How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have several customers that don't require public address space that could be moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal liabilities..
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:11, Positively Optimistic < positivelyoptimistic@gmail.com> wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have several customers that don't require public address space that could be moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal liabilities..
On a related note, what's the best way to handle RIAA/MPAA requests for end-users that intentionally run "open" APs, especially when the notices don't show up for days or weeks (by which time the offender, a hotel guest, has long since moved on)? David Smith MVN.net
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Positively Optimistic <positivelyoptimistic@gmail.com> wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have several customers that don't require public address space that could be moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal liabilities..
Answer 1. Log the translations so you can match the source/destination ports and timestamp back to the real customer. Answer 2. "We were unable to locate the offending material / identify the offending customer using the information you provided. We have narrowed it to one of <count> customers and preserved the relevant logs. Please contact us at 123-456-7890 and reference ticket 5432 for further assistance." "The IP address you specified is a multiuser access point. If you let us know the IP address on your end, we can watch for it inside our network for the next 24 hours and determine which customer is talking to it. We're unable to historically determine which customers interacted with your IP address." -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
"Your subpoena is overly broad. Go back and specify port number and timestamp. And read draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02, section 10." RIAA should be IPv6 activists. Lee
-----Original Message----- From: Positively Optimistic [mailto:positivelyoptimistic@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 1:11 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IPv4 Exhaustion...
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have several customers that don't require public address space that could be moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal liabilities..
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3 months back would be impossible to answer. (that would require L2 tracking that an ISP simply cannot do.)
On 07/26/2010 01:30 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:43:39 -0400, Lee Howard <lee@asgard.org> wrote:
RIAA should be IPv6 activists.
Right. That's not going to bite them on the ass either... privacy addresses only stick around for ~72hrs. A demand for an address from 3 months back would be impossible to answer. (that would require L2 tracking that an ISP simply cannot do.)
Actually, what they'd probably really like is HIP (host identity payload). Mike, I don't think it went anywhere though
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Positively Optimistic < positivelyoptimistic@gmail.com> wrote:
How do ISPs handle RIAA notices when NATTING customers.. ? We have several customers that don't require public address space that could be moved to private.. We're reluctant to make the move due to legal liabilities..
It might be helpful to review the requirements for DMCA Safe Harbor for conduit communication providers, specifically section 512(a). It's been my experience that some networks (.edu's in particular) have voluntarily expanded their actions in response to DMCA complaints, and will sometimes falsely attribute these actions to DMCA requirements. If I recall correctly, the primary responsibilities for a conduit provider are limited to terminating repeat offenders, and informing subscribers of this policy. The DMCA doesn't explicitly define what a repeat offender is, nor does it explicitly mandate specific logging measures. If a provider makes best-effort attempts to correlate complaints to subscribers in order to track repeat offenders, I'm not sure there is a liability problem here. -Nick
What's crazy is: a) How each org/company seems to be handling these notices themselves. b) How they seem to be filtering down to operations people to sort out. Seems like an opportunity for some lawyers to form a membership association. Agree to some reasonable policy, send them your RIAA (et al, because this kind of thing is growing like kudzu) takedowns, they'll respond or tell you what you should do to satisfy (if anything.) This would let that org develop some leverage with RIAA et al, "if we don't hang together we will surely hang separately", RIAA is taking advantage of this, their lawyers know full well how a+b above can be exploited. I sat in an "intellectual property constituency" meeting at ICANN which was basically me, and 100+ lawyers. Their main topic was takedowns, and how horrible it was that ISPs et al don't just reformat all their disks on receipt of a lawyer letter on nice letterhead, the bastards (i.e., us) start demanding court orders etc, outrageous! expensive! burdensome! I told some quick anecdotes about phony takedown demands (e.g., painful divorce or business partner fights) and my inability/reluctance to accurately judge these things beyond the most obvious. I can't say they weren't receptive, it was a little bit of a "WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, TAKEDOWNS ARE VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS!" which they understood, and the potential liability aspects for an ISP. Anyhow my take is that takedowns are a growth industry. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
participants (8)
-
Barry Shein -
David E. Smith -
Lee Howard -
Michael Thomas -
nick hatch -
Positively Optimistic -
Ricky Beam -
William Herrin