Hello, Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers. This is clearly Big Brother at it's finest and a prime example of John Stuart Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority." I apply Mill's logic here because I doubt that the anti-DMCA crowd is packing the halls of Congress with the rabid fervor that the pro-DMCA crowd has. I hope that this is not the case! Respectfully yours, Christopher Wolff, CIO Broadband Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Re: Unauthorized Use of Universal Motion Pictures Notice ID: 123456 5/7/2003 Dear Sir or Madam: Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and its affiliated companies (collectively, "Universal") are the exclusive owners of copyrights in many motion pictures, including the motion pictures listed below. It has come to our attention that <<ISP Name>> is the service provider for the IP address listed below, from which unauthorized copying and distribution (downloading, uploading, file serving, file "swapping" or other similar activities) of Universals motion picture(s) listed below is taking place. We believe that the Internet access of the user engaging in this infringement is provided by <<ISP Name>> or a downstream service provider who purchases this connectivity from <<ISP Name>>. This unauthorized copying and distribution constitutes copyright infringement under Section 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act . Depending upon the type of service <<ISP Name>> is providing to this IP address, it may have legal and/or equitable liability if it does not expeditiously remove or disable access to the motion picture(s) listed below, or if it fails to implement a policy that provides for termination of subscribers who are repeat infringers (see, 17 U.S.C. §512). Despite the above, Universal believes that the entire Internet community benefits when these matters are resolved cooperatively. We urge you to take immediate action to stop this infringing activity and inform us of the results of your actions. We appreciate your efforts toward this common goal. The undersigned has a good faith belief that use of the motion pictures in the manner described herein is not authorized by Universal, its agent or the law. The information contained in this notification is accurate. Under penalty of perjury, the undersigned is authorized to act on behalf of Universal with respect to this matter. Please be advised that this letter is not and is not intended to be a complete statement of the facts or law as they may pertain to this matter or of Universals positions, rights or remedies, legal or equitable, all of which are specifically reserved. Very truly yours, <<Snipped>>
Hello,
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
This is clearly Big Brother at it's finest and a prime example of John Stuart Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority." I apply Mill's logic here because I doubt that the anti-DMCA crowd is packing the halls of Congress with the rabid fervor that the pro-DMCA crowd has. I hope that this is not the case!
Respectfully yours, Christopher Wolff, CIO Broadband Labs
I have seen e-mail similar to the one you have. Without knowing more about the service you provide, where the notice came from, and with much of the content <<removed>> it's pretty hard to tell if it meets the requirements of a DMCA notice or not. If it does meet the requirements of a DMCA notice follow the procedure - it's spelled out pretty well. It becomes something of a gray area if you are dealing with a dialup user running servers since you do not have control of the server. Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
Welcome to the hell that all of us Universities are in. I have no clue if this particular email is legit, but we receive approximately 100 DMCA violation notices per day (yes, 100 per day) with a timestamp and individual IP that violated someone's copyright. Our NetSec team has all kinds of fun tracking each of these... Eric :)
Welcome to the hell that all of us Universities are in. I have no clue if this particular email is legit, but we receive approximately 100 DMCA violation notices per day (yes, 100 per day) with a timestamp and individual IP that violated someone's copyright. Our NetSec team has all kinds of fun tracking each of these...
