Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Changing Bungie's Domain Registrar from GoDaddy
  • Subject: Changing Bungie's Domain Registrar from GoDaddy
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Changing Bungie's Domain Registrar from GoDaddy
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Posted by: r c takedown
Yax is a shining beacon in these dark times. You should all strive to be more like Yax.

Posted by: spartain ken 15
Uh, you do know Go Daddy dropped all support from SOPA right?
Oh, gee, I wonder why...

  • 01.05.2012 8:13 AM PDT

In a time long past, the armies of the dark came again to the lands of men. Their leaders became known as the fallen lords, and their terrible sorcery was without equal in the west.
In 30 years they reduced the civilized nations into carrion and ash. Until the free city of Madrigal alone defined them. An army gathered there, and a desperate battle was joined against the fallen
Heros were born in the fire and bloodshed of the wars which followed and their names and deeds will never be forgotten


Posted by: westpointusma15
I don't think one video game company's website will be noticed if they switch from GoDaddy.


Maybe if it was a company like one that didn't make so much money or made games that sold millions.

Bungie, Valve, Bethesda, treyarch, infinity ward, all of them have sold many HUGE games and have made millions.

I am sure this will be taken into account seeing as they have "power". And, that is all it is, who can get the most powerful people on their side who have the most influence on the internet.

Go daddy had a change of heart after so many people boycotted their site so now they are on the against side. We also have Google, Facebook, Valve, and a few other MAJOR companies.

The companies for this Bill are like Ford Motors and a few companies that do even really deal with the internet in as much as making a living off of it and conducting 99% of their business on it.

I hope that SOPA gets turned down seeing as most of the most powerful corporations on the internet seems to disagree.

  • 01.05.2012 8:14 AM PDT

Posted by: Cranium Crater
I don't know if you guys know this or not, but I feel like it's important. SOPA will only give the US government the power to censor domain names, which to many of you sounds A LOT like censoring the internet, but it's not. If you know a websites IP address you will still be able to connect to the server. SOPA works through the ISP and the DNS-lookups and doesn't block actual IPs. If some jerk in the flood posts a link to the pirate bay all you have to do is type 66.62.238.10 instead of "Bungie.net". Try it, it works.
That's not entirely true. At least not in terms of connecting to any hosts on the server.

If the server/daemon is configured to listen on an IP Address and port 80, you may get a response, but that's dependent on whether the server is configured to serve up content from a default host.

For a lot of sites, like those which are configured on top of name-based hosting on the same IP Address, it will become impossible to access them, because no hostname in the HTTP Host header field will be present - which is what's retrieved by DNS. The server will therefore have no way of determining which "subsite" (VirualHost in Apache) you're intending to access.

A quick example: IIRC, seventhcolumn.bungie.net is hosted on the same IP Address as www.bungie.net. If you wanted to access seventhcolumn.bungie.net, instead of the default config'd response from www.bungie.net, you (your browser) would need to specify that in the Host header. To see how that goes missing in your solution, in Firefox, go to Tools > Web Developer > Web Console, navigate to 66.62.238.10, then click the first GET line in the textbox, find the Host header in the Request Headers section, and you'll see how it's also set to 66.62.238.10 instead of a hostname. You can do the same thing with any "site" hosted on blogspot.com for instance, but trying to use the IP Address pointed-to by the DNS record for it will simply send you to Google.

  • 01.05.2012 8:39 AM PDT

Have you seen my mind anywhere? I seem to have lost it...

0x0 x0x 0x0 000 000 x0x 000
x0x 0x0 0x0 0xx 000 0x0 000
x0x x0x x00 0xx 0x0 x0x 0x0

I have seen you future

Posted by: westpointusma15
I don't think one video game company's website will be noticed if they switch from GoDaddy.

I'm against SOPA purely because it will be possible for a company to get a competitor's website shut down unjustly.

If one company changes their domain host it doesn't do very much. It makes a stand, and some people notice.

Don't think of it like that. Think of it as a vote. If one person changes their vote in a major election (say presidential) it doesn't really change anything. If one million people change their votes then the whole election can be changed. This is the same way, Bungie can make a vote against GoDaddy and SOPA.

