Hi, How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ? It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members. I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer". May you please enlight me ? Thanks ! -- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer".
May you please enlight me ? There are always ways around the system. I suspect what has happened is
On 2/22/2016 5:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote: that IRR's require that a company hold addresses but they have provisions for companies to be sold or change names. So the IP address brokers probably sell a "business" with the IP address block. It might be simpler than that. I don't know what the loopholes are but I'm sure some lawyers have read through all the documents and found a way. I imagine it's never been tested in court because proving the system is being exploited would be hard, and the parties with a vested interest probably don't have the resources to make a fight of it.
Thanks !
-- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
Thanks, Robert
How come we have real property "ownership"? It is nothing but a record of invisible boundary lines on the surface of the earth, despite the earth and its land area being a shared resource for its animal and plant inhabitants. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone)
On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
Hi,
How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ?
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer".
May you please enlight me ?
Thanks !
-- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
Simple to answer. 1. Address space is finite in size, therefore in the V4 space more people want addresses than there is available space. Hence it has value because demand exceeds supply. 2. Managing address space allocations is not a zero cost effort, therefore the RIRs charge a price for that. Anything that costs money to acquire presumably has value. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
Hi,
How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ?
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer".
May you please enlight me ?
Thanks !
-- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
Oh, and I forgot to add...the number in and of itself does not have a value. The right to use that number within the Internet connected network is what has value. Steven Naslund Chicago IL Simple to answer. 1. Address space is finite in size, therefore in the V4 space more people want addresses than there is available space. Hence it has value because demand exceeds supply. 2. Managing address space allocations is not a zero cost effort, therefore the RIRs charge a price for that. Anything that costs money to acquire presumably has value. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
Hi,
How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ?
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer".
May you please enlight me ?
Thanks !
-- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
On Feb 22, 2016, at 08:50 , Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to add...the number in and of itself does not have a value. The right to use that number within the Internet connected network is what has value.
But that’s not what RIRs give you. RIRs have no control over your right to use the number within the context of any network. RIRs merely provide a record of unique registrations among cooperating registries. Most network operators currently use this database as a basis for granting permissions to use the numbers within their network contexts, but any network operator that wants to is free to assign any number they wish to any purpose or entity they so choose. Your network, your rules. Turns out, that since most network operators follow the RIR database, it’s hard to find peers that will accept your announcement of “off-list” usage of addresses, but that’s not an inherent right conveyed in the registration of an address within the RIR system. Owen
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Simple to answer.
1. Address space is finite in size, therefore in the V4 space more people want addresses than there is available space. Hence it has value because demand exceeds supply.
2. Managing address space allocations is not a zero cost effort, therefore the RIRs charge a price for that. Anything that costs money to acquire presumably has value.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On Feb 22, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
Hi,
How come we've had an inetnum market in place whereas an inetnum cannot have a market value ?
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
I'm wondering how did we made "Temporary and conditionnal liabality transfer" a synonym of "perpetual and inconditional usufruct transfer".
May you please enlight me ?
Thanks !
-- Jérôme Nicolle +33 6 19 31 27 14
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
Hi Jérôme, The short version is this: IP addresses are property. A few people get really bent out of shape if you say that IP addresses are property. And while extant, the legal precedent for IP addresses as property isn't as strong as might be nice. So, we mostly pay lip service to the folks who still want to claim that IP addresses are just integers even as we treat IP addresses like property. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Feb 22, 2016, at 08:57 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 5:03 AM, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
It's my understanding that the IP adress space is nothing but numbers and that RIR/LIRs are only responsible for the uniqueness of allocations and assignements, that is, a transfer of liability over a shared and common immaterial resource, between community members.
Hi Jérôme,
The short version is this:
IP addresses are property. A few people get really bent out of shape if you say that IP addresses are property. And while extant, the legal precedent for IP addresses as property isn't as strong as might be nice. So, we mostly pay lip service to the folks who still want to claim that IP addresses are just integers even as we treat IP addresses like property.