Oops... order of magnitude typo.. that should be 100 per week... note to self: COFFEE - get some. Eric :)
Look at eff.org and chillingeffects.org -- from conversations with them, the rules vary widely re: "hosted" vs "transited" {alleged} infringements; and your response should as well. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
I say figure out who the user is give the name and address to the DMCA and let the DMCA deal with the expense of dealing with the user directly. I run a public network. What my users do with it is beyond my control. It doesn't become my concern until it ends up in my acceptable use policy. I agree with fair use, but distribution of a copyrighted material without permission is a no-no. It was when I went to college and wrote research papers. A copy of a document for my own personal use was OK. I couldn't make copies and give them away. What makes movies or music any different? We may not like the fact that most content is controlled by a relative few, but that's the way it is. If the DMCA peruses the net in an effort to protect their investment, than so be it. If they want to be the police, then they should be the enforcers. I doubt that they'll get much money from the stone that they'll sue for the damages by the distribution of their material. If folks want change (at least in our capitalist society), they need to vote with their pocketbooks. There are prohibitions on DVD's about redistribution. They are no different than the ones you hear at a sporting event. but I digress. On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Hello,
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
[snip]
On Thu, 08 May 2003 06:29:25 PDT, "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com> said:
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
Congrats. You're the recipient of a "512 takedown notice". (There exist ISP's that haven't gotten one before? I'm amazed..;) (Note - IANAL, what follows is my understanding of what the law says. If you're worried, get competent legal advice as well). We get about 250 of these a year. The MPAA and RIAA notices read almost identically. 17 USC 512 is pretty clear about the ISP 'safe harbor' and what you have to do to keep it - basically, you as an ISP do *NOT* have to worry about content that happens to be on or go through your servers as a result of your user's actions *IF* you take action when you *do* receive an infringment notice (one of the *good* things about the DMCA, incidentally - fielding 250 complaints a year is a lot easier than filtering an OC12 for content and worrying if you miss something). http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html is the full text - it's actually fairly readable. All you have to do is make the infringing material not accessible - and 17 USC 512 is *very* non-specific as to *how* you do it. You can nuke the file, you can change the permissions, you can make the user remove it - your call. You just have to make it inaccessible, and if you have a repeat violator, you need to have a policy that allows you to terminate them. They even don't specify a time frame other than "expeditiously", so as long as you aren't dragging your feet, you're probably OK. Our standard procedure for first-time offenders is to track down the user who has/had the IP address in question, and e-mail them a notice that basically says "Take it down by COB today, and notify us you've done so, or your access will be terminated". As far as "Big Brother" goes, 17 USC 512 is *NOT* the big problem in the DMCA (in fact, I'd say that 17 USC 512 is reasonably good legislation - it gives the ISP a safe harbor, gives the copyright owners a clear path of action, and 17 USC 512 (f) and (g) talk about what happens if the MPAA/RIAA/whatever make a mistake). If you want an example of *bad* legislation in the DMCA, go read 17 USC 1201 (b)(1)(A) - the infamous "circumvention clause". The problem is that it prohibits you from gaining access to information you could otherwise obtain under "fair use" (you've paid for the DVD, but you're not allowed to descramble it so you can actually *USE* it, for example).
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
All you have to do is make the infringing material not accessible - and 17 USC 512 is *very* non-specific as to *how* you do it. You can nuke the file, you can change the permissions, you can make the user remove it - your call. You just have to make it inaccessible, and if you have a repeat violator, you need to have a policy that allows you to terminate them. They even don't specify a time frame other than "expeditiously", so as long as you aren't dragging your feet, you're probably OK.
I find the DMCA works well for content stored on webpages. However, I've told all the notice senders the same thing. If they are sending reports of peer to peer, it is beyond my power. I do not have rights to the customers computer, nor do I personally have the ability to verify their claim that the information is actual infringement before cancelling the account. For some reason, they are too lazy to request a search warrant to obtain the customer's contact information. I'm not Verizon. If the law says you are entitled to information, then you are entitled to information. The fact is, to enforce peer to peer, I'd have to have a search warrant myself to check the person's computer. Of course, I have always been aggrivated with the fact that they send out the peer to peer notices *without* downloading the file first. -Jack
On Thu, 8 May 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
We get about 250 of these a year. The MPAA and RIAA notices read almost identically. 17 USC 512 is pretty clear about the ISP 'safe harbor' and what you have to do to keep it - basically, you as an ISP do *NOT* have to worry about content that happens to be on or go through your servers as a result of your user's actions *IF* you take action when you *do* receive an infringment notice (one of the *good* things about the DMCA, incidentally - fielding 250 complaints a year is a lot easier than filtering an OC12 for content and worrying if you miss something).
I prefer to take a two pronged approach to these requests. 1. If it's on a web site any they provide a link to one of my servers, then I'll jump to the site, modify the file and notify the owner. That one is easy. 2. Some of these letters only provide IP address and Song title or Movie title. I'm not a lwayer, but they don't have a leg to stand on if they don't follow the law they are quoting: `(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION- `(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: ...blah...blah `(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. *** End By my understanding, an IP address is not listed on any of that. I don't have to waste time sifting through dialup logs, or even using an automated process I have in place for subpoenas to answer this request. At least if they subpoena the information they have to prove to a judge they have a good claim. I wish I had the reference at hand, but when they subpoena information, we bill the requestor $450 for the time to lookup the user information. (Your Lawyer should be able to tell you the maximum now you can request for subpoena information.) Read the whole section 512 yourself though: http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/dogan/dmcaisp.html Gerald
[Snipped]
2. Some of these letters only provide IP address and Song title or Movie title. I'm not a lwayer, but they don't have a leg to stand on if they don't follow the law they are quoting:
`(3) ELEMENTS OF NOTIFICATION-
`(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
...blah...blah
`(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
*** End
By my understanding, an IP address is not listed on any of that. I don't have to waste time sifting through dialup logs, or even using an automated process I have in place for subpoenas to answer this request. At least if they subpoena the information they have to prove to a judge they have a good claim. I wish I had the reference at hand, but when they subpoena information, we bill the requestor $450 for the time to lookup the user information. (Your Lawyer should be able to tell you the maximum now you can request for subpoena information.)