To the person who said that Activision is for SOPA so Bungie probably won't be against it, Bungie and Activision have a contract to publish games, nothing more. The companies are independent and are able to make their own decisions and have their own policies.

  • 01.05.2012 9:10 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Edward Wong Hau Pepelu Tivrusky IV

Isn't/wasn't the main idea behind OWS that businesses should stay out of politics and not attempt to meddle in the process?

Or was it "Businesses should only get involved in the political process when we LIKE, NEED and WANT their involvement and it agrees with OUR position. Otherwise, they should GTFO!"?


Maybe that was too long to put on a picket sign.

  • 01.05.2012 9:12 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
. . . Large domestic sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook are already subject to the DMCA that covers pirated material within the US jurisdiction. The major concern of those large sites is that the bill is so poorly written that is not clear if it will supersede safe harbor clauses in the DMCA that provides them legal protection from any criminal activities of users on their sites . . .
In your opinion, what part of it is vague or poorly written in that regard?


wording issues:
Section 103 allows companies to blacklist other companies if:
site-
11 (I) is taking, or has taken, delib
12 erate actions to avoid confirming a
13 high probability of the use of the
14 U.S.-directed site to carry out acts
15 that constitute a violation of section
16 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States
17 Code; or
18 (II) operates the U.S.-directed
19 site with the object of promoting, or
20 has promoted, its use to carry out
21 acts that constitute a violation of sec
22 tion 501 or 1201 of title 17, United
23 States Code, as shown by clear ex
24 pression or other affirmative steps
25 taken to foster infringement.

This could be interpreted as the site did not respond to request to take down infringing material, or it could also mean that any site that doesn't actively police itself on it's own can be taken down. There is no definition of what constitutes "deliberate actions not to confirm material in violation"

Major sharing sites do not have mods that review all site content. Therefore, they might not be considered to be doing their part to enforce copyright law, even if they do respond quickly to takedown requests, and subject to blacklist.

My favorite wording in the bill is the recent ammendment stating "Implementation should not break DNSEC". That was added when prominent computer scientists pointed out that this bill could break security features built into the DNS system. Instead of legislating how to accomplish this DNS filtering, lawmakers simply added what amounts to "Hey nerds, make sure this doesn't compromise our security as well, I'm sure you'll figure it out."

[Edited on 01.05.2012 9:37 AM PST]

  • 01.05.2012 9:19 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Destiny 7
People worry to much about this silly thing.

No, people do not pay attention to what their elected representatives are doing on their own behalf. Passing of this bill does fundamentally change the internet in America. Depending on interpretations of the wording, it may eliminate safe harbor and common carrier protections that the most used sites on the internet need to exist. It also hands government control of every DNS server in the country, and sets the precedent that they can filter out any content they want if they can get popular support for the idea.

To do this all in the name of hiding pirate bay from our search results? Wow, no.

  • 01.05.2012 9:31 AM PDT

Online ID: GriffGraff15


Posted by: spartain ken 15

Posted by: westpointusma15
I don't think one video game company's website will be noticed if they switch from GoDaddy.


Maybe if it was a company like one that didn't make so much money or made games that sold millions.

Bungie, Valve, Bethesda, treyarch, infinity ward, all of them have sold many HUGE games and have made millions.

I am sure this will be taken into account seeing as they have "power". And, that is all it is, who can get the most powerful people on their side who have the most influence on the internet.

Go daddy had a change of heart after so many people boycotted their site so now they are on the against side. We also have Google, Facebook, Valve, and a few other MAJOR companies.

The companies for this Bill are like Ford Motors and a few companies that do even really deal with the internet in as much as making a living off of it and conducting 99% of their business on it.

I hope that SOPA gets turned down seeing as most of the most powerful corporations on the internet seems to disagree.

Did you just put Valve in the same group as some of the biggest/most successful companies of our time?

You all seem to think that each company has an equal impact on this. If Youtube or Facebook switch, that will have a much bigger impact than if Bungie, Valve, Bethesda, etc switch.

The only video related companies that would have an impact on this would be the publishers like Activision, EA, and others. Video game developers have almost no impact in the grand scheme of things. We just think they are major companies because we focus on them a lot...but on a micro scale.

