Godaddy - they change their policy and take your domains without notice
Red E. Kilowatt
> Be advised that Godaddy is now suspending domains where the associated
> web site contains an affiliate link to an online pharmacy.
They didn't respond to any of the points I made in my defense. They said
I can either pay the $75 each and immediately move those domains or I
can call them up and discuss it further. Discussing this further with
them would only amount to me telling them they're wrong and them telling
me they have a right to do whatever they want. There's no use in arguing
about this any more and I'm not going to give in to their ransom
demands. So I guess that's the end of it.
I don't belong to any webmaster forums and I don't want to go around and
join a bunch of them just for this, so I'd appreciate it if people who
are active in other forums would help get the word out on what Godaddy
is now doing to webmasters who have affiliate links to online
pharmacies.
Crossposted to: alt.html, alt.internet.search-engines,
alt.www.affiliate, alt.www.webmaster
For the benefit of those folks who are seeing this for the first time,
I'm reposting the email I sent to Godaddy proving that affiliate links
are not illegal:
> My web sites comply with all U.S. laws governing the sale and
> distribution
> of controlled substances including the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy
> Act.
> My web sites are informational only. I do not sell medication, nor is
> medication sold "through" my web sites. Therefore, I need not make any
> statement to the effect that "...all medication sold on or through
> your website require a valid prescription by a properly licensed
> physician."
> http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2009/fr0406.pdf
> Page 6
>
> "While the general scope of the
> definition of an ''online pharmacy'' is
> broad, the definition expressly excludes
> the following categories:
> (vi) Mere advertisements that do not
> attempt to facilitate an actual transaction
> involving a controlled substance;"
>
> My web sites contain ADVERTISMENTS only, and therefore they do not
> violate
> US law. In one sense all advertisements facilitate sales. Obviously
> DEA rules require more involvement than that in order to be said to
> be in violation of US law. Otherwise advertisements would not be
> specifically excluded at all.
>
> For instance, in order to facilitate an actual transaction my web site
> would
> have to be collecting customer contact or payment information or
> requests
> for specific drugs and providing that information to an online
> pharmacy. My
> web sites do not do anything like that. I only provide general
> information
> to the public and a link to an online pharmacy. Therefore my web sites
> are
> in compliance with US law.
>
> I understand that Godaddy reserves the right to take domains for any
> reason,
> so this is all probably beside the point if your management has
> decided to
> take this action against any web site with an affiliate link
> regardless of
> individual circumstances. However your instructions do say that if I
> can demonstrate that I am not in violation of US law you will
> reconsider the actions you've taken against me.
>
> Additionally, as I pointed out in my previous email, I was in contact
> with
> Godaddy's "Office of the President" and trying to get clarification of
> the
> rules when this happened. I never did get any clarification from them
> on the
> issue of affiliate links even though I exchanged several emails with
> them
> over the past two days. I think it's particularly unfair to take
> action against someone when they are in the process of trying to get
> clarification
> of the rules so that they can be in compliance with them.
>
> With that in mind, I think if you decide to rule against me despite
> the points I've made that you should give me an opportunity to edit
> or move the web
> sites associated with the domains in question without charging me $75
> each
> simply because I didn't know the details of rules that even your own
> employees can't articulate clearly when asked about them.
--
Red
Neredbojias
Regardless of the right or wrong in this situation, I think charging
$75 for whatever the rational is for such a charge is the *real* wrong
here. If your site really is in violation of whatever, a warning and
then a subsequent suspension following an ignored warning would seem a
better path to follow in the business world if one has any "moxie" at
all.
--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Greg Russell
news:3cadt9....@news.alt.net...
> I'd appreciate it if people who are active in other forums would
> help get the word out on what <his ISP> is now doing to
> webmasters who have affiliate links to online pharmacies.
I think there is ample justification for banning all online pharmacies, and
any URL links to them. They are a primary source of spam emailings, and
their products are absolute forgeries with no medicinal value whatsoever,
designed exclusively to separate a sucker from their money.
Red E. Kilowatt
You're entitled to your opinion on what should be done, but your
assertions about the products are wrong. Everything you think you know
about online pharmacies has been spoon-fed to you by Big Pharma, the
FDA, and the DEA.
A more accurate statement on the quality of products would be to
acknowledge that one faces additional risks when buying from online
pharmacies because there are some fakes and out of date medicines being
sold. There are a lot of people who are willing to take those risks
because they have no other option. Information is shared online and that
helps the people who do proper research before buying. Perhaps you would
deny that to them based on your beliefs, but I wouldn't.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
> Regardless of the right or wrong in this situation, I think charging
> $75 for whatever the rational is for such a charge is the *real* wrong
> here. If your site really is in violation of whatever, a warning and
> then a subsequent suspension following an ignored warning would seem a
> better path to follow in the business world if one has any "moxie" at
> all.
