selling a lot of illegal merchandise online.
No, there isn't. There are some, always have been, always will be, because when a market for goods or services is inefficient, it changes the risk/reward ratio for 'cheaters'. Look at the market for drugs for example. The risks are huge, but the rewards are ridiculously higher in proportion. As long as the risk/reward ratio is skewed (i.e. the market is inefficient), there will always be 'cheaters' or 'criminals' in that market. Turning your country into a police state might be one way to stop that, but it may also kill the market you are trying to protect.
Yeah, I don't get why they have to hedge with the "as it has been proposed". Which of its constituents is looking for that hedge?
Why can't they just say they do not support the bill. Or, better, that they oppose the bill? Does "as currently proposed" add anything?
Why can't they just say they do not support the bill. Or, better, that they oppose the bill? Does "as currently proposed" add anything?
[deleted]
maybe I have this wrong, but it sounds like they heard the rabble rousing and made a well timed good marketing move. No surprise. But it does make me sad when a political stance is a marketing move.
I have no problem with it if their political stance actually lines up with the marketing move. If folks are mad that your competitor likes to kick puppies, it's totally fair game to say "Hey, we provide the same thing, and you don't have to finance puppy-kicking if you use us."
I hope you are right, and the order of things is as you say. If not we are trading one evil for another.
Why does it make you sad for a business to react to market conditions and try to garner more customers as well as let existing customers know their stance? That is why they exist. I would be sad if they didn't take a stance and use it to support their business.
I suppose if the order is as such, "we already have this stance, and if we market it now it will benefit us" it would not bug me as much. However if it had this order "If we take this stance and market it, it will benefit us" it implies the stance will last only as long as the marketing and the benefit. I guess at the lowest root, I feel like marketing and politics should never be mixed, that using marketing in politics, and taking advantage of politics in marketing is somehow perhaps irrationally, the cause of a lot of our current cultural and lobbying abuse troubles. However, I am so left wing I fall a bit off the scale and I most definitely do not have the soul of a business man, perhaps I am best dismissed as a crazy person.
You're not crazy, just principled. Good rational explanation of your position, too.
Does namecheap have free DNS? I have 25 domains on godaddy and thinking about moving them, but I will need to be able to manage nameservers through whoever I switch to since right now thats all done through godaddy.
Also, whats the cost of transfering?
Also, whats the cost of transfering?
$6.99 using the SOPASucks code. http://i.imgur.com/MDSHl.jpg
I just transferred the last few of my godaddy domains to Namecheap.
I've used namecheap as dns host for a while without problems.
Transfers are $6.99 with SOPASucks coupon code.
SOPA finally made me get off my lazy ass and do something about consolidating all of them to namecheap.
SOPA finally made me get off my lazy ass and do something about consolidating all of them to namecheap.
Yep, they offer free DNS hosting. I've used them as my primary DNS and registrar for years without issue.
I don't know about the transfer cost, but I know they do have free DNS as I use it myself.
Cost of transfer is 1 year fee, so $9.95 for .com domains
Totally independently of their SOPA stance, I would recommend Namecheap over GoDaddy. I've been using Namecheap for years; they are reliable and have a sane (if not terribly pretty) user interface.
I switched to Namecheap after I got bit in the ass by the RegisterFly fiasco. Namecheap has been great to me ever since. I highly recommend them, despite their spammy-sounding name.
I just own a few domais, but they are all registered at Namecheap, the first since 2006. I too am yet to face a single issue with their service.
Seconded. I've used Namecheap for some 7 years now. Unlike so many of their competitors, they actually care about customer satisfaction.
I've been using namecheap for years and have yet to have a single issue with them.
No complaints about Namecheap over here as well.
Another satisfied Namecheap customer.
Now there is a perfect marketing opportunity seized by Namecheap. Reminds me of when LaLa was acquired and Pandora offered a month free of Pandora One to "LaLa refugees."
Just adding a shout for Hover. They've been opposing SOPA for a while now:
https://www.hover.com/blog/hover-opposes-sopa
https://www.hover.com/blog/hover-opposes-sopa
Do any non godaddy registrars offer bulk discounts?
Ask!
Many do not advertise it but will do a bulk discount if you ask. I'm pretty certain Namecheap is one of them (if you have more than 50 I think).
Many do not advertise it but will do a bulk discount if you ask. I'm pretty certain Namecheap is one of them (if you have more than 50 I think).
Contacted a help person @namecheap. when I asked for 50+ domains, was told, there is no bulk discount other than the current SOPASuck type deal. The current SOPASucks is limited to 10 domains.
I Wish there was a bulk discount. Pity namecheap couldn't come up with tiered bulk domain transferring pricing.
I Wish there was a bulk discount. Pity namecheap couldn't come up with tiered bulk domain transferring pricing.
yeah with almost 100 domains, I'd love to move them all at once and save some coin.
Maybe that's unfair to Namecheap, but at any rate, all these issues with GoDaddy that people seem to suddenly care about just now are the reasons I have given NFS all my domain registration business for years now.
Just being anti-SOPA isn't good enough.