GoDaddy.com Credit: $70 Credit for $25 or $30 Credit for $10

Quote from phonic : First, while GoDaddy did support SOPA/PIPA, so did hundreds of other companies. Almost every music/movie studio did. Most sports organizations (MLB, NFL, etc.) did. Credit card companies did. Internet Service providers did. Most pulled support, as did GoDaddy. But for some reason, everyone only wants to focus on them and ignore the other companies that were just as much behind it. But, regardless, that still has nothing to do with Aaron Swartz or JSTOR.

My friend, the prosecutor Ortiz is often on TV here in MA, she was ambitious, perhaps considering a run to replace Deval Patrick, I might have even crossed the aisle to vote for her b/c she is a good law and order candidate but then I came to see what that meant. She was not out to protect us but to endear herself to corporations, that want to control over the internet. Campaigns are expensive, she is not independently wealthy, its quite clear that she was trying to make friends among those who want to control the internet, included godaddy. Godaddy is a target because its probably a weak link in the corporate alliance for SOPA, which proved correct. I don't even watch movies or entertainment or listen to much music but I do need access to scientific journals, which cost my company a lot of money. I enjoy keeping up with the latest research. Ortiz (and others in the government) are more than happy to help corporations that are all willing to sell us something on the internet, but access to real peer reviewed knowledge aside from the latest gossip or conspiracy theories from Drudge or Roger Moore is not free. This is wrong.

Quote from frank10b : My friend, the prosecutor Ortiz is often on TV here in MA, she was ambitious, perhaps considering a run to replace Deval Patrick, I might have even crossed the aisle to vote for her b/c she is a good law and order candidate but then I came to see what that meant. She was not out to protect us but to endear herself to corporations, that want to control over the internet. Campaigns are expensive, she is not independently wealthy, its quite clear that she was trying to make friends among those who want to control the internet, included godaddy. Godaddy is a target because its probably a weak link in the corporate alliance for SOPA, which proved correct. I don't even watch movies or entertainment or listen to much music but I do need access to scientific journals, which cost my company a lot of money. I enjoy keeping up with the latest research. Ortiz (and others in the government) are more than happy to help corporations that are all willing to sell us something on the internet, but access to real peer reviewed knowledge aside from the latest gossip or conspiracy theories from Drudge or Roger Moore is not free. This is wrong.

I think you missed the point on the US Government's reasoning here. They didn't care about MIT or JSTOR, and they sure as hell don't care about GoDaddy. Not only does the latter have, as I've stated before, nothing to do with this case, but they are just a privately held domain registrar. The feds couldn't give two sh*ts about them or what they want.

The reason the Justice Department went after Swartz with a vengeance was because of what he did with PACER. He exploited, in addition to many others, a "free trial" type promotion to download a huge portion (like 30% IIRC) of PACER's court records. They sell these for like $0.10/page. He, and others, downloaded millions of pages and put them up for free at RECAP. The feds went after him, since he made them look like idiots (in their opinion), but they didn't have a leg to stand on so they couldn't prosecute. But, he was clearly in their radar. And when you piss off Uncle Sam it's only a matter of time before they come at you. The MIT/JSTOR case was an opportunity to stick it to him, and they did just that.

The issue here is the horrible state our criminal justice system is in, and the prosecutorial misconduct that goes on every day . Our jails are packed well over capacity with people imprisoned for trivial non-violent offenses, all in the perverted interests of "justice". Someone can get sentenced to a decade for some simple drug possession charge, and yet real criminals who rape, murder, assault, etc. get a slap on the wrist because it's not a "hot" crime in the government's eyes.

The Swartz case is only recently shedding a light on some of the great inequalities the US Government has put on computer related crime. Prior to the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, there was really no legislation to go after legitimate computer criminals. All the prior laws focused on physical crimes, and couldn't be interpreted to cover "virtual" ones. So they passed the CFAA to give the FBI/SS something to go after people with - which is fine and dandy. The problem is, it has been so overly utilized and the penalties raised to such ridiculous levels, that almost everyone who uses a computer is guilty of violating it.

If you violate the terms of service on a webpage, you broke that law. If you "exceed authorization", which could mean claiming you qualify for a promotion when you don't, you have violated that law. Etc. Etc.

The US Government is ONLY supposed to deal with issues that affect inter-state or inter-national commerce, and yet they expanded that to include communication. The CFAA however considers any crimes against a "protected computer" to be in violation of said law. And what is a "protected computer"? Any device CAPABLE of interstate or international communication. Which means any computer, phone, tablet, etc. that has a modem, network or wireless capability.

If you break into your school, physically, and sneak into a teacher's office to look at the answers to an upcoming test, and get caught, you would be charged with trespassing. You might get some community service and/or probation and probably kicked out of school. BUT, get caught doing the exact same thing on a computer and you could face years in federal prison. It's a joke.

The only good thing about the Aaron Swartz case is that the mainstream public is finally getting a chance to see how much the federal government has overstepped it's bounds and spends millions of dollars going after people who break trivial laws.

