DMCA takedowns of networks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/chamber-of-commerce-stron_n_332087.... 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.
BS to say the least...first the US Chamber of Commerce is not a government organization. And even if there were what right does anyone have to tread on Freedom of Speech?!? Was there a court order? I'd really be interested in know what strong arm tactic they used with HE. William Allen Simpson wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/chamber-of-commerce-stron_n_332087....
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.
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. Jeff 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_332087.... 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.
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_332087....
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.
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
P.S. Good to know you would keep spammers, DDoS'ers, hackers, etc. connected, even in the face of evidence provided by other ISPs, "... nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior." -- TTFN, patrick
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_332087....
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.
Patrick, My comment was geared toward freedom of content and should not be interpreted to mean that network abuse will be permitted. We're very conservative about how we handle DMCA requests. If we receive one it better be valid and if there is any doubt we will challenge the sender vice punish our customer. Most DMCA we receive are completely bogus. Jeff On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
P.S. Good to know you would keep spammers, DDoS'ers, hackers, etc. connected, even in the face of evidence provided by other ISPs, "... nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior."
-- TTFN, patrick
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_332087....
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.
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
My comment was geared toward freedom of content and should not be interpreted to mean that network abuse will be permitted. We're very conservative about how we handle DMCA requests. If we receive one it better be valid and if there is any doubt we will challenge the sender vice punish our customer.
Most DMCA we receive are completely bogus.
Like most "discussions" on NANOG, this was the result of a miscommunication. You said you would never censor anything other than CP without a court order. What you meant is that you could follow DCMA if it is not bogus even without a court order, and you would stop abuse, and you would in general act like many other reasonable providers. I'm going to assume that means you would also buy transit from such providers. Wow, it seems like we completely agree. Glad to have cleared that up. Try not to be so absolute next time. -- TTFN, patrick
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
P.S. Good to know you would keep spammers, DDoS'ers, hackers, etc. connected, even in the face of evidence provided by other ISPs, "... nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this type of behavior."
-- TTFN, patrick
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_332087....
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.
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.
Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
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 ______________________________________________________________________
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?)
Not sure how much I believe of the article and its lack of detail and chopped quotes...but did HE really disconnect an entire downstream network over a DMCA notice, or did they null route a /32 that was used by a customer to host hundreds of virtual web sites? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
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"
[realizing that I am veering OT] Last Thursday I videotaped a talk "Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace" in NYC. http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=959 (still editing - soon come) One point made was that the "progress" vs "moral rights" dichotomy in copyright philosophy is so deep that there really is little, if any, prospect of consensus. About 10 days ago I videotaped another one - William Patry, Chief Copyright Counsel at Google - "Moral Panics & Copyright Wars" http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=990 His theme is that the two points of view are irrelevant, all that's needed is an effective law in the public interest. At the 'Moose' talk one attendee, who I later learned is a criminal court judge was particularly vociferous on the moral right side. I spoke with him afterwards and he volunteered the opinion that the internet itself was not in the public interest and should be shut down forthwith by the governments of the world, since it is they who control the satellites! joly On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven@cb3rob.net> wrote:
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.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice. http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130 http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132 To quote:
In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use, so the proper response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then wait for the complainer to settle the issue in court. No doubt the lawsuit would never come, because they don't stand a chance in hell of actually winning, but sending letters is cheap and surprisingly effective against the uninformed. The reason you don't typically see these kinds of issues with providers blocking large amounts of content by taking out whole IPs of their downstreams is that it is cheap and easy to become your own service provider for the purposes of DMCA. If you are hosting any content yourself, you should really go to http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ and file for a designated agent. -- 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)
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make that distinction.
so the proper response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then wait for the complainer to settle the issue in court.