I would argue that it is the other way around. Unique registrations in the RIR databases may well be property. IP addresses are so abstract and ephemeral in their nature as to be impossible to treat as property other than by creating some sort of statutory system requiring all network operators to obey a certain set of cooperating registries for said numbers and then using those unique registrations mentioned above to convey property rights in the operational deployment of the ephemeral numbers referenced. Ownership of the rights to control (convey, modify, update) a registration record are tangible and can be property. The control over how a network operator interprets, deploys, uses, or otherwise manipulates a particular integer or packets containing a particular integer in a particular field of the packet is not actually subject to any sort of enforceable property rights. For example, if you have gotten a registration for A.B.C.0/24 from an RIR and you then purchase internet access from $PROVIDER_A, you have nothing which will force $PROVIDER_A to convey all packets to A.B.C.0/24 to your network unless that’s what you add to your contract. Further, if some other customer of $PROVIDER_B convinces them to treat A.B.C.0/24 differently within $PROVIDER_B’s network, there’s no law which prohibits that and no way for you to enforce any sort of restraint on their choice to do so. You might… _MIGHT_ have a case for tortious interference if $PROVIDER_B advertises A.B.C.0/24 to some other provider in a way that negatively impacts your network, but to the best of my knowledge, even that is relatively untested. So far, resolving any such conflicts has depended almost entirely on the fact that ISPs generally cooperate with the RIR system and treat it as an authoritative list for granting permission to use addresses in their networks. If ISPs start opting out of that particular choice, life gets much more interesting, but I don’t think there’s any sort of ownership conveyed in an RIR registration that allows you to prevent an ISP that you aren’t in a contract with from doing so. Owen
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Unique registrations in the RIR databases may well be property.
Hi Owen, Registration records property. Registrations are not the property recorded. The U.S. Supreme Court talks about property this way: "The right to exclude others [is] one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." (Kaiser Aetna v. United States) Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do. Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses. The right to exclude is not the only one in the bundle of rights that is property but it is the primary and it is argued sufficient condition of property. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=nlr Which brings us back around to what I said earlier: IP addresses are property but the legal precedent isn't as strong as might be nice.
IP addresses are so abstract and ephemeral in their nature as to be impossible to treat as property
Computers don't do abstraction. There's nothing abstract or particularly ephemeral about the use of IP addresses on the public Internet. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 00:44 -0500, William Herrin wrote:
Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do.
If I own some property - say a field - the location of that field is with certain rare exceptions public information. I as the owner cannot enforce a requirement on you to NOT tell people where my field is. I can't demand that you NOT build roads past it, or that you NOT put up signs saying how to get to my field, or even that you NOT tell people who owns the field. I have the right to exclusive use of the property, but I have no rights to information about the property, nor any property rights outside the boundary of the property. Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter. Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
The problem is what rights we are talking about. I would say that practically speaking the only real right here is the right to configure an address on an interface. But anyone else can send packets to an address, or advertise to others the direction of travel towards that network. Malicious activity excluded of course - DoS attacks and so on, but I think the issues there are different. Also, contractually regulated relationships are different - if I connect something up to ISPX and have a contract with ISPX to NOT advertise the route to me, then ISPX is constrained. Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
Hi, shouldn't the same logic of ownership of DNS domain names apply to inetnum address space? Best regards, Jonas Sent from my iPad
On 02 Mar 2016, at 07:12, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 00:44 -0500, William Herrin wrote: Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do.
If I own some property - say a field - the location of that field is with certain rare exceptions public information. I as the owner cannot enforce a requirement on you to NOT tell people where my field is. I can't demand that you NOT build roads past it, or that you NOT put up signs saying how to get to my field, or even that you NOT tell people who owns the field. I have the right to exclusive use of the property, but I have no rights to information about the property, nor any property rights outside the boundary of the property.
Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter.
Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
The problem is what rights we are talking about. I would say that practically speaking the only real right here is the right to configure an address on an interface. But anyone else can send packets to an address, or advertise to others the direction of travel towards that network. Malicious activity excluded of course - DoS attacks and so on, but I think the issues there are different. Also, contractually regulated relationships are different - if I connect something up to ISPX and have a contract with ISPX to NOT advertise the route to me, then ISPX is constrained.
Regards, K.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389
GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Jonas Bjork <mr.jonas.bjork@me.com> wrote:
shouldn't the same logic of ownership of DNS domain names apply to inetnum address space?
