On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11:47AM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that HE didn't do that? The report doesn't mention if HE contacted the customer before doing this.
According to May First's own statement, this is exactly what happened: https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/chamber-he-statement
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent Hurricane Electric a letter complaining about a website spoofing the Chamber's obstructionism on climate change policies that was created by MF/PL member the Yes Men (read more about the spoof).
Hurricane Electric immediately ordered us to remove the spoofed site or face a turn-off of service. We responded that such a demand was:
* arbitrary since it represented a legally untested complaint; * unconstitutional since it quashed the fair use of logos in a satirical way; * and overreaching because it affected 3/4 of of our membership (over 300 organizations) whose websites, email and other online tools would be taken down in such an action.
1. Hurricane receives complaint letter 2. Hurricane notifies customer and requests that they remove content 3. Customer claims that content is fair use and not violating copyright 4. Hurricane turns customer off anyways 5. Customer agrees to move content elsewhere 6. Hurricane turns them back on They neglect to mention if May First has a registered DMCA agent (in which case they could have handled the complaint directly and not involved Hurricane), or if they responded with a proper DMCA counter notification. Had either of these been the case, Hurricane would have had no liability in the matter. Of course Hurricane is well within their rights not to serve any customer that they please, but the customer is also well within their rights to find another provider who better respects the rights of free speech on the Internet (if the above is what actually happened). -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)