Quote from phonic : I think you missed the point on the US Government's reasoning here. They didn't care about MIT or JSTOR, and they sure as hell don't care about GoDaddy. Not only does the latter have, as I've stated before, nothing to do with this case, but they are just a privately held domain registrar. The feds couldn't give two sh*ts about them or what they want. The reason the Justice Department went after Swartz with a vengeance was because of what he did with PACER. He exploited, in addition to many others, a "free trial" type promotion to download a huge portion (like 30% IIRC) of PACER's court records. They sell these for like $0.10/page. He, and others, downloaded millions of pages and put them up for free at RECAP. The feds went after him, since he made them look like idiots (in their opinion), but they didn't have a leg to stand on so they couldn't prosecute. But, he was clearly in their radar. And when you piss off Uncle Sam it's only a matter of time before they come at you. The MIT/JSTOR case was an opportunity to stick it to him, and they did just that. The issue here is the horrible state our criminal justice system is in, and the prosecutorial misconduct that goes on every day . Our jails are packed well over capacity with people imprisoned for trivial non-violent offenses, all in the perverted interests of "justice". Someone can get sentenced to a decade for some simple drug possession charge, and yet real criminals who rape, murder, assault, etc. get a slap on the wrist because it's not a "hot" crime in the government's eyes. The Swartz case is only recently shedding a light on some of the great inequalities the US Government has put on computer related crime. Prior to the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, there was really no legislation to go after legitimate computer criminals. All the prior laws focused on physical crimes, and couldn't be interpreted to cover "virtual" ones. So they passed the CFAA to give the FBI/SS something to go after people with - which is fine and dandy. The problem is, it has been so overly utilized and the penalties raised to such ridiculous levels, that almost everyone who uses a computer is guilty of violating it. If you violate the terms of service on a webpage, you broke that law. If you "exceed authorization", which could mean claiming you qualify for a promotion when you don't, you have violated that law. Etc. Etc. The US Government is ONLY supposed to deal with issues that affect inter-state or inter-national commerce, and yet they expanded that to include communication. The CFAA however considers any crimes against a "protected computer" to be in violation of said law. And what is a "protected computer"? Any device CAPABLE of interstate or international communication. Which means any computer, phone, tablet, etc. that has a modem, network or wireless capability. If you break into your school, physically, and sneak into a teacher's office to look at the answers to an upcoming test, and get caught, you would be charged with trespassing. You might get some community service and/or probation and probably kicked out of school. BUT, get caught doing the exact same thing on a computer and you could face years in federal prison. It's a joke. The only good thing about the Aaron Swartz case is that the mainstream public is finally getting a chance to see how much the federal government has overstepped it's bounds and spends millions of dollars going after people who break trivial laws.

I agree, well said.
We differ only on minor issues of emphasis, I think that PACER and perhaps Ortiz ambition did Swartz in, however I wholeheartedly agree that the best outcome is hope that Americans come to realize that prosecutors are abusing the excessive powers they have and a complete judicial/legislative reform campaign commences to prevent this of-repeated everyday tragedy. Of course, we all know that the extensive powers of the government are never used against criminals who steal from the people, if those criminals are politically connected regardless of political party. In fact, government police power is used to strengthen corporate positions regardless of its lawfulness.

politics aside...for small credits left over are there any .99 codes that can be used with the credit...curretn sbowl promo does not allow that

Quote from superstition : Yeah, we've been through this before. Buying a company's product is a very odd way of boycotting. If GoDaddy didn't think it's in their interest to offer this deal, they wouldn't.

http://news.cnet.com/Domain-name-...81336.html

The agreed-upon percentage increase means that the most .com fees would rise between now and 2012 is $1.86, given the current wholesale .com domain name rate of $6, ICANN General Counsel John Jeffrey said.

If Godaddy pays $6 to ICANN and you pay $3 to GoDaddy for domains, how much does godaddy lose? And this is old info, wholesale price is probably higher now.

Quote from NorthFace : Expires Feb 27, 2013

No, it doesn't.

"This deal ended at: 11:59PM CST 01/04/2013"

Quote from NorthFace : STACK with 29% off coupon: gdx1236g Or 44% off domain renewal codes: GDBBREN8 GDBBA547 gd50bbpd5

Oh, and these are all rubbish, too. The 29% coupon doesn't exist at all, and the other three, while they're valid codes, give the exact same price on a .com domain renewal that you get without ever entering a coupon.

Don't waste your time, folks. This deal is a dead duck.

I tried use my code today, but redeem website said my code is invalid.
OMG

and the remnants $1.50 cannot be used for .99 domains....unless someone has a different way of using the bits....having said that we all received good value

Quote from ryk1998 : and the remnants $1.50 cannot be used for .99 domains....unless someone has a different way of using the bits....having said that we all received good value

I even cannot redeem that code, it's my 10$.
Damn groupon and godaddy.

Invalid here too for all of mine.

I ordered about 5 and used them on my account but used them immediately to renew....so do I have something to worry about?

Reminder to burn up existing credits as they probably expire tomorrow.

Not sure if the wording means until the 27th to apply it to your account or until the 27th to use it up.

But given how godaddy does things unilaterally, might not want to risk it.

My credit has already expired...wtf it's only the 26th