I hear that as of this week, America is officially a police state, Yaaaaay

Nothing new there, same story when they beat,sprayed and shot the shit out the occupy dudes, when they shot and bomb innocent civilians around the globe and get away, or when they spy on just about everybody. All the same stories every year.

Some evil motherfuckers are shaping things to their benefits again, and they have the media to back them up by not saying anything:(

sup hungary

Same shit here ofc but there is a major difference: if we go down, the rest of the world just wont give a fuck or will be even happier. If they go down, you can be sure that the shit will be "shared" with the rest of us. The world would be a better place with a healthy and strong USA.

hogy

It's like a lion in the desert. If it would sleep peacefully stuffed with his meal, the rest could just do whatever they want to do .... and we wouldn't have things like SOPA at the first place.

It already passed the senate, so there's no way in hell that it isn't going to make it through the house. The only thing that will stop it at this point is maybe the president, but since he's supporting the NDAA, I seriously doubt that he'd be against SOPA.

not that it means much, but obama said he will not sign it (in its current form i guess, not sure)

He said the same thing about the NDAA.

Obama is a liar.

wasn't really listening to the youtube vid much but apparently that guy think youtube and facebook will both be shutdown if they host copywrighted content. yeah.

I think this is all a stunt by dove and other soap companies to get people to subliminally think of their products.

They should fire the marketing department than, because almost nobody knows about this :o)

ive been ignoring it since all that net neutrality stuff never formed into anything problematic. figured this was just another blahblah that would be gone as well :s.....

but seeing your comment about org/net/com and vedic's that US senate already passed it...starting to care :c

They will be having the vote on whether to pass SOPA on the 21st of December. If they do well, basically the net will be fucked.

Correction, the only the internet in the US will be "fucked".

There will always be countries with third world freedom, such as Iran, China or the US. Not much for the rest of us to do about it.

The difference between Iran and the US is that the americans actually voted for the ones who are trying to pass this bill. Why vote for them if they are idiots? And if you vote for idiots, why are you surprised when they take idiotic decisions?

On a side note, SOPA means loser/crap in Swedish, quite fitting.

If we have to get around that thing with some kind of a new free dns system like a second Internet or something, well that will be a hell of a mess for a very long time.

It's not only the US that controls these DNS servers. One is in Sweden, for example.

What could happen is the same thing that happened to other websites that the US government doesn't like, such as Pokerstars. That the domain is blocked locally in the States but available for the rest of the world.

Tbh, I did not dig myself into this matter yet, but iirc this still in effect and ITU is not in control atm.
The DNS system is hierarchical system, so what you are proposing is a split, but I think it's not an efficient solution because the hierarchy is the only thing what makes this system secure, afaik there is no any other kind of security in the DNS system by design. And if they block youtube (edit: bad example since youtube got a HQ in Ireland), it wont be available for anybody.

ps.: sorry if I'm wrong, I was about to read into this subject, just never had the time.

Well basically anything what's still controlled by the US like *.org, *.net *.com will be fucked and have to be moved.

the US government controls the entire DNS hierarchy, not just some gTLD roots.

I understand ofc, all I was trying to say that servers not using any of that 21(?) gTLD and are also physically outside the US, could have some kind of a "workaround" (and yes I know - as I stated it already - that the workaround would be a horrible mess, but it would be still possible), why there is clearly no hope for the rest.

The generic domains such as .org, .net and .com are not controlled by the US government (but by ICANN). Though while they in some technical aspect could try to enforce their will on for example a .com, it is extremely doubtful they would do so at it could cause an international crisis. The whole reason those top level domains are not controlled by the US government to begin with is because of international pressure.

As such, they will do as they've done in the past, block the US access to said domain.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure why you're so adamant about participating in a discussion you are clearly not educated about. it's rather frustrating.

ICANN is controlled by the US government. do you understand this?

international pressure has done naught to change that. top-level domains? are you totally clueless? top-level domains are dependent upon the root-zone, which is controlled by the US government regardless.

the US has NEVER in any circumstance "blocked US access" to a domain name, either.

You obviously know nothing about this. So why even attempt to take a higher stand?

the US has NEVER in any circumstance "blocked US access" to a domain name, either.

They have, at several points, done so. For example http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/9250/53545520.jpg

The domain worked fine for everyone outside the US.

