RE: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Philip Loenneker]

I'm not very clear on the laws around much of this discussion, but I've been 
following this with interest.

I have a tongue-in-cheek question... if the documentation provided by the 
plaintiff to the court, and/or the court documentation including the final 
ruling, includes the specific URLs to the websites to block, does that 
constitute transmitting links to illegal content? They could not argue they 
didn't know the legal issues surrounding said links.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On 
Behalf Of Masataka Ohta
Sent: Monday, 9 May 2022 11:55 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

Mel Beckman wrote:

You are confusing "illegal" and "guilty".

The first party publicly transmitting illegal contents or links to the contents 
are guilty, which means the links themselves are illegal.

But, DMCA makes some third party providers providing illegal contents or 
illegal links guilty only if some condition of DMCA is met.

Same for civil liability.

> You're incorrect about the DMCA when you say "DMCA treats 'linking' 
> to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves". 

See above.

> You > must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody's 
> copyright.

Same is true if you are transmitting not links but the contents themselves.

 > A link to the Israel.TV websites themselves is not to a specific  > work, so 
 > it's not covered by DMCA. So first, as long as you don't  > know that a work 
 > is infringing someone's copyright,

You totally miss the point of the order, though I wrote:

: As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
: Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order",

Masataka Ohta

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS 
> zone?

German law has something to goes somewhat near it, although closer to
a mandate rather than a right:
https://www.denic.de/en/faqs/faqs-for-domain-holders/#code-154


Rubens

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Masataka Ohta]

Mel Beckman wrote:

You are confusing "illegal" and "guilty".

The first party publicly transmitting illegal contents
or links to the contents are guilty, which means the
links themselves are illegal.

But, DMCA makes some third party providers providing
illegal contents or illegal links guilty only if some
condition of DMCA is met.

Same for civil liability.

You're incorrect about the DMCA when you say "DMCA treats 'linking' 
to illegal contents as illegal as the contents themselves". 


See above.


You > must knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody's
copyright.


Same is true if you are transmitting not links but the contents
themselves.

> A link to the Israel.TV websites themselves is not to a specific
> work, so it's not covered by DMCA. So first, as long as you don't
> know that a work is infringing someone's copyright,

You totally miss the point of the order, though I wrote:

: As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
: Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order",

Masataka Ohta

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[John McCormac]

On 09/05/2022 00:10, Ray Bellis wrote:



Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS 
zone?



It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
from that database entered my DNS caches or other software.


It wasn’t the zone itself as such - the concern was use of enumerated zone data 
to then perform bulk collection of Whois data.


Also, I see that in a decision last year the ECJ required "substantial
extraction" also caused "significant detriment" to the investment in
the database.  I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario in which copying
even the entire thing would impair the investment unless they are going to
assert that the structure of the names somehow gave away secrets about their
business plans.


The detriment was scammers sending fake domain renewal notices.

Also, this was 15 or so years ago now…


Many of the ccTLD registries used to be more open about publishing zones 
and new registrations. Nominet, the .UK registry, took legal action 
against a few operations that were scraping its WHOIS. The gTLDs also 
had major issues with fake renewal notices.


https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/nominet-wins-damages-in-data-mining-dispute

Around 2003, many of the ccTLD registries in Europe subsequently went 
dark on publishing anything other than statistics. Many registrants, at 
the time, were being hit with directory invoice scams rather than 
renewal scams.


Outside the US, there has been an on-going shift to ccTLDs since about 
2005. In many of these countries, the local ccTLD has more new 
registations each month than new registrations in gTLDs like .COM/NET/ORG.


With the gTLDs, the domain renewal scams still exist but they are far 
rarer now. The search engine submission scams seem to have taken over 
but they are also dependent on old WHOIS data and a lot of them 
disappeared in 2018 because of GDPR limiting WHOIS data. Some of the 
European ccTLDs now publish their zones or lists of registations as the 
legal framework has improved. Most no longer publish comprehensive WHOIS 
data.


Regards...jmcc
--
**
John McCormac  *  e-mail: j...@hosterstats.com
MC2*  web: http://www.hosterstats.com/
22 Viewmount   *  Domain Registrations Statistics
Waterford  *  Domnomics - the business of domain names
Ireland*  https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO
IE *  Skype: hosterstats.com
**

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Randy Bush]

once upon a time at an ietf in ville de québec, i was out to dinner with
a crew of fellow researchers all french, well one belgian.  i can
usually read a french menu, but was having serious problems so sought
help from my dinner companions.  they were struggling with the same
parts i was.

randy

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[Ray Bellis]

> Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS 
> zone?