  • 01.05.2012 9:48 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
. . . Large domestic sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook are already subject to the DMCA that covers pirated material within the US jurisdiction. The major concern of those large sites is that the bill is so poorly written that is not clear if it will supersede safe harbor clauses in the DMCA that provides them legal protection from any criminal activities of users on their sites . . .
In your opinion, what part of it is vague or poorly written in that regard?


wording issues:
Section 103 allows companies to blacklist other companies if:
site-
11 (I) is taking, or has taken, delib
12 erate actions to avoid confirming a
13 high probability of the use of the
14 U.S.-directed site to carry out acts
15 that constitute a violation of section
16 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States
17 Code; or
18 (II) operates the U.S.-directed
19 site with the object of promoting, or
20 has promoted, its use to carry out
21 acts that constitute a violation of sec
22 tion 501 or 1201 of title 17, United
23 States Code, as shown by clear ex
24 pression or other affirmative steps
25 taken to foster infringement.

This could be interpreted as the site did not respond to request to take down infringing material, or it could also mean that any site that doesn't actively police itself on it's own can be taken down. There is no definition of what constitutes "deliberate actions not to confirm material in violation"

Major sharing sites do not have mods that review all site content. Therefore, they might not be considered to be doing their part to enforce copyright law, even if they do respond quickly to takedown requests, and subject to blacklist.
That's pretty clearly defined in title 17, though, in the sections of chapters 5 and 12 following sections 501 and 1201. That hasn't yet meant self-policing, luckily for youtube!My favorite wording in the bill is the recent ammendment stating "Implementation should not break DNSEC". That was added when prominent computer scientists pointed out that this bill could break security features built into the DNS system. Instead of legislating how to accomplish this DNS filtering, lawmakers simply added what amounts to "Hey nerds, make sure this doesn't compromise our security as well, I'm sure you'll figure it out."Haha, more jobs for us nerds, though, right? Maybe it's actually a job creation initiative in disguise :-p

  • 01.05.2012 9:52 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.

SOPA isn't going to get far at all.

Shutting down a site is going require alot more than flipping a switch. It's not as if any site owners/admins are just going to passively resist their sites being shut down anyway. If it were to go through, I can guarantee you that any business supporting it is going to take a huge hit as far as profits are concerned.

  • 01.05.2012 9:56 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
Posted by: L00
Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
. . . Large domestic sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook are already subject to the DMCA that covers pirated material within the US jurisdiction. The major concern of those large sites is that the bill is so poorly written that is not clear if it will supersede safe harbor clauses in the DMCA that provides them legal protection from any criminal activities of users on their sites . . .
In your opinion, what part of it is vague or poorly written in that regard?


wording issues:
Section 103 allows companies to blacklist other companies if:
site-
11 (I) is taking, or has taken, delib
12 erate actions to avoid confirming a
13 high probability of the use of the
14 U.S.-directed site to carry out acts
15 that constitute a violation of section
16 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States
17 Code; or
18 (II) operates the U.S.-directed
19 site with the object of promoting, or
20 has promoted, its use to carry out
21 acts that constitute a violation of sec
22 tion 501 or 1201 of title 17, United
23 States Code, as shown by clear ex
24 pression or other affirmative steps
25 taken to foster infringement.

This could be interpreted as the site did not respond to request to take down infringing material, or it could also mean that any site that doesn't actively police itself on it's own can be taken down. There is no definition of what constitutes "deliberate actions not to confirm material in violation"

Major sharing sites do not have mods that review all site content. Therefore, they might not be considered to be doing their part to enforce copyright law, even if they do respond quickly to takedown requests, and subject to blacklist.
That's pretty clearly defined in title 17, though, in the sections of chapters 5 and 12 following sections 501 and 1201. That hasn't yet meant self-policing, luckily for youtube!My favorite wording in the bill is the recent ammendment stating "Implementation should not break DNSEC". That was added when prominent computer scientists pointed out that this bill could break security features built into the DNS system. Instead of legislating how to accomplish this DNS filtering, lawmakers simply added what amounts to "Hey nerds, make sure this doesn't compromise our security as well, I'm sure you'll figure it out."Haha, more jobs for us nerds, though, right? Maybe it's actually a job creation initiative in disguise :-p

Well, implementation of the government controlled firewall will take a lot of extra man hours from ISPs. That may mean a few jobs. Will also mean higher internet bills for customers, and would also mean we now live in a country with a government controlled firewall. Still No thanks.