[Snipped] Paragraph (iv) from above states the the contact information must be for the Complaining party. Not the Offender. The Complaining Party would be, in this case, Universal Studios / MPAA. In all the DMCA letters I have recieved, right after the "Very truly yours," contains a name, phone number, and e-mail address...which satisifes paragraph (iv). Thanks, Adam Debus Linux Certified Professional, Linux Certified Administrator #447641 Network Administrator, ReachONE Internet adam@reachone.com
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Adam Debus wrote:
Paragraph (iv) from above states the the contact information must be for the Complaining party. Not the Offender.
My mistake. Glad I'm not anyones Lawyer. I did a little more homework, and the best I've come up with is: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html The latest I can find on subpoenas related to IP addresses is the RIAA v. Verizon lawsuit. RIAA prevailed as far as it has been taken, but I don't know for certain if Verizon complied yet. My questions are: 1. Can anyone find the provision in any law or ruling that allows the ISP to be compensated for the time it takes to accomodate these? 2. In the instance that the information that ties the IP address to the username is removed on a regular basis, what liability do I maintain? (read: Is ignorance a viable answer?) Gerald
My questions are: 1. Can anyone find the provision in any law or ruling that allows the ISP to be compensated for the time it takes to accomodate these?
I've not heard of anything...I would be interested in the answer to this question as well.
2. In the instance that the information that ties the IP address to the username is removed on a regular basis, what liability do I maintain? (read: Is ignorance a viable answer?)
In reality, you should ask your lawyer that question. My understanding (I haven't read the bulk of the Code, so take this with a grain of salt) is that the Complaining Party has a certian amount of time to notify the carrier/ISP of a violation. It might be worth while looking into setting up your Radius log to rotate on the timeframe of that notification limit... Thanks, Adam Debus Linux Certified Professional, Linux Certified Administrator #447641 Network Administrator, ReachONE Internet adam@reachone.com
On Thu, 08 May 2003 13:15:55 EDT, Gerald said:
2. In the instance that the information that ties the IP address to the username is removed on a regular basis, what liability do I maintain? (read: Is ignorance a viable answer?)
Consult a lawyer - you probably need to keep those records for a certain amount of time (especially if you do chargeback for connect time). If your billing is strictly all-you-can-eat, you probably can get away with keeping them less time, since there won't be any billing disputes... While you're there, ask him what "expeditiously" means in this context..
On Thu, 8 May 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
Why should they pay you to police your own network?
I'll answer this off the list if you so desire. I don't see how my answer can contribute to the list.
Do you have a problem with a large number of unfounded complaints?
Yes. Gerald
This is the best information I have seen and its exactly what we do. Even if the note doesn't exactly match the DMCA requirements, I think there is all ready a ruling in a lower court that says some were close enough Also, if you simply blow off the notice, you can become liable since you didn't follow the intent of the DMCA to remove copyrighted material. Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2003 06:29:25 PDT, "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris@bblabs.com> said:
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
Congrats. You're the recipient of a "512 takedown notice". (There exist ISP's that haven't gotten one before? I'm amazed..;)
(Note - IANAL, what follows is my understanding of what the law says. If you're worried, get competent legal advice as well).
We get about 250 of these a year. The MPAA and RIAA notices read almost identically. 17 USC 512 is pretty clear about the ISP 'safe harbor' and what you have to do to keep it - basically, you as an ISP do *NOT* have to worry about content that happens to be on or go through your servers as a result of your user's actions *IF* you take action when you *do* receive an infringment notice (one of the *good* things about the DMCA, incidentally - fielding 250 complaints a year is a lot easier than filtering an OC12 for content and worrying if you miss something).
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/512.html is the full text - it's actually fairly readable.