ICANN is controlled by the US government. do you understand this?

international pressure has done naught to change that.

"Done naught to change that"?

The reason ICANN was even created was because of international pressure. Which in turn gave the operation over .com, .net and .org to Verisign, a private company.

wow, you are really arrogant and douchey. no, it is YOU who doesn't know the first thing. I have been working with DNS and networks for 15 years.

domain seizures have NOTHING to do with government firewalls or DNS hijacking. if the government seizes control of NS records, they own the domain. that's the end of the story. they can choose to do with it what they like, but they have in NO CIRCUMSTANCE ever injected themselves into DNS responses issued by other people's auhoritative nameservers.

you know nothing about the history of IANA, ICANN, or the gTLDs. the IANA originally controlled most of the entire internet, and it was managed by the US DoD. ICANN was created, on behalf of the US Department of Commerce, to handle IANA functions as well as manage gTLDs under the guise of a private corporation. they are CONTRACTED by the US government. you don't know what you're talking about. the US government owns and always has owned the DNS root. the end.

Prior to the establishment of ICANN for this purpose, IANA was administered primarily by Jon Postel at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California (USC), under a contract USC/ISI had with the United States Department of Defense, until ICANN was created to assume the responsibility under a United States Department of Commerce contract.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, play /ˈaɪkæn/ eye-kan) is a non-profit corporation headquartered in Marina del Rey, California, United States, that was created on September 18, 1998, and incorporated on September 30, 1998[1] to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN

The US Department of Commerce NTIA exercises the ultimate authority over the DNS root zone of the Internet.[1]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNS_root_zone

next.

It is pretty obvious you are trying your best to dodge your previous statement.

the US has NEVER in any circumstance "blocked US access" to a domain name,

As shown, pokerstars.com was blocked from the US by the US government but wasn't blocked anywhere else. Citing a bunch of random wikipedia articles will not change that fact.

sup tyryl

you do not know what you are talking about, but I wouldn't expect any more from a pretentious Scandinavian who says nonsensical things like "There will always be countries with third world freedom, such as Iran, China or the US."

the hell does "third-world freedom" mean? I am a libertarian, and the US couldn't be further from some beacon of true liberty right now, but that says nothing about the state of the rest of the world. some socialist Scandinavian who doesn't understand the differences between freedom, liberty, and negative/positive freedoms doesn't change the fact that the US is by far the most free nation in the world today. and that's not an endorsement of it. in fact, it's quite sad.

the US Department of Defense runs IANA and ICANN. we control the DNS root zones. yes, some of the root-servers are hosted in other regions for obvious redundancy purposes, but the United States government controls the DNS. period. the United States also has by far the largest and most important internet infrastracture; you can isolate yourself from it, but you're not going to be accessible a large majority of the web and the internet if you do so, and trying to introduce a third-party DNS architecture will be an absolute nightmare that will never work.

the Pokerstars domain was seized by the US government. this has nothing to do with DNS inside or outside of other countries. if the domain is seized, the person seizing it has control of its NS records. period. it has since been relinquished back to its owner.

doesn't change the fact that the US is by far the most free nation in the world today.

Do you even believe that yourself? Even your so called Freedom of the press is some of the worst in the western world. You're not even granted a green light. You are also one of the most corrupt countries in the west (again, not even a green light, not to mention the fact that it has become worse and worse every year).

However, continue watching Fox news and continue believing you are the greatest and most free nation on the planet. Calling it a "fact", oh the irony.

no. it is not a matter of belief. get over yourself.

I don't want to offend you and I truly respect your great country, but the thing about the freedom, is gone for a very very long time:(
Again, please don't get me wrong, there is no hate involved (in fact, I really like your country) but nothing more than just looking at the prisons - like looking at a shadow casted by your society - ,it's simply shocking.

edit.: A (not so nice) vid about the linked document:

I didn't think people like you still existed in the States, especially with what is going on this very second.

However, I suppose there will always be the 5% extremist with blind fate in their country and government regardless of what is happening around them.

The comments on http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nhb...e_the_usa/ are actually a relief to read though, as it seems that at least some in the US has woken up.

5%? I wish it were so low. =(

u.s. is the most free nation on earth and tryryl is one of the best duelers in the world. fact. period. done. no debate son.