  • 01.05.2012 10:01 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Why are you reading my signature? Who actually opens these things and reads them!

And as always, SEND ME A PM. Please. Or really bad things will happen to you.

Posted by: dazarobbo
Posted by: Cranium Crater
I don't know if you guys know this or not, but I feel like it's important. SOPA will only give the US government the power to censor domain names, which to many of you sounds A LOT like censoring the internet, but it's not. If you know a websites IP address you will still be able to connect to the server. SOPA works through the ISP and the DNS-lookups and doesn't block actual IPs. If some jerk in the flood posts a link to the pirate bay all you have to do is type 66.62.238.10 instead of "Bungie.net". Try it, it works.
That's not entirely true. At least not in terms of connecting to any hosts on the server.

If the server/daemon is configured to listen on an IP Address and port 80, you may get a response, but that's dependent on whether the server is configured to serve up content from a default host.

For a lot of sites, like those which are configured on top of name-based hosting on the same IP Address, it will become impossible to access them, because no hostname in the HTTP Host header field will be present - which is what's retrieved by DNS. The server will therefore have no way of determining which "subsite" (VirualHost in Apache) you're intending to access.

A quick example: IIRC, seventhcolumn.bungie.net is hosted on the same IP Address as www.bungie.net. If you wanted to access seventhcolumn.bungie.net, instead of the default config'd response from www.bungie.net, you (your browser) would need to specify that in the Host header. To see how that goes missing in your solution, in Firefox, go to Tools > Web Developer > Web Console, navigate to 66.62.238.10, then click the first GET line in the textbox, find the Host header in the Request Headers section, and you'll see how it's also set to 66.62.238.10 instead of a hostname. You can do the same thing with any "site" hosted on blogspot.com for instance, but trying to use the IP Address pointed-to by the DNS record for it will simply send you to Google.

That is both interesting and completely new to me. All I know is that the government doesn't have direct control over the Internet and can't block IP's but can block DNS look-ups. I guess if you frequent blogspots and my guess is tumblr and all those sites then you are slightly out of luck if SOPA turns against them.

  • 01.05.2012 10:12 AM PDT

Breaking barriers.


Posted by: Obi Wan Stevobi
A few things that should be pointed out:

Although SOPA's language is so vague that it is theoretically possible it could possibly effect large domestic sites like Facebook, Youtube, etc., the chances of that happening are slim to none, and it is not the bills intent.

Large domestic sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook are already subject to the DMCA that covers pirated material within the US jurisdiction. The major concern of those large sites is that the bill is so poorly written that is not clear if it will supersede safe harbor clauses in the DMCA that provides them legal protection from any criminal activities of users on their sites.

The bill's actual intent is aimed at foreign sites hosting pirated material. The problem is, the US has no jurisdiction over the offenders, so the bill instead creates a government controlled firewall into all US DNS servers that blocks access to those sites inside the untied states. That is a terrible idea for more reasons than I care to explain. I only need one reason to hate this bill:

If SOPA were to pass, every single time I put a web address in my browser, the DNS server will have to check with the US government to see if I have permission to go there or not. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent. This bill does nothing to the actual offenders, it censors American internet so it will be slightly harder to get to those sites.

Bungie's current publisher, Activision, supports SOPA. I doubt Bungie would make any public stance against it.

And then came google China.

  • 01.05.2012 10:23 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Legendary Member

Bungie hopefully support SOPA, it will allow them to actually get paid for their games. I don't understand the logic behind not supporting it.

  • 01.05.2012 11:19 AM PDT

RIP Logan ~B.B.


Posted by: Cay330
Bungie hopefully support SOPA, it will allow them to actually get paid for their games. I don't understand the logic behind not supporting it.


