DMCA takedowns of networks

Sat Oct 24 13:36:05 UTC 2009

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.

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.simpson at 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.
>