Why vote for them if they are idiots?

Congress has a 9% approval rating. However, while people have an extremely low approval of congress as a whole, the majority of people who have a poor view of congress will have a positive view of their own congressmen. People are idiots, and they have no idea how the system works.

awesome....................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAeWqBQr1GA

Starts @ 3:00

Naom Shomsky is am admirable person. O ve read his books and it s in the top of my favorites.

It will properly effect the rest of the world one way or the other but really cant be fun living in America with such a bunch of cunts of a government.

I'm done posting on this pitiful excuse for a discussion forum where biased and uneducated trolls like Paladia can go around posting without remorse, but those who are informed have their ideas rejected merely on the basis of popularity.

I have no idea if my latest posts will come through. for those of you who are interested in these issues, though, it's your own personal responsibility to become educated, and you can do so with or without my contributions. I urge you to make that decision. this site is a waste of time.

lol
raged

ok tyrlylrlrlrl

You gave up pretty fast, that's not what an American would do.

anyone in europe need a handsome american roomate? :E

show pic

okay.jpg

:c

Do you have some sort of medical condition?

aids

good luck with that

thx

your writing has too much prediction :p

kinzu :[

No offence bro but you are the ugliest motherfucker I have ever seen. If I didn't know any better I'd assume your mom was a titty waitress at Hooters, got pregnant, was fired for her slump appearance, then couldn't afford an abortion so she had the local kids try and whack her bulging fetus like a piñata.

Only you survived and that's how you ended up with such a disfigured face. Either that or you got baptized with scolding hot coffee. I bet if a blind kid felt your face he'd be asking why there's a pizza on this camel's ass.

Shits disgusting bro, get it sorted or at least wear a bucket over your head or something.

Peace.

pretty fucking hot

:@

and goddamn Stephen Harper basically does whatever America does, so Canada is boned eventually too.

the protection of ideas and regulation of copywrighted material on a medium like the internet is a damn important issue, which can makes the difference if an artists will survive or eventually make a living out of their creativity.

wonder why everyone is talking about the usual blind politics instead of the fucking crippled and obsolete copywright systematics anno 2011, which is based on the well of the companys rather than the artist's

I understand your "point", but imo this is different. What they are doing with the Internet now it's like a colonisation. There was a whole new free world with it's own rules and ways, and now they are "violently" altering it to their needs.
Without judging if SOPA is "good" or "bad", I think it's a natural behavior that the inhabitants try to fight the forced changes.

"altering it to their needs"

i see no need for politicians in this regard. so it must be the need of the MPAA and RIAA. means it's basicly in favor of the movie and music companies.

there are no further explanations how this is gonna be a good deal for the moviemakers, musicians, etc which are signed to the big labels.. and noone seems to care if a block of the big self promotion plateforms is basicly gonna hurt the ones aswell, which didn't signed up with blood to the vampire organisations.

i'm aware that i'm a little bit off, but i sense people missing the main point ´"the protection of ideas", which is a good thing

".....on a medium like the internet....."

This is the source of our "disagreement". The Internet is not just a medium, even if some only sees that aspect of it.
It's like the story with the native Americans: if you go there you are not supposed to destroy their freedom and way of living just because you building your own "advanced" version of "freedom".
If you are entering (establishing business) into an already functioning system, and you start changing things instead of adapting to the new environment, you should expect opposition at least.
There are countless good examples (like Steam or the recent Louis CK experiment for example) where they could see how well business can go on the Internet if you respect it's boundless freedom, and there are also examples what happens if you start applying restrictions (like Ubisoft's drm for examlpe)

the source of our disagreement, really? the chance was 50/50 i would have said "place", since both is fine with my definition and usage of the internet.

well, looks like we are basicly not talking to each other, but i'll try:

of course you should expect opposition, i wonder who denies that.
there are a lot of inventions, which were adopted by the internet, it's all a question about how well it's adjusted. i see no problem in this issue.

on your examples. an online shop like steam is just an adaptation of an existing model with slight modifications for the internet, just like commercials, ads, itunes, other business models, which kind of limit your freedom to a certain degree aswell...

something like drm or SOPA is in it's core just another translation of laws and existing models for the internet, but much harder to implement and therefor a proper adjust of the copywright laws is needed.

