.)
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 within
...@merit.edu
Subject: RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
Per Dictionary.com:
blackmail
-noun
1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious
revelations or accusations.
2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the
dishonor of blackmail.
3. a tribute formerly
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 would ever
consider
censoring without a court order nor would I ever purchase transit
from a
company that engages in this type of behavior
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 doing
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
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 having
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
-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 wrote:
I think that is a pretty
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, simple
and
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
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
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:
[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, if
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
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net 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
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
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
, this is not 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: DMCA takedowns of networks
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
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:
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.
-
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 would ever
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 that engages
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
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 no content
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
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
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
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
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 field
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