See previous comment. The website owner, however, has that option. Let's just agree that there were multiple avenues open to lots of people here, that HE should not have taken down more than the site in question (if, in fact, that is what happened), and that the DCMA has silly parts. Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though. -- TTFN, patrick
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
It most certainly does not.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
But you should understand the law. The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down material because they were notified that the material is infringing on a copyright holder's rights. What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down notice. But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so, they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose to take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from being sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by the copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would have to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable for it.) (I'm not commenting on the merits of HE's actions here. Just on that the DMCA actually says. It's certainly a good practice for providers that don't want to spend time evaluating copyright claims and defending copyright infringement suits (which, I think, is most providers) to take advantage of the DMCAs safe-harbor provisions. I'm not disputing that.) -- Brett
On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
It most certainly does not.
It "most certainly" does.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
But you should understand the law.
That's a matter of opinion. :)
The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down material because they were notified that the material is infringing on a copyright holder's rights.
Who said it does? I "most certainly" did not. If you think I did, try reading again.
What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down notice. But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so, they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose to take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from being sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by the copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would have to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable for it.)
See, we agree. So what was the problem again? =) And if anyone wants to get upset at a provider for doing what is best for their business, perhaps by saying they are 'giving in to a bully' or other silliness, then they should be ignored. Sometimes it's worth the $$ on lawyers so you can get more customers because people believe you will stand up for them. Sometimes it is not. But a for-profit business is, well, for-profit. And even if you make the wrong business decision, it's still YOUR decision. You risk your business either way you decide, and things are rarely cut-and- dried. People from the outside without all the information telling you you what to do are being silly. Like I always say: Your Network, Your Decision. Anyone care to argue otherwise? -- TTFN, patrick P.S. still doesn't mean HE should have taken down non-infringing sites.
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
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.
The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled. One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the takedown notice.
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above. It is merely a claim by a third party as to some particular infringement. A service provider CAN take certain steps listed in the DMCA and gain absolute protection under the law against almost any sort of copyright liability regarding the incident. This does not, however, make it correct or perhaps even legal for a service provider to take that action in all cases. There are plenty of examples of DMCA notices having been sent for the sole purpose of getting something someone doesn't like shut down, even where the party issuing the notice obviously does not own the copyright in question. There are a variety of techniques to deal with this...
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make that distinction.
Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would make such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a DMCA (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted through a server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that Usenet news server's address. Of course, they picked a hostname out of the headers of the message in question, and null-routed that. To no effect, since the users accessed servers through SLB. Duh. And since Usenet is a flood fill system, blocking the injecting host isn't sufficient anyways, since the article is instantly available at every other Usenet site, including the other local servers. Double duh. And since the subscriber's account had already been closed and cancels had been issued earlier in the day, the content wasn't even on the server anymore. Three duhs and Cogent's out... The annoying part was that Cogent decided at 2 *AM* in the morning that this was a problem, and insisted on an answer within an hour. I allocated a whole lot more time than that for reading several tiers of management and sales the riot act. Not that it had any operational impact whatsoever, but when a service provider starts implementing arbitrary kneejerk "fixes" upon receipt of a complaint, that's a bad thing, and that seems like what may have happened here, too. To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at least as a first step.
so the proper response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then wait for the complainer to settle the issue in court.
See previous comment. The website owner, however, has that option.
Let's just agree that there were multiple avenues open to lots of people here, that HE should not have taken down more than the site in question (if, in fact, that is what happened), and that the DCMA has silly parts.
Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though.
That is, of course, completely correct. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above.
You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why you should not. This is no different from many "legal" notices. If you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the loss of Safe Harbor defense. This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What would you call "the force of law?" Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who thinks otherwise.
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make that distinction.
Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would make such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a DMCA (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted through a server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that Usenet news server's address.
[snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent] It is almost certainly not "like" anything. I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info. Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly. Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted. Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS HAPPENED.
To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at least as a first step.
I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non- infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened. So why are we having this discussion?
Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though.
That is, of course, completely correct.
Glad we agree. -- TTFN, patrick
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above.
You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why you should not.
I think you need to read the DMCA. You may feel free to point out where it says "service provider must do X." Because I suspect you will find out that it _really_ says, "in order to retain safe harbor protection, service provider must do X." The latter is not lawfully compelling me to do anything.
This is no different from many "legal" notices. If you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the loss of Safe Harbor defense.
This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What would you call "the force of law?"
Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who thinks otherwise.
I "believe" what the lawyers tell me. They tell me that we may lose safe harbor if we do not comply with a takedown notice. That's about all.
This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,
Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make that distinction.
Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would make such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a DMCA (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted through a server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that Usenet news server's address.
[snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent]
It is almost certainly not "like" anything.
I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info. Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly.
Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted. Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS HAPPENED.
Of course not. But there are at least some of us who have been through all of this; we can fill in the blanks and make some reasonable conclusions.
To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at least as a first step.
I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non- infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened.
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
I've excerpted, and posted anonymously, a few quotes from this thread on the ISOC-NY website. I hope that this is acceptable - if not, let me know off list. http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=996 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question... Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a provider block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL? Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing? - Brian
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question...
Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a provider block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL?
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity. Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question...
Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a
I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP... The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple and quite effective. Thanks, John van Oppen Spectrum Networks LLC Direct: 206.973.8302 Main: 206.973.8300 Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us -----Original Message----- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgreco@ns.sol.net] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:45 AM To: Brian Johnson Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks provider
block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL?
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity. Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
John van Oppen wrote:
I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP... The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple and quite effective.
And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation. Jack
-----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:52 AM To: John van Oppen Cc: Joe Greco; Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
John van Oppen wrote:
I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP... The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple and quite effective.
And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation.
Jack
You beat me to it, but my point exactly. 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. Let's put away our rollers and take out our watercolor brushes. - Brian
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)
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
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).
I'm sure HE respects the rights of free speech just fine. That being said, a notice was delivered, customer may not have replied with the appropriate legal notice, and so HE honored it's obligation to maintain safe harbor. One would have to be an idiot to jeopardize their company by rolling the dice in an effort to protect free speech (which may not legally be free speech). Courts determine what is free speech. ISPs just try to stay the hell out of the way. Jack
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net> wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
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).
I'm sure HE respects the rights of free speech just fine. That being said, a notice was delivered, customer may not have replied with the appropriate legal notice, and so HE honored it's obligation to maintain safe harbor.
One would have to be an idiot to jeopardize their company by rolling the dice in an effort to protect free speech (which may not legally be free speech). Courts determine what is free speech. ISPs just try to stay the hell out of the way.
Jack
Just to add some facts to the debate, the "Yes Men" get them themselves somehow on as speakers to some group such as the COC and give a speech that exposes the organization to ridicule. For example they pretended to discover climate change would be bad for business at the COC and proposed the return to slavery as a solution to Africa's economic problems at a Wharton Business School conference. The amazing thing is their pronouncements are taken seriously by the audience. I am not a lawyer, but I know satire when I see it and this is damn good political satire, something the courts have given broad free speech protection to. Satire can incorporate a great deal without copyright infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that a song named "Pretty Woman" that used much of the words and all the music of another song "Pretty Woman" that satires the original song by having the "pretty woman walking down the street" being a prostitute in their neighborhood and arrested was protected speech in spite of consisting of over 90% of the original work. Not that HE should act as a judge, but just to clarify what is being done. http://theyesmen.org/ Bruce Williams
A reminder that discussion of the following topics and off-topic for the NANOG list: 6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited. Simon Lyall NANOG MLC ( on behalf of) -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Jack Bates wrote (on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:52:01AM -0500):
John van Oppen wrote:
I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP... The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple and quite effective.
And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation.
Jack
But, if HE *didn't* do that, why aren't they commenting? Like, on this forum, for example? HE ppl seem to know the address of NANOG ... -- _________________________________________ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
Jack Bates wrote (on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:52:01AM -0500):
John van Oppen wrote:
I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...
And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation.
But, if HE *didn't* do that, why aren't they commenting? Like, on this forum, for example? HE ppl seem to know the address of NANOG ...