All you have to do is make the infringing material not accessible - and 17 USC 512 is *very* non-specific as to *how* you do it. You can nuke the file, you can change the permissions, you can make the user remove it - your call. You just have to make it inaccessible, and if you have a repeat violator, you need to have a policy that allows you to terminate them. They even don't specify a time frame other than "expeditiously", so as long as you aren't dragging your feet, you're probably OK.
Our standard procedure for first-time offenders is to track down the user who has/had the IP address in question, and e-mail them a notice that basically says "Take it down by COB today, and notify us you've done so, or your access will be terminated".
As far as "Big Brother" goes, 17 USC 512 is *NOT* the big problem in the DMCA (in fact, I'd say that 17 USC 512 is reasonably good legislation - it gives the ISP a safe harbor, gives the copyright owners a clear path of action, and 17 USC 512 (f) and (g) talk about what happens if the MPAA/RIAA/whatever make a mistake).
If you want an example of *bad* legislation in the DMCA, go read 17 USC 1201 (b)(1)(A) - the infamous "circumvention clause". The problem is that it prohibits you from gaining access to information you could otherwise obtain under "fair use" (you've paid for the DVD, but you're not allowed to descramble it so you can actually *USE* it, for example).
On Thu, 08 May 2003 19:00:26 PDT, Roy said:
Even if the note doesn't exactly match the DMCA requirements, I think there is all ready a ruling in a lower court that says some were close enough
Several times we've had complaints come in that run afoul of the language in 17 USC 512(c)(3)(vi): A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Seems that somebody's net-crawler sees music from No Strings Attached and throws a fit. Unfortunately: 1) No Strings Attached is a local band (http://www.enessay.com) that's been playing under that name since 1978 (in other words, since before the guys in that OTHER band that released an album with a confusing name were even toilet trained (they contemplated calling their ninth album "In Sync" but decided against it.. ;) 2) No Strings Attached is an indie band that's not signed by any RIAA member. 3) The band *WANTS* their MP3's traded - a major source of income is touring and selling CD's, and quite often, they get booked on the basis of somebody hearing an MP3 (Or so the band members have told me - their dulcimer player's office is two cubes over from mine).. Kind of like Randy telling me about shopping for a new stereo - he goes in and gets a snotty salesman.. he asks the salesman to play this No Strings CD so he can hear how it sounds compared to how it's supposed to sound, and the salesman is all "How would YOU know what it's supposed to sound like?" "Uhmm.. I helped mix it at the studio." - salesman fixed his attitude then ;)
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Roy wrote:
This is the best information I have seen and its exactly what we do.
Even if the note doesn't exactly match the DMCA requirements, I think there is all ready a ruling in a lower court that says some were close enough
Also, if you simply blow off the notice, you can become liable since you didn't follow the intent of the DMCA to remove copyrighted material.
IIRC, they have to provide you with a written (and hence legal) copy of the notice if you request it. It's my understanding that many places are doing this to all "notices" they get. Since they never get a written reply in return it's assumed that the email was fraudulent and they ignore it. It works for them. If I can find that discussion, I'll provide the link. Justin
On 5/8/2003 at 10:00 PM, Roy <garlic@garlic.com> wrote:
Also, if you simply blow off the notice, you can become liable since you didn't follow the intent of the DMCA to remove copyrighted material.