> It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
> right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
> from that database entered my DNS caches or other software.

It wasn’t the zone itself as such - the concern was use of enumerated zone data 
to then perform bulk collection of Whois data.

> Also, I see that in a decision last year the ECJ required "substantial
> extraction" also caused "significant detriment" to the investment in
> the database.  I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario in which copying
> even the entire thing would impair the investment unless they are going to
> assert that the structure of the names somehow gave away secrets about their
> business plans.

The detriment was scammers sending fake domain renewal notices.

Also, this was 15 or so years ago now…

Ray

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Laura Smith via NANOG]

--- Original Message ---
On Sunday, May 8th, 2022 at 21:31, Stephen Fulton  
wrote:

> If you are not from Canada and do not speak French

I speak French, but the European one.

I struggled to make myself understood because I was speaking with the "proper" 
accent and mannerisms (e.g. rolling of R's), both of which are brutally 
murdered by French Canadian speakers.

So I switched to speaking English.  Worked out well, and I never saw the "chip 
on shoulder" that Stephen alludes to (although I'm aware it exists, having been 
briefed by Canadian friends).

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[John Levine]

It appears that Ray Bellis  said:
>> On March 27, 1991, in a case that transformed the nascent online database 
>> publishing industry, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no
>copyright protection for purely factual products such as a telephone directory 
>white pages. 
>
>I wasn’t talking about US law…

Is there any case law where someone has asserted a database right for a DNS 
zone?

It seems like a rather stupid thing to do. If someone asserted such a
right, I would make sure not to infringe it by ensuring no entries
from that database entered my DNS caches or other software.

Also, I see that in a decision last year the ECJ required "substantial
extraction" also caused "significant detriment" to the investment in
the database.  I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario in which copying
even the entire thing would impair the investment unless they are going to
assert that the structure of the names somehow gave away secrets about their
business plans.

R's,
John

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Stephen Fulton]

I will add that card cloning is common enough in Canada that one should 
take precautions, particularly if just using the magnetic strip instead 
of tapping or chip/code.  Don't hand your card to anyone to allow them 
to swipe either, no matter how nicely they offer.


If you are not from Canada and do not speak French but have an English 
accent that could be from another part of Canada, you may get an 
atittude from some service workers.. just explain that you're not from 
Canada and the attitude will clear right up.


It's a wonderful city, just use your head.





On 2022-05-08 08:11, jim deleskie wrote:
Having lived in and continue to spend as much time in Montreal as I 
can.  This list made be laugh, especially for a group where most of us 
do a lot of travel.


Other then no right on red.  Montreal like any other city.  Don't be an 
ass and enjoy yourself.




On Thu, May 5, 2022, 9:56 AM Nanog News > wrote:


*10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec*
/NANOG 85 Meeting Will Take Place Jun. 6 - 8 in Montréal/

We are delighted to cross international borders in our mission to
grow, inspire + profoundly build the Internet of tomorrow!

Montréal is Canada's second-largest city and is known for its
melting pot of diverse culture, established universities,
enthralling art, food, history + festivals. It has been called one
of the world's "happiest locations" as an estimated 45,000
immigrants relocate to the city every year.

For those who don't call Québec home, we have prepared a list of
cultural "Do's and Don'ts" to help you quickly acclimate + thrive in
this foreign destination.

*READ MORE
*

*Register for NANOG 85 Today!*

Join us in person or virtually for NANOG 85. Don't miss your chance
to experience hours of ground-breaking industry talks, a legendary
keynote speaker, opportunities for networking + more.

*REGISTER NOW *

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Laurent Dumont]

As a Quebecer, I think it's my duty to say that good Poutine *is *good.
There are plenty of bad poutine (like any other food) in Montreal but
definitely something to try for anyone here for NANOG.

For a portuguese style poutine : http://mapoulemouillee.ca/

And for something a bit more mass-market : https://labanquise.com/en/

These two are literally right in front of each other ;)



On Sun, May 8, 2022 at 10:30 AM Laura Smith via NANOG 
wrote:

>
> --- Original Message ---
> On Friday, May 6th, 2022 at 13:59, J EMail <70ford...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > poutine should be on this list.
>
>
> God no !
> There are many great things about Canada and Québec  but poutine most
> certainly is not. A culinary abomination that deserves to be confined to
> the history books.
>

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[Daniel Suchy via NANOG]

On 5/8/22 19:48, Warren Kumari wrote:

If zone enumeration was not a real concern, NSEC3 would not exist.