Hi Jonas, A trademark owner invoking the UDRP generally is able to exclude anyone else that can't present an equally valid claim to the name. That's why the vast majority of squatted names are for sale at just under the cost of invoking the UDRP. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter.
Hi Karl, I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking. I can't compel you to announce my BGP route but if you do announce it and your announcement is inconsistent with my own then by definition it's false. If your announcement is consistent with my own then you're propagating the route as intended and I have no cause for complaint.
Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
So far as I know, network operators have interceded and the false routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would have gone to court. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2 March 2016 at 03:46, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter.
Hi Karl,
I'm having trouble seeing the nit you're picking. I can't compel you to announce my BGP route but if you do announce it and your announcement is inconsistent with my own then by definition it's false. If your announcement is consistent with my own then you're propagating the route as intended and I have no cause for complaint.
Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
So far as I know, network operators have interceded and the false routes have been withdrawn long before any route hijacking cases would have gone to court.
Care to explain why noone has bothered to seek punitive damages, then? C.
The numbers (IP addresses) are not the field. The servers are the field. The numbers are the street addresses of the server. Domain names would be a nick name for the numbers, like PaddingHouse.com is at 55.51.52.1. The BGP table is a road map. That's why it was once called the Super Information Highway, remember? You can sell street/road maps to the stars, and the stars don't have to let you in. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 00:44 -0500, William Herrin wrote:
Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do.
If I own some property - say a field - the location of that field is with certain rare exceptions public information. I as the owner cannot enforce a requirement on you to NOT tell people where my field is. I can't demand that you NOT build roads past it, or that you NOT put up signs saying how to get to my field, or even that you NOT tell people who owns the field. I have the right to exclusive use of the property, but I have no rights to information about the property, nor any property rights outside the boundary of the property.
Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter.
Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
The problem is what rights we are talking about. I would say that practically speaking the only real right here is the right to configure an address on an interface. But anyone else can send packets to an address, or advertise to others the direction of travel towards that network. Malicious activity excluded of course - DoS attacks and so on, but I think the issues there are different. Also, contractually regulated relationships are different - if I connect something up to ISPX and have a contract with ISPX to NOT advertise the route to me, then ISPX is constrained.
Regards, K.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389
GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
On 3/2/2016 08:05, Bob Evans wrote:
The numbers (IP addresses) are not the field. The servers are the field. The numbers are the street addresses of the server. Domain names would be a nick name for the numbers, like PaddingHouse.com is at 55.51.52.1. The BGP table is a road map.
That's why it was once called the Super Information Highway, remember?
You can sell street/road maps to the stars, and the stars don't have to let you in.
Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do. If I own some property - say a field - the location of that field is with certain rare exceptions public information. I as the owner cannot enforce a requirement on you to NOT tell people where my field is. I can't demand that you NOT build roads past it, or that you NOT put up signs saying how to get to my field, or even that you NOT tell people who owns the field. I have the right to exclusive use of the property, but I have no rights to information about the property, nor any
On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 00:44 -0500, William Herrin wrote: property rights outside the boundary of the property.
Testing in court the idea that you may not advertise my routes would be a fascinating exercise. If you falsely advertised them it would be a different matter.
Has this sort of thing been tested in the courts at all? In any jurisdiction?
Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses. The problem is what rights we are talking about. I would say that practically speaking the only real right here is the right to configure an address on an interface. But anyone else can send packets to an address, or advertise to others the direction of travel towards that network. Malicious activity excluded of course - DoS attacks and so on, but I think the issues there are different. Also, contractually regulated relationships are different - if I connect something up to ISPX and have a contract with ISPX to NOT advertise the route to me, then ISPX is constrained.
Regards, K.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389
GPG fingerprint: E00D 64ED 9C6A 8605 21E0 0ED0 EE64 2BEE CBCB C38B Old fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4
Interesting demonstration of why retreat to analogies does not help in a discussion. A question: If you stop announcing your routes, where will the world get them from? -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
As far as I know there is no requirement to announce your assigned or legacy owned prefixes to the world. You have the right to announce them. I don't think you can legally stop others from announcing your path to them. Once you publicly announce something, it's out there. Oh well, maybe I didn't get the original question. I thought the discussion was about a network's right to prevent others in the world from announcing/propagating a route to that network's prefixes. Seemed to be a legal question and the field analogy someone put forth seemed to apply well. I can't take credit for that as I simply tuned it and showed how it fit in a historical way. I think a lawyer would probably make this analogy in a court. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Interesting demonstration of why retreat to analogies does not help in a discussion.
