ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Amazon... JeffP jeffp@jeffp.us
I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Jeff P Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re Parler
ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
JeffP jeffp@jeffp.us <mailto:jeffp@jeffp.us>
The wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230) page has this
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.
On 14 January 2021 3:37:41 pm IST, Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio?
Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon.
The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder.
First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact.
But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required.
-- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Jeff P Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re Parler
ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
JeffP jeffp@jeffp.us <mailto:jeffp@jeffp.us>
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice. How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section 230? See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a) of their customer agreement. With regards to business continuity, My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well), I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router vendors? Do you folks? If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore. Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case? What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc.. adam -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:08 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Re Parler I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio? Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon. The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable. You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder. First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact. But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Jeff P Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43 To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re Parler
ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_A ma zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
JeffP jeffp@jeffp.us <mailto:jeffp@jeffp.us>
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? That is an assumption of fact not in evidence. Furthermore, that provision requires at least 30 days notice. If that clause was in effect AND it was used as you suggest THEN UNLESS at least 30 days notice was given the plaintiff Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or aggravated/punitive damages for Amazon's violation of the contract terms.
How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section 230?
It does not.
See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a) of their customer agreement.
Why anyone in their right mind would enter into such a contract is beyond my ken and would only be done by a lunatic.
With regards to business continuity,
My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well),
I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Plus you are also claiming that a "contract of adhesion" is a valid contract, which it is not (at least not in countries with rational legal systems).
I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router vendors?
That is your own business issue and as a party to the contract, you are free to negotiate contract terms as you please.
Do you folks?
If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.
So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free). Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant.
Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case?
Unless you are stupid, you do. However in my experience there is a large quantity of stupid people in the world.
What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..
Yes. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect? No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing contents of the contract.
With regards to business continuity,
My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well),
I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs.
If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.
So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free).
Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire). The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product onto something else in time.
Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant.
And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors.
Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case?
What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..
Yes. Hmm, that doesn’t feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting a car the rental company goes under I now own the car? I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as well? (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore).
adam
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. -mel
On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?
No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing contents of the contract.
With regards to business continuity,
My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well),
I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs.
If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.
So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free).
Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire). The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product onto something else in time.
Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant.
And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors.
Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case?
What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..
Yes. Hmm, that doesn’t feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting a car the rental company goes under I now own the car? I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as well? (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore).
adam
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order).
And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking.
This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices. Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Good to here since you're either part of: . Parler legal team; . Amazon legal team; . Pervue of all the communication between both corporation; ... or just a Parler user ... is my guess. ----- Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443 On 1/14/21 1:01 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices.
Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.
Folks, There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of right wing extremism. The courts will take that into account. Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with it any lawsuit. I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic. Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>; adamv0025@netconsultings.com <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Re Parler On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order).
And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking.
This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices. Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact. -- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
Interesting ! Money can buy many things 🙂 Best Ge
Le 14 janv. 2021 à 20:43, Rod Beck <rod.beck@unitedcablecompany.com> a écrit :
Folks,
There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of right wing extremism.
The courts will take that into account.
Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with it any lawsuit.
I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic.
Regards,
Roderick.
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+rod.beck=unitedcablecompany.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM To: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org>; adamv0025@netconsultings.com <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: Re Parler
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order).
And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking.
This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their Fraudulent business practices.
Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.
-- Be decisive. Make a decision, right or wrong. The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:01:19AM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote:
This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is likely)
The first hearing in this case was held today. Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during that hearing Parler's attorney: - forgot the name of Parler's CEO - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology because he's not on social media - admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to update his PACER account This is the same attorney who filed Parler's complaint -- the one that names Twitter as a defendant in section 5 while omitting them from the title page of the complaint. Here, look for yourself: PARLER LLC v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wa... Read the first sentence of section 5. It's on page 3. Oh heck, let me save you the trouble: "Thus, AWS is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter." I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the complaint (and serving them). ---rsk
Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during that hearing Parler's attorney:
- forgot the name of Parler's CEO
- stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology because he's not on social media
- admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to update his PACER account
This is because, if reports can be believed, Parler's own lawyers abandoned ship a few days ago.
I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the complaint (and serving them).