Ackchyually, that's only partly true — a significant amount of the 
driver (some would say hte large majority) behind NSEC3 was that it  
supports "opt-out". This was important in very large, delegation-centric 
zones (e.g like .com), where the vast majority of delegations were 
initially not signed. This allows just signing the signed delegation and 
the holes between them, and not all of the unsigned delegations.


But, with op-out, there're some security concerns around... so TL;DR 
generally you should avoid-it.


http://www.e-ontap.com/dns/entpoison.html
https://theory.stanford.edu/people/jcm/papers/dnssec_ndss10.pdf

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Jay Hennigan]

On 5/8/22 11:34, Mel Beckman wrote:
Importantly, poutine is a critical infrastructure 
component for network administrators. I would go so far as to say that 
it is the only food that can serve all North American Network Operators 
as universal sustenance.


You misspelled pizza.

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Tom Hill]

On 08/05/2022 15:28, Laura Smith via NANOG wrote:

but poutine most certainly is not. A culinary abomination that deserves to be 
confined to the history books.


It is but the refined variant of 'cheesy chips & [british] gravy' and 
no-one will convince me otherwise, especially at 3am following four 
hours of swearing, sweating and more swearing in a data centre.


Poutine uber alles.

--
Tom

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Mel Beckman]

I’m a Minnesotan, the land of Powder Milk Biscuits, and thus an honorary 
Canadian. I can attest that poutine is indeed wonderful, and I would say 
essential to withstand the viciously cold northern winters.  It originated in 
Quebec, and is still very popular there, and also throughout Canada. 
Importantly, poutine is a critical infrastructure component for network 
administrators. I would go so far as to say that it is the only food that can 
serve all North American Network Operators as universal sustenance.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/poutine

“It has become a symbol of Québécois and Canadian cuisine and culture.”

 -mel

On May 8, 2022, at 7:31 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG  wrote:


--- Original Message ---
On Friday, May 6th, 2022 at 13:59, J EMail <70ford...@gmail.com> wrote:

poutine should be on this list.


God no !
There are many great things about Canada and Québec  but poutine most 
certainly is not. A culinary abomination that deserves to be confined to the 
history books.

Re: Question re prevention of enumeration with DNSSEC (NSEC3, etc.)

[Warren Kumari]

On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 9:18 PM, Mukund Sivaraman  wrote:

> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 08:58:51PM -0400, Amir Herzberg wrote:
>
> Hi NANOGers,
>
> I have a small question re DNSSEC `proof of non-existence' records: NSEC,
> NSEC3 and the (dead?) NSEC5 proposal.
>
>  NSEC3 was motivated as a
> method to prevent Zone enumeration, then Berenstein showed its defense is
> pretty weak. RFC7129 (White Lies) prevents this enumeration attack but
> requires online signing with the zone's key, which introduces another
> vulnerability and, of course, overhead of online-signing. NSEC5 was
> proposed to prevent enumeration without online signing, so arguably more
> secure than RFC7129, but has comparable online overhead and appears `dead';
> the I-D expired (last update July'17).
>
> Note that NSEC3 also supports `opt-out', which reduces overhead for
> adoptions in domains with many non-adopting ASes, and I believe is not
> supported by NSEC.
> 
>
> Questions:
> - Do you find zone enumeration a real concern?
>
> The answer to this would vary depending on who is asked, so it's not clear
> how you would use such answers. It may be a concern to some, may not be a
> concern to others.
>
> If zone enumeration was not a real concern, NSEC3 would not exist.
>


Ackchyually, that's only partly true — a significant amount of the driver
(some would say hte large majority) behind NSEC3 was that it  supports
"opt-out". This was important in very large, delegation-centric zones (e.g
like .com), where the vast majority of delegations were initially not
signed. This allows just signing the signed delegation and the holes
between them, and not all of the unsigned delegations.

This was also before things like passive DNS services existed, etc., and
the "secrecy" of a zone was viewed more as an actual thing...

