Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The proposed new law would cover depictions of child sex abuse that have either been created on a computer or are cartoons, drawings or other "artwork".
The article then mentions several incidents where London Art Gallery owners have been arrested and charged in the past few years for displaying artwork depicting "a photographer's three young children playing while naked" or "a photographer's daughter in the bath". Both were overturned on the basis that "art" is not covered by then current child porn laws.
Presumably, this exhibition of Donatello's David in London is illegal by some interpretations of the law, since it displays a naked prepubescent child in a pose that has been described as "provocative", "sensual" or "a fetishists dream" by art critics. Statues of Zeus abducting Ganymede may fall even more squarely under the wording of the law. While the police have vowed not to prosecute posession of "genuine artwork", what credentials does the average detective have to determine "genuine artwork"? Would they consider a modern sculpture of the same subject with the same care that they would consider one of the classics?
How does this recent law affect the ongoing effort to digitize British art galleries? Does it have far reaching implications for the physical collections of art galleries as well? Does it make British citizens on legally shaky ground merely visting the national museum? How would someone make that determination in light of this new law and the past history of enforcement and raids on smaller galleries? Does this law go too far?"
The two principal shareholders John Naruszewicz and Kevin Medina at the weeks-end were still trading verbal blows, while ICANN stepped in to the fray after nearly three years of complaints. Whilst most focus has been on the failure of the company's support systems, allegations of fraud and corruption were flowing freely Friday, not only from the principals involved, but from ICANN.
Meantime the control of RegisterFly.com, seized by Naruszewicz on Tuesday, was back in the hands of Medina late Friday. Both parties are accusing the other of hijacking the company's Web site and administration, which has been effectively dysfunctional for weeks. Medina has also replicated the current site at www.registerfly-inc.com so if he loses control again, or the original site is brought down, he can continue to trade on.
What does this mean for the 90,000 domain holders? Many of us have domains in redemption or pendingDelete status because of this internal RegisterFly battle. We finally got ahold of Kevin Medina by getting him to come to RegisterFlies, and all he did was attack the partners who ousted him; he had nothing to say about rescuing customers' domains nor did he seem to care in the slightest. He seems intent only on maintaining control of the company, the database, and of course his investment, and forget about customer service issues.
Whereas John Naruszewicz and Glenn Stansbury raise customers' losses as their first concern, and saving their investment second. On the surface they appear sincere in their claim that they want to make things right.
Rumors are flying about Kevin, about back-room deals with other registrars, reasons why domains have disappeared from customer accounts, why domains have been allowed to remain in redemption status until they move to pendingDelete and are lost.
The coming week will be very telling. If the authorities step in Monday and arrest Mr. Medina, we will know that Mr. Naruszewicz and Mr. Stansbury are likely legitimate in their claims.
But, what happens for small businesses who have lost their domain names due to Mr. Medina's alleged misconduct? Who will ensure that we get our domains back?"