They aren't commenting (this is an opinion, and I have NO inside information) because it's a legal matter. Jeeze, people, go on their reputation. Hurricane Electric are the good guys. Enough already. -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking. -- Larry Wall
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
which would be called "blackmail". sure, have the cops arrest the guy that actually runs the site or uploaded it onto the site, if they cannot (because it simply doesnt happen to be illegal in the country where he resides) they are out of luck and have to live with it. furthermore, in any case, a proper court order specifically mentioning the url, the customer, the right company out of our christmastree of companies worldwide, etc would be required as we dont plan to decide whats illegal and what not. ofcourse all of this only applies to "real crime". not to whining dmca idiots, whom are criminals themselves. -- 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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question...
Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a provider block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL?
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious.
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
-----Original Message----- From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:sven@cyberbunker.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:25 PM To: Joe Greco Cc: Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
which would be called "blackmail".
sure, have the cops arrest the guy that actually runs the site or uploaded it onto the site, if they cannot (because it simply doesnt happen to be illegal in the country where he resides) they are out of luck and have to live with it.
furthermore, in any case, a proper court order specifically mentioning the url, the customer, the right company out of our christmastree of companies worldwide, etc would be required as we dont plan to decide whats illegal and what not.
ofcourse all of this only applies to "real crime". not to whining dmca idiots, whom are criminals themselves.
--
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
Per Dictionary.com: blackmail -noun 1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations. 2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail. 3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage. -verb (used with object) 4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats. 5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract. ... thus, this is not blackmail. Please thrown your grenades and run. :) - Brian 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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question...
Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a provider block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL?
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious.
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
-----Original Message----- From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:sven@cyberbunker.com] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:25 PM To: Joe Greco Cc: Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
which would be called "blackmail".
sure, have the cops arrest the guy that actually runs the site or uploaded it onto the site, if they cannot (because it simply doesnt happen to be illegal in the country where he resides) they are out of luck and have to live with it.
furthermore, in any case, a proper court order specifically mentioning the url, the customer, the right company out of our christmastree of companies worldwide, etc would be required as we dont plan to decide whats illegal and what not.
ofcourse all of this only applies to "real crime". not to whining dmca idiots, whom are criminals themselves.
--
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
Option 5 sounds like it fits the bill to me. After all, what HE said was basically "take the site down or else" to which they backed down but then wound up turning service down anyway. It is truly disappointing to see HE evolve in this way. I hope that their management decides to change the way IP issues get handled. (again, not the opinions of my employer.) William -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-866-519-6149 -----Original Message----- From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson@drtel.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:03:29 To: North American Network Operators Group<nanog@merit.edu> Subject: RE: DMCA takedowns of networks Per Dictionary.com: blackmail -noun 1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations. 2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail. 3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage. -verb (used with object) 4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats. 5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract. ... thus, this is not blackmail. Please thrown your grenades and run. :) - Brian 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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
So why are we having this discussion?
Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-)
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
On the technical side of this question...
Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a bunch of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that one of the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a provider block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for the header for the URL?
Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
Sure. Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose their connectivity.
Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious.
... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:00 AM, William Allen Simpson
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?
Since people are afraid. Organizations may send DMCA letters, whether they are valid or not; the recipient may disconnect what the sender wants, and is unlikely to consider whether they really must do it or not. It's easier to do what the bully wants than be a guinea pig and have some risk of being sued, or other unforseen consequences. Note that the 512(a) safe harbor of the DMCA does not include a requirement of removing material when notified; only the 512(c) safe harbor includes that requirement, and it's for providers that actually store the material. - http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID472 US Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec 512, (c) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 " (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users." ersus "(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. ... A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, ...." It's a bit hard (impossible) to "expeditiously remove" material that your equipment isn't storing, but that a downstream network is storing. The DMCA doesn't say anything about severing connectivity to computers on a network. That's just what the wronged party wants, the collateral damage doesn't effect them. -- -J
participants (22)
-
Brandt, Ralph -
Bret Clark -
Brett Frankenberger -
Brian Johnson -
Bruce Williams -
Jack Bates -
James Hess -
Jeffrey Lyon -
Joe Greco -
John van Oppen -
Joly MacFie -
Jon Lewis -
N. Yaakov Ziskind -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Shrdlu -
Simon Lyall -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
Sven Olaf Kamphuis -
William Allen Simpson -
William Pitcock