and about the boundless freedom, i think it's a good thing to not having childporn and severed body parts on my screen all day long.

anyways i'm still all in for a proper revision of the copywrights. that's all

Shit getting little philosophical here, which I only like in real life with eye-contact + beer/wine, but I try:)

The Internet is like a cyber-world (I hate this term tbh) for humanity. There are rules apply everywhere of course (like the authority of the admins here on ESR), but we can freely choose where we want to go and what we want to use. Yes since humans created it it has the ways and hows of humans, but it's still a free "universe" and I think it's paramount that we preserve this freedom as much as possible.
It's just one of the most fundamental laws of the system, like a physical property (e.g.: mass) in the real world.

In regards to the sites like Steam, it's not about what they brought from an existing model, but the fact that they realized the differences of the system (e.g.: the success of Steam is not about low prices since torrents will be always cheaper but about better service, while in real life the lower price will win most of the times (assuming same product and same availability ofc)

I agree that (in business terms) the natural selection of the Internet is much harsher sometimes than the natural selection of real life markets, and sadly it drowns and destroys talented creations every day, but I can't agree on the justification of a "death penalty" of non-criminal sites by any means.
And no, i don't want to see pedoshits either (not even /r/spacedisks tbh), but taking down sites from the Internet because of claimed copyright violations is just as barbaric as executing somebody because of thievery charges.
If something is against civil laws, they should pursue the persons behind it irl and make them stop using the system, but leave the Internet alone.

i don't think we disagree at all :P. besides i would click on spacedisks but not on spacedicks.

i agree on the basicly everything but i believe you consider me as pro SOPA, which is wrong i'm just pro-(a better)copywright. what i innitialy wanted to point out is that SOPA is inevitable linked to copywrights and so also linked to stubborn companies, which want to blindside the internet with their obsolete system and without any compromise

I agree, some kind of a better "copywright" (re :p) protection would be great:)

:D it's from losty at #8 and i didn't question it while reading, oh my, kind of embarrassing

nah ,I do much worse all the times:S xD

Actually, some studies have suggested that music and movie downloads have a much smaller impact on sales than is commonly thought. See this for example:

Despite the industry’s claims that downloading undermines their business, this study shows that the effect of unauthorized downloading on the industry’s bottom line is negligible. One key finding of the study is that downloaders spend as much if not more to acquire content legally as those who do not download. Researchers found no change in amount of disposable income spent on music and movies, despite the fact that roughly one third of Swiss people engage in some form of downloading. The government concluded, then, that no change to the current legal structure was necessary, and urged the entertainment industry to grow and adapt with the changes in technology and in consumer habits, rather than trying to suppress progress.

English article - The study (in German)

i'm not talking about the big shots and the mainstream media. they can adept pretty well to the mindless masses.

i have a lot of friends who just gave up making (very good) music after getting pirated to death.

Can you link me to any study that would indicate new artists have a harder time getting themselves known and making a living out of their music because of the internet/piracy? No offense but the "I have a friend who..." argument is hardly ever receivable.

who should initiate a study like that in the perspective of a failed musician?haha.
okay, 2examples
something like http://kattoo.de/, he makes pretty good music since years and stopped at some point because he made an experiment. he started a huge donation campaign and offered his music for free, while expecting people to donate some amounts via paypal. he also offered it in .flac etc.. the outcome was marginal (can be seen on the page)and not worth any effort, while every single album was extremely well received by the critics.


another one that comes to my mind is "irezumi" and his first and only ambient release "endurance" http://www.discogs.com/Irezumi-Endurance/release/1254972 which was considered one of the best ambient works since biosphere's "substrata". he basicly couldnt release anything more after this, cause he actually hasn't gained much out of it. he even called his free net release track "good bye russia" as a pun of the russian filesharers which we're pirating his shit to a ridicioulous amount.


these are really only two examples.

most of the artists actually have a day job these days, since the only way to get money out of music is by doing music for others. means discjockeys, filmmusicians (already decreasing), music for commercials/videogames (sounddesign), playing live in general, etc..

www.andymckee.com

yes, there are plenty people who made it. i actually can't come up with a complete list of people that didn't.