>From RFC5155:
"A second problem is that the cost to cryptographically secure
   delegations to unsigned zones is high, relative to the perceived
   security benefit, in two cases: large, delegation-centric zones, and
   zones where insecure delegations will be updated rapidly.  In these
   cases, the costs of maintaining the NSEC RR chain may be extremely
   high and use of the "Opt-Out" convention may be more appropriate (for
   these unsecured zones)."



However, public DNS is a public tree and so we should have limited
> expectations for hiding names in it.
>
> - Do you think the white-lies countermeasure is sufficient and fine, or do
> you have security and/or performance concern (or just think it's
> pointless)?
> - and the final question... would you think an alternative to NSEC5 which
> will be more efficient and simpler would be of potential practical
> importance, or just a nice academic `exercise'?
>
> I'm really unsure about these questions - esp. the last one - and your
> feedback may help me decide on the importance of this line of research.
> Just fun or of possible practical importance?
>
> These questions may be better posed to the dn...@ietf.org and
> dns-operati...@dns-oarc.net mailing lists, as you'll get more relevant
> answers from people who work in the DNS industry.
>


Yes, +1, etc.!

W



> Mukund
>

Spoofer Report for NANOG for Apr 2022

[CAIDA Spoofer Project]

In response to feedback from operational security communities,
CAIDA's source address validation measurement project
(https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly
reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which
we received packets with a spoofed source address.
We are publishing these reports to network and security operations
lists in order to ensure this information reaches operational
contacts in these ASes.

This report summarises tests conducted within usa, can.

Inferred improvements during Apr 2022:
ASNName   Fixed-By
32035  CCDT   2022-04-11
7018   ATT-INTERNET4  2022-04-22

Further information for the inferred remediation is available at:
https://spoofer.caida.org/remedy.php

Source Address Validation issues inferred during Apr 2022:
ASNName   First-Spoofed Last-Spoofed
54825  PACKET2016-04-15   2022-04-30
209CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST   2016-08-16   2022-04-29
6128   CABLE-NET-1   2016-09-03   2022-04-24
20412  CLARITY-TELECOM   2016-09-30   2022-04-30
6181   FUSE-NET  2016-10-10   2022-04-17
271BCNET 2016-10-24   2022-04-27
30036  MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS  2016-11-16   2022-04-18
22898  ATLINK2016-12-16   2022-04-27
1246   TLL-WEST  2017-04-20   2022-04-29
63296  AWBROADBAND   2017-09-01   2022-04-19
62240  Clouvider 2017-10-20   2022-04-19
33452  RW2018-09-19   2022-04-18
21804  ACCESS-SK 2019-06-09   2022-04-30
5078   ONENET-AS-1   2020-04-06   2022-04-14
398836 NP-NETWORKS   2021-03-12   2022-04-30
56207  Converge  2021-03-26   2022-04-22
22191  WILKES-COMM   2021-06-25   2022-04-28
63457  EMPIRE-CONNECT2021-09-08   2022-04-14
212934 AS_POTVIN 2021-10-03   2022-04-19
22773  ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC 2021-10-24   2022-04-30
399065 DEFASTLINK2022-03-12   2022-04-24
47027  SEASIDE-COMM  2022-03-22   2022-04-18
14315  1GSERVERS 2022-04-12   2022-04-12
396097 SAIL-INET 2022-04-22   2022-04-22

Further information for these tests where we received spoofed
packets is available at:
https://spoofer.caida.org/recent_tests.php?country_include=usa,can_block=1

Please send any feedback or suggestions to spoofer-i...@caida.org

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Anne Mitchell]

A point of order:

> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show 
> up in court.  But they could not have shown up in court, because they were 
> only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. 

It's actually a lawsuit against "Does 1-10 DBA Isreal.tv", so the defendants 
actually are on notice, they are the people behind israel.tv.  This is a 
not-all-that-unusual method when a defendant goes out of their way to hide 
their individual identities.  Basically this means everyone and anyone at 
israel.tv unless and until the actual individuals responsible show up.

In order for a lawsuit to move forward _at all_, the plaintiff has to submit a 
certified "proof of service", which includes a sworn statement by the process 
server, proving that the defendant was actually served. In this case I'm 
guessing (and again, it's only a guess, but an educated guess) that the process 
server walked into the offices at israel.tv, at Cihannüma Mahallesi, Saray Cad, 
34353 İstanbul-Turkey, and handed the summons to someone.

