alt Hacker News>the easiest way to fight back against this isn't to try to change laws to avoid this but for non-malicious entities like the registrar not to allow their customers to get exploited by this sort of behavior.
Easiest? Perhaps. Nothing around law is particularly easy (except breaking it, of course!) :) So, not altering existing laws, or not making new ones, would absolutely be the easiest method to that desired outcome. Many things would be easier to do if they were simply done how they were described, in a manner in which they were excepted, under the terms which they were agreed to. However, can we expect that a lack of laws/codes/statutes could ever result in effective or consistent behavior? Sadly, no. At least, not based upon historical experience. Perhaps the disposition of man will change one day - who knows what the future holds, but God!
Negligence is a thing that is bred in indifference and grown through a lack of consequence. Law and reform is the sole remedy.
Consider this: It would be far, far safer and more profitable for owners, employees, and customers of restaurants if the restaurant kept their cooking areas clean and tidy. Yet, even with unannounced and routine health inspections, various licensing requirements, annual training & education certifications, and massive fines...in spite of all of that, absurdly high numbers owners can't meet the bare minimum. People still somehow die from unsanitary food every year!
The best we can do then to combat the disposition of disconnected employees, and the blasé, checked-out business owners is to crush their skull. It is a judicial vengeance, a constant protector for all the people who had been abused unfairly; the ones who were discounted as "unimportant nobodies". Law is what gives the common man a temporary illusion of equal treatment. And when that illusion is chipped and broken from time-to-time, well, at least we can put another head up on the spike outside our walls.
It's certainly not quick, or easy, or even preventative(!), but it is the kind of response that is owed to the victims of incompetence and indolence.
My main point probably got muddled a bit, but the main argument I was trying to make was that copyright law, however bad it might be, wasn't why the registrar acted the way it did (because it was acting on a false report of fraud and phishing, not copyright infringement), and ultimately even with a troll trying to get the site taken offline, the registrar could have acted responsibly, and there wouldn't have been any significant downtime.
From the timeline of the incident given at the top of this thread by the maintainer of the site, it sounds a lot more like the registrar was lazy about investigating whether the report of fraud/phishing was valid than that the registrar was fully aware that the actual intent was to take an entire site offline due to an allegation of a singular user infringing copyright. It sounds like the issue with the registrar could happen just as easily even if we magically waved a wand away and eliminated copyright law; if someone made an allegation of fraud and phishing, it sounds like the registrar might act the exact same way it did in this incident and take the site offline. That's why I'm arguing that copyright law isn't the primary cause of what happened here, and why reforming it seems pretty orthogonal to stopping this specific thing from occurring regardless of its merits as a goal in general.