twork 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
y employer.)
William
--Original Message--
From: Jack Bates
To: Richard A Steenbergen
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
Sent: Oct 26, 2009 1:44 PM
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> had no liability in the matter. Of course Hurricane is well
blackmail. Please thrown your grenades and run. :)
- Brian
> -Original Message-
> From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@cyberbunker.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:25 PM
> To: Joe Greco
> Cc: Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re:
> 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 ...
probably because they, like many of us, are deeply amused by days of
conjecturbation.
randy
Bruce Williams wrote:
Not that HE should act as a judge, but just to clarify what is being done.
Hey. I think it's great satire. Given the nature of their content, you'd
expect them to have been better prepared for a DMCA notice. I suspect
they will be in the future.
Jack
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jack Bates 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
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 t
[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,
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.o
> > 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
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 ha
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, simpl
> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@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
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 hap
Main: 206.973.8300
Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us
-Original Message-
From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@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
> > > So why are we ha
> > > 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'
> > 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 d
ph Brandt
>
> www.triond.com/users/Ralph+Brandt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:36 AM
> To: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
>
>
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:punkcas
> 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 s
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 fie
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 w
> 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 wit
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 ou
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
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
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
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 rec
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 t
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 th
ssage-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@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 wo
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 b
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.
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.simp...@gmail.com> wrote:
http
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 Simps
35 matches
Mail list logo