A much more likely explanation for why they defaulted is that because the 
people behind israel.tv are not in the U.S. (i.e. in a country other than that 
in which the lawsuit was filed) they figured that they didn't have to bother 
responding.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO ISIPP SuretyMail
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (now the anti-spam arm of 
TrendMicro)

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Mel Beckman]

Masataka,

You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal 
contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to 
works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright.  A link to the Israel.TV 
websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s not covered by DMCA. So 
first, as long as you don’t know that a work is infringing someone’s copyright, 
then you cannot be held liable for contributor infringement for directing users 
to that work. But, over and above that requirement, a link that doesn’t go 
directly to a specific work, but just a website in general (as the judgement 
declares “shall block access to the website”) is completely out of the bounds 
of DMCA.

Nevertheless, this is still a court order, and presumably carries the full 
force of the court despite its ridiculous nature. It has the potential to force 
innocent parties to spend a ton of money defending themselves against red 
herrings and straw men.

-mel via cell

On May 8, 2022, at 8:22 AM, Masataka Ohta  
wrote:

Mel Beckman wrote:

But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties:

DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:

: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
: actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
: infringements are not be protected by DMCA.

> I think I am simply right.

So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.

> The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.

As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I
already said so.

   Masataka Ohta

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Anne Mitchell]

First, I have NOT read this order, however:

> As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
> Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order

This tells me all that I need to know in terms of the scope of it.   A default 
judgement means that the defendant never responded.  That means that the only 
thing that the court has to go on is what is in the plaintiff's pleadings. 

Moreover, generally speaking and because of that, a default judgement will 
often (if not close to always) give the plaintiff everything for which they 
asked.  Again, I have _not_ read the pleadings, but I'd bet dollars to 
doughnuts (what *does* that saying mean, anyways?) that if you read the 
plaintiff's pleadings, specifically in their "what they want the court to do" 
section (called in some jurisdictions a "request for relief" or "relief 
requested"), you will find that the court's order closely tracks what the 
plaintiff asked the court to do.

Again, when a defendant defaults, that's pretty much SOP, the court will create 
an order based on that for which the plaintiff has asked.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO ISIPP SuretyMail
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Counsel Emeritus: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) (now the anti-spam arm of 
TrendMicro)

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Masataka Ohta]

Mel Beckman wrote:


But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties:


DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:

: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
: actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
: infringements are not be protected by DMCA.

> I think I am simply right.

So, you know nothing about DMCA. Read it.

> The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching.

As for transit ISPs enjoying a safe harbor of DMCA, yes, as I
already said so.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Mel Beckman]

Masataka,

But the phrase “or linking to the domain” Includes hundreds, possibly 
thousands, of unwitting certain parties: anyone who operates search services, 
or permits people to post links in discussion groups, for example, would be 
included. 

I think I am simply right. 

The lawsuit is contradictory and overreaching. But worse, the court  issued a 
nonsensical judgment, whether to deliver it or not, and that is a travesty.

 -mel

> On May 8, 2022, at 6:29 AM, Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> Mel Beckman wrote:
> 
>> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants
>> didn’t show up in court. But they could not have shown up in court,
>> because they were only listed as "John Does" in the lawsuit. Thus no
>> defendant could have "actual knowledge" that they were sued,
> 
> As the defendants are those identified as "d/b/a Israel.tv, as
> the owners and operators of the website, service and/or
> applications (the “Website”) located at or linking to the
> domain www.Israel.TV;", you are simply wrong.
> 
> > For the court to then
> > approve sanctions against innocent non-parties to the suit is a
> > logical contradiction.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Those knowingly actively cooperating with the defendants are not
> innocent at all though DMCA makes some passive cooperation
> innocent.
> 
>Masataka Ohta

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[Laura Smith via NANOG]

--- Original Message ---
On Friday, May 6th, 2022 at 13:59, J EMail <70ford...@gmail.com> wrote:

> poutine should be on this list.


God no ! 
There are many great things about Canada and Québec  but poutine most 
certainly is not. A culinary abomination that deserves to be confined to the 
history books.

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Masataka Ohta]

Mel Beckman wrote:


The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants
didn’t show up in court. But they could not have shown up in court,
because they were only listed as "John Does" in the lawsuit. Thus no
defendant could have "actual knowledge" that they were sued,


As the defendants are those identified as "d/b/a Israel.tv, as
the owners and operators of the website, service and/or
applications (the “Website”) located at or linking to the
domain www.Israel.TV;", you are simply wrong.

