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
omg... "it's morally wrong"..!!1oneoneeleven well.. that's up for discussion and btw, copyright law was created to protect the investment in a book printing press in order to accomodate people to be able to publish their views on things. now that they can use our internet to publish their work, copyright has become obsolete. (and no, their jedi mind tricks don't work). not to provide leeching attorney firms and lazy artists with free money over the back of the general population. when considering if a law holds any legal value one must look at the situation for which the law was created, as well as democratic aspects and wether it can and should be enforced. (putting 99% of the population in prison because 1% has corrupted the governments and wants to make money on products people clearly no longer want, which they try to sell using an even more outdated business model, isn't rather democratic ;) darwin bitch, the 70s are over. as my 386 already generated all possible combinations of sheet music somewhere in 1996, i'd say all copyrights on music now belong to me. so far for "feasability" (i'm quite sure they piss their pants we would ever enforce their own laws against them, blocking them from ever releasing anything again). there are also people that consider porn "morally wrong" yet porn paid for the entire internet infrastructure, and then ofcourse there are people that consider computers in general "the tool of the devil". you can't give any idiot with some fake "morals" their way. furthermore, we own the internet, we make the rules. use is on an as-is basis and if anyone is to be kicked out they can be damn sure it will be the MPAA/RIAA members first (there is after all, as they so nicely point out themselves, no basic right to having your packets relayed, so they'd better act friendly to isps, or paramount pictures may well find their own networks inaccessible from most of the world rather soon). at this moment, we can see such people as nothing else but a clear threat to the internet itself. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: sven@cb3rob.net C.V.: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
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 ______________________________________________________________________
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog" X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "peering"