Needless to say, I agree with you. :-)
Here's something else I found:
Do a Google search on "godaddy terms of service" and you'll see this
link
http://www.godaddy.com/GDSHOP/legal_agreements/show_doc.asp?pageid=reg_sa
This page does not contain the phrase, "activities associated with the
sale or distribution of prescription medication without a valid
prescription." But the page they referenced in their email to me does
contain that phrase.
I have made an addition to the recommended links page for the
alt.www.webmaster FAQ:
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aww-faq.org/aww-links.html#Domain
Godaddy. -- Avoid this registrar. Godaddy's contract has sweeping
language in it that allows them to take your domain for any reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_Daddy
"Go Daddy general counsel Christine Jones stated that Go Daddy's terms
of service "reserves the right to terminate your access to the services
at any time, without notice, for any reason whatsoever.""
This has happened to many people. See http://nodaddy.com
If your domain is seized by Godaddy they have the option of charging you
$75 for the right to transfer it to another registrar or they can just
take it and keep it. You can call or write the abuse department or the
"Office of the President" of Godaddy to complain about their unjust
taking of your domain, but they will not even consider what you have to
say.
There are many fine domain registrars. Do Not Trust Your Domains to
Godaddy.
----------------------------------------------------------
--
Red
ti...@axishost.com
"Greg Russell" <grus...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:7ovngrF...@mid.individual.net...
While you're at it, ban any product that has a company that spams or sells
inferior products. I bought some bad popcorn from a company that sent me an
email once. Perhaps Godaddy should go after anything popcorn related!!!
After all, its Godaddy's job to regulate the internet, right?
--Tina "ban popcorn from the internet!"
richard
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>> Be advised that Godaddy is now suspending domains where the associated
>> web site contains an affiliate link to an online pharmacy.
>
> They didn't respond to any of the points I made in my defense. They said
> I can either pay the $75 each and immediately move those domains or I
> can call them up and discuss it further. Discussing this further with
> them would only amount to me telling them they're wrong and them telling
> me they have a right to do whatever they want. There's no use in arguing
> about this any more and I'm not going to give in to their ransom
> demands. So I guess that's the end of it.
>
> I don't belong to any webmaster forums and I don't want to go around and
> join a bunch of them just for this, so I'd appreciate it if people who
> are active in other forums would help get the word out on what Godaddy
> is now doing to webmasters who have affiliate links to online
> pharmacies.
>
GoDaddy took a domain away from me based upon a single complaint with no
merit. They claimed two photos were "adult content" and that was not
allowed by them. It made no difference to them where the site was hosted.
File a formal complaint with ICANN and file a lawsuit against them.
Violation of the "free speech" clause.
While you're at it, file a complaint with FTC.
In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about it.
John Bokma
> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
> it.
Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
--
John Bokma
Read my blog: http://johnbokma.com/
Hire me (Perl/Python): http://castleamber.com/
Jerry Stuckle
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>> it.
>
> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
>
Actually, not, John. You don't pay the fee and eventually it is
released for anyone else who might want it.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
richard
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>> it.
>
> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
No. If you pay for the domain name, it's yours and the registrar no longer
has control over it. The only thing they do is provide the who owns it
information. Actually, you can provide your own information on your server
if you're listed with ICANN.
For instance, I have 3 domains I purchased through hostgator. They've told
me I can take them anywhere I want.
GoDaddy has no legal control over the content. Unless they physically host
the site. They're just playing bad asses. I don't do business with them.
Greg Russell
> A more accurate statement on the quality of products would be to
> acknowledge that one faces additional risks when buying from online
> pharmacies because there are some fakes and out of date medicines being
> sold.
That's entirely correct; it's the 98% bogus sites that ruin it for the other
2%.
Greg Russell
news:H8AWm.77450$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
> After all, its Godaddy's job to regulate the internet, right?
It's *everybody's* job ... Godaddy's punitive premise is just an economy of
scale.
Doug Miller
>
>No. If you pay for the domain name, it's yours and the registrar no longer
>has control over it. The only thing they do is provide the who owns it
>information.
Wrong. You register a domain name _for a specific period of time_, not for
eternity. If you fail to pay the renewal fees after that time period expires,
you can lose it to anyone else who *does* pay the fees.
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>>> it.
