DMCA takedowns of networks

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Sat Oct 24 18:30:46 UTC 2009


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 we will challenge the sender
> vice punish our customer.
>
> Most DMCA we receive are completely bogus.

Like most "discussions" on NANOG, this was the result of a  
miscommunication.  You said you would never censor anything other than  
CP without a court order.  What you meant is that you could follow  
DCMA if it is not bogus even without a court order, and you would stop  
abuse, and you would in general act like many other reasonable  
providers.

I'm going to assume that means you would also buy transit from such  
providers.

Wow, it seems like we completely agree.  Glad to have cleared that up.

Try not to be so absolute next time.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore  
> <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.
>
> Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 -
> 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list