1. SOPA does nothing to punish those that infringe on copyrights outside the US. This much should be obvious, because we have no legal jurisdiction outside the US.
2. Anyone that wants to steal something and has the technical knowledge of an average middle school student can get around it.
3. Videogames, especially those on the xbox, already have effective piracy controls in that most features of the games require server log ins.
4. Online copyright infringement is already reasonably covered by the DMCA here in the US, so this law is functionally unnecessary
5. It works by forcing all DNS resolutions to be approved by the US government. In lay terms, it establishes a nation-wide, government controlled firewall, and sets precedent for this kind of firewall use on other content. (pretty sure pronz and online poker would be next)
6. It also sets precedents in government's ability to control Search engines and ISPs, which creates a new realm of government control over the private sector.
7. The law allows patent holders to block rival sites without sufficient due process, and grants immunity for ISPs and financial services to cut off sites at the request of patent holders.
8. It places the burden of implementation and enforcement on the private sector, which will pass the costs down to consumers.

Those are my logical reasons for not supporting it.

  • 01.05.2012 11:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I <3 you too Bungie


Posted by: acnboy34
I don't think they care enough to get entwined in political affairs.

Also, does transferring domains cost money (how much; where to)?
Oh, they care, just maybe not officially.

  • 01.05.2012 11:43 AM PDT

Ready are you? What know you of ready? For eight hundred years have I trained Jedi. My own council will I keep on who is to be trained. A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind. This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh. Excitement. Heh. A Jedi craves not these things. You are reckless.” -Yoda

They wouldn't have to anymore, GoDaddy stopped supporting the bill not long ago because of people leaving the site.

  • 01.05.2012 12:56 PM PDT

Coup d'Bungie Admin
Coup Art by Amocin
Facebook: Link | Email: Kodyack@mail.com | SteamID: Kodyack1 | Phone: 320-267-3934 | Skype: Klykaa | Address: 656 Roosevelt Rd. St. Cloud, Minnesota, 56301

Posted by: Bru98usa
They wouldn't have to anymore, GoDaddy stopped supporting the bill not long ago because of people leaving the site.


Posted by: The Sage Of Halo
Considering they co-wrote the bill I expect that that statement of non-support is facetious

  • 01.05.2012 1:37 PM PDT

Greatest of all time


Posted by: Replicant73
GoDaddy did a 180 on their SOPA support


The only reason they changed their stance is because they lost so many customers.

Serves those scumbags right.

  • 01.05.2012 1:43 PM PDT

Proud member of the EFF.
Proud member of the FSF.
EFF | FSF | GNU

News: /. | Cryptome | Ars Technica

Heavy weighs the crown, low hangs the head who wears it.


Posted by: nickyfour92

Posted by: Replicant73
GoDaddy did a 180 on their SOPA support


The only reason they changed their stance is because they lost so many customers.

Serves those scumbags right.
Customers like: imgur and wikipedia.

  • 01.05.2012 2:12 PM PDT

Posted by: spartain ken 15
You guys care too much.

So I'm still a bit ignorant about all of this. What effect would this have on one's nude female pictures and videos viewing?

  • 01.05.2012 2:15 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

"I wonder how much blood you can lose from superficial wounds before you die."
-Shishka

"A hero need not speak. When he is gone, the world will speak for him."
-Believe

All counter-arguments to evolution are based on a gross misunderstanding of the theory.

GoDaddy got a serious internet ass-whipping.

  • 01.05.2012 2:25 PM PDT

I am not a hundred percent sure that they are even registered under Godaddy, but I will just take your word for it, in which case, I am in full support of them switching to another host.

  • 01.05.2012 2:29 PM PDT

Theme Builder 4.1 is out for Bungie.net!

Theme Builders


Posted by: ApocalypeX
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Edit: And to anyone suggesting that Bungie just take the "conscientious objector" route... that's not really an option. It's a debate that the entirety of the Internet (well, from the US's standpoint) has been thrust into and if you enjoy almost ANY website on the internet, then you're almost forced to take a side (as long as you're presently aware of the SOPA situation... which you should be).

To be honest it's quite shocking the lack of Americans that know about SOPA or that actually care about it. I'm English and I've found that I'm fighting more for your rights than 90% of Americans.
It's because the majority of the population is ignorant to political happenings.

The whole SOPA thing is also a pretty big world affair anyway considering most big websites are owned and hosted by companies in the United States.

My personal belief is that no government should have any control over the Internet, for any reason.

  • 01.05.2012 2:46 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4