HE certainly was right in shutting down that site. It had copyright infringement. That they took down other sites is reprehensible unless they lacked the technical capability to do otherwise. (The question then arises, should they be in business if that is the case?) I am a strong advocate of free speech and have a track record for both supporting and exercising it. But the dissenters must be responsible. Copying a site - copyright infringement - is never free speech, it is illegal activity. I really don't even care if there is a legal copyright notice is its morally wrong and it puts the dissenter in a category that is probably worse than the other party. That someone would do that tells me that they are not responsible in dissent and their message is horse crap. It is flashy lacking in thought and content. Why would I consider them a valid source of information? I think the present administration is illegally there and should be removed speedily by impeachment. But I would never steal copyright material to dissent. I have never used his picture because I am not aware of a free use picture. Ralph Brandt www.triond.com/users/Ralph+Brandt -----Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick@ianai.net] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:36 AM To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Outside of child pornography there is no content that I would ever consider censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior.
A DMCA takedown order has the force of law. This does not mean you should take down an entire network with unrelated sites. Given He's history, I'm guessing it was a mistake. Not buying services from any network that has made a mistake would quickly leave you with exactly zero options for transit. -- TTFN, patrick
On Oct 24, 2009 9:01 AM, "William Allen Simpson" < william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/chamber-of-commerce-stron_n_332 087.html
Hurricane Electric obeyed the Chamber's letter and shut down the spoof site. But in the process, they shut down hundreds of other sites maintained by May First / People Link, the Yes Men's direct provider (Hurricane Electric is its "upstream" provider).
What's going on? Since when are we required to take down an entire customer's net for one of their subscriber's so-called infringement?
Heck, it takes years to agree around here to take down a peering to an obviously criminal enterprise network....
My first inclination would be to return the request (rejected), saying it was sent to the wrong provider.
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________