The DMCA creates a specific safe harbor for ISPs, and compliance with the relevant statute makes the ISP eligible for the safe harbor so described therein. HOWEVER, I seem to recall a long series of civil cases preceding the DMCA that established almost universally that the ISP was not liable as a mere "conduit" for copyright infringing content made available by its customers and through its facilities. Does the DMCA supercede and invalidate this case law, as it had been established prior to the passing of the DMCA? Specifically: does the DMCA make an ISP liable for copyright infringement (rather than merely denying the safe heaven) of its customers if the ISP refuses to play along with the RIAA/MPAA bullies and does not make the alleged content unavailable, lacking any evidence presented that establishes the unlawful infringement with a preponderance of evidence (and a DMCA take down notice is FAR from even being close to preponderance of evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt ; for criminal cases)? bye,Kai
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:50:27 EDT, Kai Schlichting <kai@pac-rim.net> said:
Specifically: does the DMCA make an ISP liable for copyright infringement (rather than merely denying the safe heaven) of its customers if the ISP refuses to play along with the RIAA/MPAA bullies and does not make the alleged content unavailable, lacking any evidence presented that establishes the unlawful infringement with a preponderance of evidence
IANAL, but yes, you become liable if you intentionally drag your feet and don't make the content unavailable "expeditiously". (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) all say "you are not liable for monetary relief if you comply". There's some stuff about injunctions down in (j) that usually won't get invoked because it's more work for the complaintant - those basically boil down to "If you don't comply with a 512 takedown order, they'll show up with a court order telling you to do almost exactly the same thing". See 17 USC 512 (g), where the problem user gets to file a counter-notification saying it's *not* infringing. Remember - it's between the "copyright nazis" and your *USERS*. If you follow the rules, you can pretty much stay out of the worst of the mess. Feel free to get dragged in if you want to make a point/statement about how you feel about 17 USC 512 - but bring a lawyer or 4 if you do. ;)
At 01:31 PM 5/9/2003, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:50:27 EDT, Kai Schlichting <kai@pac-rim.net> said:
Specifically: does the DMCA make an ISP liable for copyright infringement (rather than merely denying the safe heaven) of its customers if the ISP refuses to play along with the RIAA/MPAA bullies and does not make the alleged content unavailable, lacking any evidence presented that establishes the unlawful infringement with a preponderance of evidence
IANAL, but yes, you become liable if you intentionally drag your feet and don't make the content unavailable "expeditiously". (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) all say "you are not liable for monetary relief if you comply". There's some stuff about injunctions down in (j) that usually won't get invoked because it's more work for the complaintant - those basically boil down to "If you don't comply with a 512 takedown order, they'll show up with a court order telling you to do almost exactly the same thing".
The only notice I've received to date was from Lucasfilm Ltd., and I sent them a letter suggesting they hire a lawyer to read the law to them and explain it. The Lucasfilm folks sent a blanket note to some or all folks registered as ISPs under the DMCA which said to look for files named <long list of file names> and delete those from your servers if you find them. The file names were of trailers for Star Wars Episode I. We told them to piss off and only send us notices if they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE of violation. They were attempting to get ISPs to do their work for them and hunt down violators. We never did hear anything further from them. I have to wonder how many ISPs actually acceded to their demand.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Senie" <dts@senie.com>
The Lucasfilm folks sent a blanket note to some or all folks registered as ISPs under the DMCA which said to look for files named <long list of file names> and delete those from your servers if you find them. The file names were of trailers for Star Wars Episode I. We told them to piss off and only send us notices if they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE of violation. They were attempting to get ISPs to do their work for them and hunt down violators.
We never did hear anything further from them. I have to wonder how many ISPs actually acceded to their demand.
Hum... Same letter and same response from us. I figured some lawyer made a lot of money sending those out. Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 720-3635
On Thu, 8 May 2003, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Hello,
Has anyone seen a copy of the following email? Furthermore, has it been determined which ISP services create a legal or equitable liability for the ISP? God help us if providing transport to an FTP site counts as one of the offending services. I guess it's time to turn on NBAR at the edge routers.
This is clearly Big Brother at it's finest and a prime example of John Stuart Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority." I apply Mill's logic here because I doubt that the anti-DMCA crowd is packing the halls of Congress with the rabid fervor that the pro-DMCA crowd has. I hope that this is not the case!
The last time I saw one of their "notices" they didn't meet the requirements set forth under the DMCA for notice of infringement, making the notices a waste of electrons. http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?print=yes Have your lawyer look at it for you and given you his professional opinion because IANAL. Yes, the DMCA is a beast. What's even more damaging is the "Super DMCA" that the **AA is trying to get pushed through the state governments. They have the ability to outlaw things like NAT and VPN if you interpret them in their literal sense. That's what's scary. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/04/28/BU269543.DTL It always amazes me how legislation can be bought. One of these days we're going to have to start electing officials that have a little backbone and some semblance of integrity. Justin
The one similar message that I've had to deal with complained about copyright violations from several of my IP addresses. None of those addresses: * were ever in used subnets * had ever been assigned or delegated * had ever been routed on the Internet My conclusion is that either the complainant was incompetent, was blowing smoke, or others have figured a way to confuse them. Tony Rall
participants (15)
-
Adam Debus -
Christopher J. Wolff -
Curtis Maurand -
Daniel Senie -
David Lesher -
David Schwartz -
Eric Gauthier -
Gerald -
Jack Bates -
Kai Schlichting -
listuser＠numbnuts.net -
Mark Radabaugh -
Roy -
Tony Rall -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu