DMCA takedowns of networks

Sat Oct 24 13:39:40 UTC 2009

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 behavior.

P.S. Good to know you would keep spammers, DDoS'ers, hackers, etc.  
connected, even in the face of evidence provided by other ISPs, "...  
nor would I ever purchase transit from a company that engages in this  
type of behavior."

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> 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.
>>
>