And the danger of that is what? It's not like he was collecting Paypal logins or bank account details. At worst, it's a breach of copyright. There are well-established legal avenues for dealing with copyright issues. >-- Original Message -- >From: "David Farrar" <david§farrar.com> >To: "'.au DNS Discussion List'" <dns§dotau.org> >Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:29:57 +1200 >Subject: Re: [DNS] johnhowardpm.org >Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> > > >Parody sites of politicians are an important part of free speech and I've >even been involved in a couple myself. > >However the problem with this site was it wasn't a clear parody. It was >almost identical to the official site with one fake speech added on. It >was >designed to fool and mislead people (which it did at first). There is a >difference between parody and fake. > >I suspect if the creators had made the site a true parody site, then nothing >would have happened. > >My 2c > >DPF > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dns-bounces+david=farrar.com§dotau.org >> [mailto:dns-bounces+david=farrar.com§dotau.org] On Behalf Of >> Jon Lawrence >> Sent: Sunday, 19 March 2006 12:26 a.m. >> To: .au DNS Discussion List >> Subject: Re: [DNS] johnhowardpm.org >> >> The lesson to be learned from this would appear to be that if >> you wish to be critical of the Howard government then you >> should register your domain name and host your site offshore. >> >> And this happened in the same week that John Howard is quoted >> as saying "I believe in democracy." Perhaps it's the Chinese >> form of democracy he's referring to. >> >> Someone might like to direct the PM's office to check out >> www.whitehouse.com (a porn site), www.whitehouse.net (a >> parody site) and www.whitehouse.org (also a parody site), all >> of which have coexisted for years with the official site at >> www.whitehouse.gov. If there's one thing the Americans do >> understand and respect properly, it's the principle of free speech. >> >> Jon >> >> >-- Original Message -- >> >Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:39:02 +1100 (EST) >> >From: Ian Smith <smithi§nimnet.asn.au> >> >To: Chris Bell <lists-dns§blueskyhost.com> >> >Cc: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >> >Subject: Re: [DNS] johnhowardpm.org >> >Reply-To: ".au DNS Discussion List" <dns§dotau.org> >> > >> > >> >On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Chris Bell wrote: >> > >> >[.. Allow me first to repost the original context: >> > >> > > >> http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/government-shuts-howard-spoof-si >> > > te/2006/03/17/1142098638843.html >> > >> > > This sets a dangerous new precedent. Basically Melbourne IT have >> > > intervened in what is essentially a civil matter. If >> there was any >> > > dispute over the name itself that should have gone to >> UDRP. Phishing >> is >> > > necessarily criminal in nature, so calling it that is really a >> > > stretch of the imagination. >> > >> >..] >> > >> > > Ian Smith wrote: >> > > >> > > >Hardly new for Richard Neville .. remember the Oz >> trials? And not >> the >> > > >first political satirist to be denied a venue .. >> remember Peter Berner? >> > >> > >> > > No, but that's besides the point - innit? >> > >> >Depends on what you find dangerous. To me pressure on registrars to >> >remove satirical sites is the basic problem, not the lame >> excuse that >> >'to us it looks like a phishing site' that MelbIT reportedly >> supplied. >> >> > >> > > > > Yet another reason not to bother dealing with Melbourne IT. >> > > > >> > > >Know any registrars prepared to argue the toss with the gummint? >> > >> > > They're regulated by ICANN, not the gummint. >> > >> >Sure - which is controlled by another, nominally different, gummint. >> >Again, tell us (and Richard Neville) the name of a registrar >> prepared >> >to tell the Prime Monster's Office to go, er, file a civil complaint. >> > >> > > >'Twas nice of the Herald to publish the URL to the, um, >> 179K pdf of >> the >> > > >piece at >> > > >http://www.richardneville.com/Satire/Howard_speech_150306.pdf >> > >> > > Oh fer crying out loud Ian. It's 2006 and you're >> complaining about a >> >> > > 180Kb download? I can recommend a good provider :) >> > >> >I can't see how you interpret that as a complaint. I mentioned the >> >size to indicate that it was a trivial download for those >> vaguely interested. >> > >> > > C'mon this basically says that your registrar can pull >> your domains >> on >> > >> > > the basis of a civil complaint. I can understand that >> this gets done >> in >> > >> > > a criminal context, but this is really stretching the >> notion of contract. >> > >> >If you believe that "in response to a request from the Prime >> Minister's >> >office" is similar to 'a civil complaint' then I'm afraid I >> can't help! >> > >> >cheers, Ian >> > >> >------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---------- >> >---- List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------------- >> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ >> >> > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/Received on Sun Mar 19 2006 - 10:46:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:08 UTC