A question: If you stop announcing your routes, where will the world get them from?
-- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
Interesting demonstration of why retreat to analogies does not help in a discussion.
A question: If you stop announcing your routes, where will the world get them from?
In most cases, the first spammer to notice that the space is no longer announced, at least for some period of time. ;-) What we are discussing here, however, is some theoretical right to prevent the spammer from doing so. Owen
On Mar 1, 2016, at 21:44 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Unique registrations in the RIR databases may well be property.
Hi Owen,
Registration records property. Registrations are not the property recorded.
The U.S. Supreme Court talks about property this way: "The right to exclude others [is] one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." (Kaiser Aetna v. United States)
And you get no such right in IP addresses.
Do I have the legal right to exclude others from announcing my block of IP addresses to the public Internet routing tables? It's not well tested in court but the odds are exceptionally strong that I do. Indeed, the whole point of registration is to facilitate determination of -who- has the exclusive right over -which- blocks of addresses.
Not so much, no. First, there’s no good definition of “the public Internet” and there’s no single definition of “public routing tables”. There is, instead, the set of individually run networks who cooperate in the exchange of traffic by sharing routes. Any right to exclude would be a right to control how each and every one of those networks operates. Since many of those networks are outside of the jurisdiction of any court to which you would likely have access and to the best of my knowledge there is no international court of competent jurisdiction to compel ISPs around the world to obey any such order, no, you have no right to exclude.
The right to exclude is not the only one in the bundle of rights that is property but it is the primary and it is argued sufficient condition of property. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1492&context=nlr
Which brings us back around to what I said earlier: IP addresses are property but the legal precedent isn't as strong as might be nice.
I think I have shown that you do not have the right to exclude, so if you have some other basis by which you think you can define these property rights, let’s have it. I argue that because what you actually mean by “the public Internet” is a combination of so many different legal entities in so many not-necessarily- overlapping jurisdictions and because there is no single jurisdiction to which they are all subject, nor even necessarily any particular agreed upon complete shared definition or enumeration of all of them, the ability to enforce any sort of right to exclusion is nothing but a myth, making any such alleged right also mythical.
IP addresses are so abstract and ephemeral in their nature as to be impossible to treat as property
Computers don't do abstraction. There's nothing abstract or particularly ephemeral about the use of IP addresses on the public Internet.
Please in a legal way define this single entity that you refer to as “the public Internet” such that some court would have jurisdiction over the entirety of its operations. Then please define the venue of jurisdiction to which you would avail yourself in order to compel said entity to obey such an order. Indeed, the reason there aren’t any court precedents to support your position is because when hijackings have occurred, the solution has been to contact the provider and/or upstream providers of the one engaged in hijacking. Case in point, the incident between YouTube and AS17557 over 208.65.153.0/24. Do you really think that the Pakistani government would have ever punished Pakistan Telecom or that YouTube could have obtained any useful injunctive relief in that jurisdiction? No, instead, they contacted PCCW and got voluntary cooperation in no longer forwarding the announcement. This isn’t a sign of a right of exclusion, but of a gentlemen’s agreement amongst service providers. https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/industry-developments/youtube-hijacki... It would have been quite difficult for YouTube to get any sort of injunctive relief against Pakistan Telecom. It might have been possible for them to get injunctive relief against PCCW, but even that is iffy. What if hundreds of other service providers had also forwarded the route? YouTube would have needed injunctions against each and every one of them. It’s not at all clear what happens with the ones that do operate in the US where YouTube has the greatest likelihood of getting injunctive relief. It’s even less clear what happens with any that are not subject to US courts. Owen
participants (11)
-
Bob Evans -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Jonas Bjork -
Jérôme Nicolle -
Karl Auer -
Larry Sheldon -
Matthew Kaufman -
Naslund, Steve -
Owen DeLong -
Robert Drake -
William Herrin