>>
>> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
>> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
>> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
>> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
>>
>
> Actually, not, John. You don't pay the fee and eventually it is
> released for anyone else who might want it.
Yes, I know, so it's renting.
What I would like is that you can actually purchase a domain and rent
the DNS service. That's what I meant in the second part of that
paragraph.
John Bokma
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:47:54 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>>> it.
>>
>> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
>> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
>> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
>> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
>
> No. If you pay for the domain name, it's yours
If that's true, why do I have to renew it each year? I don't have to pay
each year for my computer, my books, etc.
> For instance, I have 3 domains I purchased through hostgator. They've told
> me I can take them anywhere I want.
Sure, as long as you pay the rent ;-) As soon as you stop paying the
rent your domain(s) and wait long enough your domains are gone. In some
cases you might get them back, but from what I understand that's not
easy, and you have to be on top of the process very early on.
Imagine you buy a computer, and each year you have to pay a fee for it,
and if you don't someone takes your computer away...
Red E. Kilowatt
These figures are brought to you by the office of "Statistics I Pulled
Out of My Butt." :-)
--
Red
Steve Sobol
> You're entitled to your opinion on what should be done, but your
> assertions about the products are wrong.
Regardless of the assertions about the product, I agree with the
assessment that they generate several metric assloads of spam.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
sjs...@JustThe.net
ti...@axishost.com
Awhile back, before we had any kind of health insurance, I frequently filled
prescriptions online through CA pharmacies. The savings, over our local
Walgreens, was phenomenal.
I've dealt with probably 5 or 7 different online pharmacies and never had a
problem. That's a 100% success rate. Granted, its a very small test
group - but if we were to believe that "almost all" are bad, I should
probably play the lottery more often.
--Tina
Red E. Kilowatt
> In article <3cb19v....@news.alt.net>, SPAM...@aww-faq.org
> says...
>
>
>> You're entitled to your opinion on what should be done, but your
>> assertions about the products are wrong.
>
> Regardless of the assertions about the product, I agree with the
> assessment that they generate several metric assloads of spam.
Absolutely true, but even if all online pharmacies were eliminated those
spammers wouldn't quit sending spam. They'd just switch to something
else and they'd probably spam even more to make up for the loss in
profits.
I'm getting more spam from African princes (or their widows) asking me
to arrange a money transfer than I am for online sources of drugs. And
the "You've won a lottery" spam runs a close second.
--
Red
Red E. Kilowatt
>> Greg Russell wrote:
>>> That's entirely correct; it's the 98% bogus sites that ruin it for
>>> the other 2%.
>>
>> These figures are brought to you by the office of "Statistics I
>> Pulled Out of My Butt." :-)
>> --
>> Red
>
> Awhile back, before we had any kind of health insurance, I frequently
> filled prescriptions online through CA pharmacies. The savings, over
> our local Walgreens, was phenomenal.
>
> I've dealt with probably 5 or 7 different online pharmacies and never
> had a problem. That's a 100% success rate. Granted, its a very
> small test group - but if we were to believe that "almost all" are
> bad, I should probably play the lottery more often.
>
> --Tina
Yup. Fact is, drugs imported from Canada are just as safe and effective
as drugs from any local pharmacy in the US.
All medicines sold in the US are part of a price-fixing scheme created
by Big Pharma and enforced by their paid lackys in government. Sadly,
Obama signed away the right for the government to import cheaper drugs
from Canada or to have the US govt negotiate with Big Pharma for lower
drug prices in return for their support of the healthcare bill --
support that they have paid lip service to while at the same time they
used their control over Congress to remove or water down any real
reforms from the bill.
--
Red
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle <jstu...@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> John Bokma wrote:
>>> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>>>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>>>> it.
>>> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
>>> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
>>> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
>>> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
>>>
>> Actually, not, John. You don't pay the fee and eventually it is
>> released for anyone else who might want it.
>
> Yes, I know, so it's renting.
>
> What I would like is that you can actually purchase a domain and rent
> the DNS service. That's what I meant in the second part of that
> paragraph.
>
Ah, OK. I see what you're getting at - but it ain't gonna happen :(
Red E. Kilowatt
> GoDaddy took a domain away from me based upon a single complaint with
> no merit. They claimed two photos were "adult content" and that was
> not allowed by them. It made no difference to them where the site was
> hosted.
Yes Richard I remember it quite well. At the time I had no sympathy for
you because I thought you were a pervert who deserved to have his domain
taken away. I even left AWW for a while because I didn't want to be in
the same newsgroup as you.
I will admit now that what was done to you by Godaddy was wrong, even
though I still think the the photos were boderline pedo stuff.