personally i'm looking for equally significative work like a symphony of the old big composers, just with an updated reportoire of today's musical possibilities. at some point you have to make a step to academic/entertaining directions, aswell as between improvisation and composition. also people mix up composers with instrumentalists all the time. ;(

you do have a point to some degree, people who just compose and don't perform are pretty much fucked if they're not mainstream. then again being an artist never meant being a millionaire, which has somehow become a preconcieved notion. having a dayjob and recording your music for the rest of the day isn't as bad as having to change your art to get some studio to like you. not to mention equipment is more affordable than ever and most don't need a phylharmonic orchestra to perform their stuff.

it's also easier to be forgotten in a mass of newcomers, but at least it's not solely the industry that decides that. as for performers I guess it's much easier to get gigs, stay in contact with fans etc. hell even the most obscure shit gets followers today, it's like the golden age of bards.

pretty good verbalised.

indeed you have to get used to a general low income, or combine it with things like writing books, making concetional art, or work here and there where your skills are needed. but you always have to get used to presenting yourself excessively, etc.. that's what most people are actually the best at. which is a shame.

it was always risky, and it seems to get riskier (god). that might be a good thing in terms of that only the good ones will push through, BUT the exceptional ones won't be needed anymore, since the masses get used to mediocrity. that's actually the part i'm struggeling with.

maybe i'm already a little bit too snobby.

"it was always risky, and it seems to get riskier (god). that might be a good thing in terms of that only the good ones will push through, BUT the exceptional ones won't be needed anymore, since the masses get used to mediocrity. that's actually the part i'm struggeling with."

the exceptional ones are very rarely part of the mainstream. doesn't mean that they'll be forgotten.

Those two examples are not what we were discussing... They are two cases of artists attempting to distribute their music for free and relying on donations, while we were discussing artists attempting to sell their music the usual way and not being able to make it because of pirating. I have yet to see a study/report indicating that aspiring musicians struggle more today than they did before illegal downloads existed, and that piracy is responsible.

nope, the first guy released 3cds before he actually made up the donations, to actually see what the pay-for-it/don't-give-a-shit ratio is. after he released and sold stuff...

the second one didn't release anything for free at all, except of a bonus track long after release called "good bye russians".....

again, the mainstream labels made up the rant about the internet in the first place, and that will be the studies you'll find: about mainstream artists like lady gaga and whoever. the labels actually made nothing to improve the musical appeal (even less effort was used), they just bumped and sharped up the marketing to "survive"...

please look up for a study why common sense decreased over the years and the need for study/reports increased.

nope, the first guy released 3cds before he actually made up the donations, to actually see what the pay-for-it/don't-give-a-shit ratio is. after he released and sold stuff...
the second one didn't release anything for free at all, except of a bonus track long after release called "good bye russians".....

Again, what does the first guy trying the donations model have to do with anything? To get back on topic, if an album is illegally downloaded online, this is not an indication in itself that more people would have bought the said album if it had not been pirated.

again, the mainstream labels made up the rant about the internet in the first place, and that will be the studies you'll find: about mainstream artists like lady gaga and whoever. the labels actually made nothing to improve the musical appeal (even less effort was used), they just bumped and sharped up the marketing to "survive"...

please look up for a study why common sense decreased over the years and the need for study/reports increased.

One should precisely avoid relying on "common sense" assumptions in a debate like this. For example, would "common sense" not tell you that people who illegally download music and movies are going to spend less money on music and movies than people who don't? Well, the study I linked to shows this is completely false (at least in Switzerland). If you're going to argue that piracy is responsible for young artists not making it, you're going to have to provide evidence to support that claim. One could very well argue that piracy leads to artists getting more exposure and selling more (notably to those who, after being exposed to the music through illegal downloading, decide to buy it). You can't rely on common sense, you need evidence either way.

By the way I just want to make clear that I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the relationship between (small) artists and big labels. I'm simply pointing out that one should be cautious when assessing the impact of piracy on sales.

(sry if i sounded agressive)

maybe the recent site looks a bit misleading, cause he fully switched to donation.
he made a personal study about the exact same thing you were looking for. you can either download it and donate or download it and don't give a dime. this is ofc not 100% correct since his albums are on the mediafires and soulseeks all the time, but the ratio is like 1:1000.



"this is not an indication in itself that more people would have bought the said album if it had not been pirated."
the study you're looking for is not possible without assumptions or (if it's a survey) lies...



