DMCA takedowns of networks

Sat Oct 24 14:20:21 UTC 2009

HE certainly was right in shutting down that site.  It had copyright
infringement.  That they took down other sites is reprehensible unless
they lacked the technical capability to do otherwise.  (The question
then arises, should they be in business if that is the case?) 

I am a strong advocate of free speech and have a track record for both
supporting and exercising it.  But the dissenters must be responsible.
Copying a site - copyright infringement - is never free speech, it is
illegal activity.  I really don't even care if there is a legal
copyright notice is its morally wrong and it puts the dissenter in a
category that is probably worse than the other party.  That someone
would do that tells me that they are not responsible in dissent and
their message is horse crap.  It is flashy lacking in thought and
content.  Why would I consider them a valid source of information?

I think the present administration is illegally there and should be
removed speedily by impeachment.  But I would never steal copyright
material to dissent.  I have never used his picture because I am not
aware of a free use picture. 

Ralph Brandt

www.triond.com/users/Ralph+Brandt

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patrick at 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  
> 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_332
087.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.
>

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________