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
<patr...@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.simp...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/chamber-of-commerce-stron_n_332087.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.
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l...@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."