"Die Sichtung bestehender Studien wie auch die direkte Befragung der interessierten Kreise
hat gezeigt, dass eine klare Aussage über die Auswirkungen der unerlaubten Verbreitung
von Werken in digitaler Form nicht möglich ist."

first sentence of the initial position: means that there is no clear conclusion about this issue possible both by existing studys and surveys.--> so they made a study....haha




the conclusion:
there are also some lines about the free music distribution and copyright

"Gewinner werden dabei diejenigen sein, denen es gelingt, die neue Technik so
einzusetzen, dass sie deren Vorteile auch kommerziell nutzen können,"

basicly says, that people who head to mainstream, will be the only "winners" of the music industry changes...


so, you could find it in your own study.

Switzerland is a really good representative of world population.

"the protection of ideas and regulation of copywrighted material on a medium like the internet is a damn important issue, which can makes the difference if an artists will survive or eventually make a living out of their creativity."

right, censor the internet to protect artist creativity. fuck guitar + youtube, we need billion dollar companies for that. we need production contracts. a real artist could never post his tune, get a ton of followers, go around the world performing. no sir. a real artist needs to go to a studio, record an mtv top10 hit, sell 1000000000 cds and live in a villa with a helipad on the roof, own yachts and golf courses. it's a known fact that there's no better place for creativiy to flourish than on a private yacht. keeps you in touch with the real, yaknow?

the thing is more diverse. i just said it's an important issue, not that a censorship is a benefit for everyone. (i talked about protection and regulation of copywrighted material)

the censorship we're facing here is initiated by (musicwise) the riaa which is only a prosthesis for the big 4 labels. if anyone else get's affected by a copywright infringement, they'll basicly don't take action.

but if they'll do everyone has to buy a yacht to cruise trough musical landscapes, iknow.

you all know my english is not perfect so far :)) so in other words, what is all threat about? In few words , if possible, please. TY

I only watched the first few seconds of the video, but TB speaks English very clearly and I'm sure he researched the subject before making the vid, and the (stupid) CC-Transcribe of youtube could also help with the understanding of the audio if you need such help, but anyway:

If the law passes, they will basically have legal ways to take down entire sites (any site) from the Internet by claiming copyright violations, and since the roots of the Internet are still in the USA, such takedowns could affect the entire world, and not just US citizens only.
There are possible workarounds of course, but those could cause chaos and security problems also.

usa cant do nothing but block the ip like china does and other few countires, if the site is not hosted in usa the site comes under the countries laws it is hosted in

"if the site is not hosted in usa the site comes under the countries laws it is hosted in"

but the resolved route to the site is not.

you local telecom exchange acts as your DNS server, the route is the fast trace and smallest amount of hops

there is a international board that rules the internet, they just issue country IP ranges twice a year and do nothing much else, but unite hardware companies and protocols

USA is nothing todo with the internet, USA can shutdown GPS, not the internet

no.
All the so called "international" DNS roots operated by the US (ICANN, IANA, etc,) would have to "cut" themselves down from the parent dns root or accept the newly issued parameters coming down on the hierarchy chain.
Or do you think if they want to "delete" something from the Internet they will want to "hide" it from the US citizens only?

USA has control over nothing but what its own citizens see,.

the internet works the same as a office lan, your local telecom exchange DNS servers would be like http://museumstudiesatmacquarie.org/yahoo_sit...18_std.jpg

which sort out ISP ip ranges and external incoming connections and all countries are connected by fibre cables in the oceans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internat...ons_cables

if you run a corporate lan and start adding domains and DNS servers and run HTTP servers etc and its ip range has no external internet connection then its a intranet

Again. if it's a domain controlled by the US, like one of the generic top-level domains (like *.com), it doesn't matter where (which country) you put the server physically. I understand ofc that Internet provider admins can technically "ignore" updates and go with local resolving, but this is not only a technical issue, it's more about standards, agreements and security.
But you are right, if it's a non-gTLD root domain, (e.g.: it ends with .co.uk), they can't do much about it outside the US.

america. bad.

The best thing about Petition is that they take 10 days to make but 10 seconds to go through the shredder. Will not fill more bullshit, thanks!

Internet petitions are like developing for IE6 in 2012.

A more useful comment. If you want to change things get involved.