It's actually not uncommon to include unnamed defendants - however, in order to do so, and in order to reserve the ability, one needs to include in the list of defendants something like "And Does 1-10', or such (or request leave to amend the complaint). Given everything everything, I'd say it's pretty clear that this attorney took the case at the 11th hour. He is a patent and other IP issues attorney - which this case is not. Anne -- Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)ultant Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Shut , so the boilerplate termination of agreement for any reason with 30 day notice was indeed part of the contract? -so they forgot to bump the default up I guess, but anyways wouldn't help them either way. Was there anything else in the contract that would allow amazon to terminate the contract in less than 30days (termination for cause maybe)? (b) Termination for Cause. (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice -30 days again,... (ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you (A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6 <- 6. Temporary Suspension. -I guess that's what you was referring to right? (B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other technology as part of the Services -this would affect everybody on the platform hard to justify singling out one customer (C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental entities. -also not the case right? Section 6: 6. Temporary Suspension. 6.1 Generally. We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we determine: (a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings (i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, (ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the systems or Content of any other AWS customer, (iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to liability, or (iv) could be fraudulent; (b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement; (c) you are in breach of your payment obligations under Section 5; or (d) you have ceased to operate in the ordinary course, made an assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of your assets, or become the subject of any bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution or similar proceeding. So if AWS acted according to section 6 then I guess only point (a) options are remotely plausible, but I guess any of the points there would be hard to proof. In any case it's a pretty powerful tool to have in a contract this section 6. (especially with subsection (a) which seem to provide a lot of options for interpretation and manoeuvring space) adam -----Original Message----- From: Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 5:02 PM To: adamv0025@netconsultings.com Cc: Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf@dessus.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Re Parler I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get the pages out of order). And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination. Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers). However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone using them for operational networking. -mel
On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
Medcalf Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0025@netconsultings.com wrote:
https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/ 7.2 Termination. (a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.
How do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?
No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing contents of the contract.
With regards to business continuity,
My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well),
I have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party. Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs.
If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.
So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours. I would take the position that if Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free).
Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire). The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product onto something else in time.
Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that is relevant.
And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors.
Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case?
What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..
Yes. Hmm, that doesn’t feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting a car the rental company goes under I now own the car? I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as well? (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore).
adam
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM <adamv0025@netconsultings.com> wrote:
(b) Termination for Cause. (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of notice
It's fairly clear from Amazon's communications that this is their basis for terminating Parler. They began notifying Parler in September that Parler's content moderation efforts were not acceptable, offered examples and used progressively stronger language to express their dissatisfaction with Parler's remedies. I suppose it remains to be seen whether a court will accept the argument but there's no need to speculate about what their argument is. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/
In article <700000E9-8BE1-483C-8E49-E9CDA6B4AF9C@beckman.org> you write:
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Aw, come on. Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the TV now and then. R's, John
John, What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust laws for a political cause? To bring this discussion back into the realm of operational discussions, shouldn’t we be building infrastructure that has the audit and change management components needed to detect ill-advised actions like Amazon’s? I recently read that Theranos IT conveniently “lost the keys” to the encrypted database files that are key evidence in the DOJ’s fraud case against them. Clearly there is an ethical case for us as technologists to treat these events in a non-partisan way. The days of “I was just following orders” are long gone. -mel
On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:47 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
In article <700000E9-8BE1-483C-8E49-E9CDA6B4AF9C@beckman.org> you write:
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Aw, come on. Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the TV now and then.
R's, John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>
John,
What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust laws for a political cause?
No, Mel. In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection *are not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that wagon may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the people who were in Washington. And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid. - Mike Bolitho On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:00 PM Jay R. Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org>
John,
What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust laws for a political cause?
No, Mel.
In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection *are not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that wagon may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the people who were in Washington.
And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On 1/14/21 4:09 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting stupid.
I second the motion. I've been following this issue very closely since the start on what might be called Legal Twitter (actual attorneys practicing actual law at the Federal level in civil, criminal, appellate, constitutional and intellectual property cases) and it's become painfully clear that 98% of the people replying to this topic here have 1) no idea what they're talking about, and 2) a more- and more-obvious political/philosophical agenda of one stripe or another I've been wholesale deleting for days now. Put a stake in 'er, Jim, she's dead. - John --
Mike Bolitho wrote:
List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information and witnesses to figure out what's going on.
No lawyers are required to figure out what's going on with parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0, which has a lot to do with network operations, implication of which is hard to be understood by lawyers, for which there should be no useful case information.
And as Jay said, it's getting stupid.
That parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0 is, certainly, stupid. Masataka Ohta
participants (16)
-
adamv0025＠netconsultings.com -
Alain Hebert -
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Ge DUPIN -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jeff P -
John Levine -
John Sage -
Keith Medcalf -
Masataka Ohta -
Mel Beckman -
Mike Bolitho -
Rich Kulawiec -
Rod Beck -
Shamil K -
William Herrin