DMCA takedowns of networks

Tue Oct 27 15:41:07 UTC 2009

Option 5 sounds like it fits the bill to me.  After all, what HE said was basically "take the site down or else" to which they backed down but then wound up turning service down anyway.

It is truly disappointing to see HE evolve in this way.  I hope that their management decides to change the way IP issues get handled.

(again, not the opinions of my employer.)

William
-- 
William Pitcock
SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions
1-866-519-6149

-----Original Message-----
From: "Brian Johnson" <bjohnson at drtel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:03:29 
To: North American Network Operators Group<nanog at merit.edu>
Subject: RE: DMCA takedowns of networks

Per Dictionary.com:

blackmail

-noun
1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious
revelations or accusations.
2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the
dishonor of blackmail.
3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by
freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.

-verb (used with object)
4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.
5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The
strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.

... thus, this is not blackmail. Please thrown your grenades and run. :)

- Brian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:sven at cyberbunker.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 12:25 PM
> To: Joe Greco
> Cc: Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
> 
> > > Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
> >
> > Sure.  Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose
> their
> > connectivity.
> 
> which would be called "blackmail".
> 
> sure, have the cops arrest the guy that actually runs the site or
> uploaded
> it onto the site, if they cannot (because it simply doesnt happen to
be
> illegal in the country where he resides) they are out of luck and have
> to
> live with it.
> 
> furthermore, in any case, a proper court order specifically
> mentioning the url, the customer, the right company out of our
> christmastree of companies worldwide, etc would
> be required as we dont plan to decide whats illegal and what not.
> 
> ofcourse all of this only applies to "real crime". not to whining dmca
> idiots, whom are criminals themselves.
> 
> --
> 
> Sven Olaf Kamphuis
> CB3ROB DataServices
> 
> Phone: +31/87-8747479
> Skype: CB3ROB
> MSN:   sven at cb3rob.net
> C.V.:  http://www.linkedin.com/in/cb3rob
> 
> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
> email message, including all attached documents or files, is
privileged
> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> 
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
> 
> > > > > So why are we having this discussion?
> > > >
> > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
> > > >
> > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious.  :-)
> > > >
> > > > ... JG
> > > > --
> > > > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
> > >
> > > On the technical side of this question...
> > >
> > > Let's say that a customer is doing virtual hosting. So they have a
> bunch
> > > of sites (Let's say hundreds) on a single IP address. Given that
> one of
> > > the sites is misbehaving (use your own definition), how would a
> provider
> > > block the one site, without blocking others that share the same IP
> > > address, without looking at every port 80 request and parsing for
> the
> > > header for the URL?
> > >
> > > Is there a better solution that doesn't require intrusive parsing?
> >
> > Sure.  Tell the hoster they've got to shut it down, or else lose
> their
> > connectivity.
> >
> > Sometimes it can be both simple *and* obvious.
> >
> > ... JG
> > --
> > Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI -
> http://www.sol.net
> > "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance
> [and] then I
> > won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on
e-mail
> spam(CNN)
> > With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too
many
> apples.
> >
> >
> > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog"
> >