> For the court to then
> approve sanctions against innocent non-parties to the suit is a
> logical contradiction.

Wrong.

Those knowingly actively cooperating with the defendants are not
innocent at all though DMCA makes some passive cooperation
innocent.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Jim Popovitch via NANOG]

On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 12:01 +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show 
> up in court.  But they could not have shown up in court, because they were 
> only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have 
> “actual knowledge” that they were sued, let alone be serviced with litigation 
> documents. For the court to then approve sanctions against innocent 
> non-parties to the suit is a logical contradiction.  
> 
> This just illustrates yet another way our legal system is horribly broken. 
> Just as was demonstrated by the lawsuit from the family of an oil change 
> outlet’s employee against a totally innocent customer, after that employee 
> was killed by negligence of a fellow employee and the oil change outfit’s 
> management. The car owner had no hand in the death, and in fact wasn’t 
> present and had no power to prevent it. Yet he is the one being sued. 

So odd to see someone on NANOG describe a video I just watched.  For the
interested here it is from Steve Lehto's channel:

Oil Change Customer Sued After Worker Kills Someone w/Car
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVXN1oEWKZE

That guy also did one on the subject of this thread:

Court Orders All ISPs to Block Three Specific Services:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LrieGDMac8
> 


-Jim P.

Re: 10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec + Register Now for N85!

[jim deleskie]

Having lived in and continue to spend as much time in Montreal as I can.
This list made be laugh, especially for a group where most of us do a lot
of travel.

Other then no right on red.  Montreal like any other city.  Don't be an ass
and enjoy yourself.



On Thu, May 5, 2022, 9:56 AM Nanog News  wrote:

> *10 Do's + Don'ts for Visiting Québec*
> *NANOG 85 Meeting Will Take Place Jun. 6 - 8 in Montréal*
>
> We are delighted to cross international borders in our mission to grow,
> inspire + profoundly build the Internet of tomorrow!
>
> Montréal is Canada's second-largest city and is known for its melting pot
> of diverse culture, established universities, enthralling art, food,
> history + festivals. It has been called one of the world's "happiest
> locations" as an estimated 45,000 immigrants relocate to the city every
> year.
>
> For those who don't call Québec home, we have prepared a list of cultural
> "Do's and Don'ts" to help you quickly acclimate + thrive in this foreign
> destination.
>
> *READ MORE  *
>
> *Register for NANOG 85 Today!*
>
> Join us in person or virtually for NANOG 85. Don't miss your chance to
> experience hours of ground-breaking industry talks, a legendary keynote
> speaker, opportunities for networking + more.
>
> *REGISTER NOW *
>
>
>

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Mel Beckman]

The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show up 
in court.  But they could not have shown up in court, because they were only 
listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have “actual 
knowledge” that they were sued, let alone be serviced with litigation 
documents. For the court to then approve sanctions against innocent non-parties 
to the suit is a logical contradiction.  

This just illustrates yet another way our legal system is horribly broken. Just 
as was demonstrated by the lawsuit from the family of an oil change outlet’s 
employee against a totally innocent customer, after that employee was killed by 
negligence of a fellow employee and the oil change outfit’s management. The car 
owner had no hand in the death, and in fact wasn’t present and had no power to 
prevent it. Yet he is the one being sued. 

Shakespeare was right :) 

-mel 

> On May 8, 2022, at 1:24 AM, Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> John Levine wrote:
> 
>> I agree that the rest of the language demanding that every ISP,
>> hosting provider, credit union, bank, and presumably nail salon and
>> coin laundry in the US stop serving the defendants is nuts.
> 
> As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
> Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order", according to DMCA, that
> should be a reasonable order for hosting providers of illegal
> contents but not for transit ISPs.
> 
> In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
> actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
> infringements are not be protected by DMCA.
> 
>Masataka Ohta

Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services

[Masataka Ohta]

John Levine wrote:


I agree that the rest of the language demanding that every ISP,
hosting provider, credit union, bank, and presumably nail salon and
coin laundry in the US stop serving the defendants is nuts.


As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order", according to DMCA, that
should be a reasonable order for hosting providers of illegal
contents but not for transit ISPs.

In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "having
actual knowledge" that some domain names are used for copyright
infringements are not be protected by DMCA.

Masataka Ohta