Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?

Gregory Hicks ghicks at cadence.com
Thu Aug 22 16:20:25 UTC 2002



> From: "Nigel Clarke" <nigel at forever-networks.com>
> To: "Jeff Ogden" <jogden at merit.edu>, <nanog at merit.edu>
> Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all 
ISPs?
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:01:54 -0700
> 
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> In a nutshell you're saying do nothing.

I actually got the impression that he was recommending that the
ISP/backbone providers be careful in what they do since it is the end
user that should determine who they communicate with.  (I may have read
this wrong though.)

If an ISP or backbone provider does take any action(s) of the sort 
discussed, I would make really, really sure that the action is in 
accordance with the written policies...

I also have the impression that, given the current state of litigation
(both public and civil), that if a case (suit) were ever raised against
NANOG and specific members by the RIAA, that these messages show a
clear case for conspiracy...

I an NOT a lawyer so you might want to consult with one...

My own $0.02 worth.

Regards,
Gregory Hicks

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Jeff Ogden
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:42 AM
> 
> At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote:
> >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all.
> >
> >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are 
nothing more
> >than empty threats.
> >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own?
> >
> >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick.
> 
> 
> Just to state the obvious, no one is authorized to represent NANOG in
> this fashion, not even folks here at Merit. NANOG isn't a decision
> making organization. NANOG isn't something that can take actions
> (other than holding a few meetings each year and managing this e-mail
> list).
> 
> Individuals and organizations that participate in NANOG can take
> actions, but not in NANOG's name.  I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that
> lawyers should be consulted before taking individual or coordinated
> action of the sort being suggested against another organization.
> 
> Of course IPSs do take action against individuals or organizations
> all of the time, but they need to do that based on policies and
> procedures that take into account their obligations to their
> customers as well as their obligations under the law.
> 
> As an end user I really don't want my ISP to make decisions about who
> is allowed to communicate with me or who I am allowed to communicate
> with except when those decisions are based on policies designed to
> protect me or others from serious problems (DDOS attacks and the
> like), even then I want those policies to be written and available so
> I can review them, and I want them to be applied fairly.
> 
> As an ISP I really don't want my upstream ISPs to make decisions
> about who is allowed to communicate with my network or who my network
> is allowed to communicate with except under the conditions outlined
> in my agreements with those ISPs. This is important to me if I am in
> turn going to be able to meet my obligations to my own end users.
> 
> So, I really don't want the RIAA to tell me or my upstreams who I
> can't communicate with, but neither do I want my upstreams to tell me
> that I can't communicate with the RIAA or the labels if I (or really
> my customers) want to do so.
> 
>     -Jeff Ogden
>      Merit Network
> 
> 
> At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote:
> >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all.
> >
> >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are 
nothing more
> >than empty threats.
> >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own?
> >
> >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf 
Of
> >J.A. Terranson
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM
> >To: Nigel Clarke
> >Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; nanog at merit.edu
> >Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all 
ISPs?
> >
> >>  On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote:
> >>  >
> >>  > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA 
any
> >>  > access...
> >>
> >>  And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all 
idle
> >>  threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or
> hacking
> >>  attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. 
I
> >  > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either.
> >
> >The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would
> >produce an economic reaction.  Cut off their sales websites, their
> >basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them
> >to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites.
> >
> >Let the money do the work.
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >J.A. Terranson
> >sysadmin at mfn.org
> >
> >* SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY *  at this time anyway.
> >We'll see if we can't change that.  Tomorrow.  Goddamn right!
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hicks                           | Principal Systems Engineer
Cadence Design Systems                  | Direct:   408.576.3609
555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1             | Fax:      408.894.3479
San Jose, CA 95134                      | Internet: ghicks at cadence.com

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
ignorance or stupidity.

Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

You can have it done good, fast, or cheap -- pick any two.




More information about the NANOG mailing list