>
> File a formal complaint with ICANN and file a lawsuit against them.
> Violation of the "free speech" clause.
ICANN doesn't have a "free speech" clause.
> While you're at it, file a complaint with FTC.
I have already filed the complaints. I also told my story at nodaddy.com
and added a warning about Godaddy to the AWW FAQ.
>
> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
> it.
I've moved 2/3 of my domains already and the rest are in the works.
The names that were "suspended" are as good as gone. I can't transfer
them unless I pay Godaddy $75 each. I might do that for a domain that
was worth it but these aren't, so I've accepted the fact that they are
gone.
--
Red
John Bokma
> John Bokma wrote:
>> What I would like is that you can actually purchase a domain and rent
>> the DNS service. That's what I meant in the second part of that
>> paragraph.
>>
>
> Ah, OK. I see what you're getting at - but it ain't gonna happen :(
Yup, sadly.
richard
> richard wrote:
>> GoDaddy took a domain away from me based upon a single complaint with
>> no merit. They claimed two photos were "adult content" and that was
>> not allowed by them. It made no difference to them where the site was
>> hosted.
>
> Yes Richard I remember it quite well. At the time I had no sympathy for
> you because I thought you were a pervert who deserved to have his domain
> taken away. I even left AWW for a while because I didn't want to be in
> the same newsgroup as you.
Actually, the domain name I had acquired was shot down because I dared to
use the name of a person posting in usenet. GoDaddy just used the photos as
an excuse to ensure that the other person got the domain name instead.
But since then, I have discovered that asshole's true identity and because
of that he no longer harasses me in any way. Although he does let me know
in other ways that he's still out there. It was mainly his efforts that got
me known as a pervert and such.
And it is kind of ironic in some ways, that GoDaddy shut down his prescious
home site because they could never contact him. Something I tried to do for
years.
Alex
>
>> In the meantime, ditch them bastards and go with another host.
>> It's your domain name, you own it. They can't do a damn thing about
>> it.
>
> Technically you rent it. I never understood that part, I mean how hard
> is it to sell domain names for a fee and in order to have it available
> on the Internet one has to pay a small fee. If you don't pay the fee,
> your domain name stays with you, it's only no longer on the Internet.
>
If we have some U.S. attorneys watching this NG, it would be interesting to
get their opinion about whether one can file a trademark registration for a
domain name. I
n the event the domain name was "taken back" by a registrar, any subsequent
use of that domain name by another site would presumably risk infringing
your federally registered trademark.
Thoughts?
Alex
Greg Russell
Red E. Kilowatt <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> typed:
> These figures are brought to you by the office of "Statistics I Pulled
> Out of My Butt." :-)
... and I'll bet that you have a lot more in there..
Greg Russell
Red E. Kilowatt <SPAM...@aww-faq.org> typed:
>>>> That's entirely correct; it's the 98% bogus sites that ruin it for
>>>> the other 2%.
...
> Yup. Fact is, drugs imported from Canada are just as safe and
> effective as drugs from any local pharmacy in the US.
The Canadian online pharmacies are probably the bulk of the 2%.
ti...@axishost.com
There is no "2%". It was a made up statistic. You can't theorize
something based on a number that was made up with no facts to back it up.
--Tina
Grogan
renew a domain, it's like sitting with a time-share salesman. To many nags to
get you to buy more.
Greg Russell
ti...@axishost.com <ti...@axishost.com> typed:
>>>>>> That's entirely correct; it's the 98% bogus sites that ruin it
>>>>>> for the other 2%.
>> ...
>>> Yup. Fact is, drugs imported from Canada are just as safe and
>>> effective as drugs from any local pharmacy in the US.
>>
>> The Canadian online pharmacies are probably the bulk of the 2%.
>
> There is no "2%".
OK, if you insist ... the Canadian online pharmacies are part of the problem
too.
ti...@axishost.com
I wish you had wanted to have a reasonable debate. Oh well. Carry on
with your "the sky is green" conversation without me.
--Tina
Greg Russell
ti...@axishost.com <ti...@axishost.com> typed:
> I wish you had wanted to have a reasonable debate.
Discussing online pharmacies is not a "debate", it's tolerating the odour of
the worst of Internet fecal matter, on par with child pornography.
Red E. Kilowatt
Tisk tisk. Such extreme language.
It's a *USENET staple of course, but it does betray an inability to
carry on a civilized conversation after one's opinions have been
challenged.
* It's not just USENET of course. Political discourse in any venue
rarely rises above this sort of thing these days.
--
Red