If you were setting up something new from a clean sheet of paper design -
do you consider it appropriate to have an abuse role inbox that's dedicated
to actual network abuse issues (security problems, DDoS, IP hijacks,
misbehavior of downstream customers, etc), and keep that separate from DMCA
notifications?
Automated sorting tools *can* pull things which match regexes for
automatically-generated DMCA notifications out of an inbox and route them
to the appropriate place.
However, I'm pondering whether it's better to have an ISP's ARIN IP space
whois entries state clearly that copyright violation type notices should go
to a dedicated-purpose dmca@ispname inbox.
Separate, because you'll need to design/implement different defenses for
them. For example: abuse@ *must* accept traffic with attached malware,
since victims of abuse may forward messages containing said malware.
But dmca@ doesn't need to and shouldn't.
If you were setting up something new from a clean sheet of paper design -
do you consider it appropriate to have an abuse role inbox that's dedicated
to actual network abuse issues (security problems, DDoS, IP hijacks,
misbehavior of downstream customers, etc), and keep that separate from DMCA
notifications?
Automated sorting tools *can* pull things which match regexes for
automatically-generated DMCA notifications out of an inbox and route them
to the appropriate place.
However, I'm pondering whether it's better to have an ISP's ARIN IP space
whois entries state clearly that copyright violation type notices should go
to a dedicated-purpose dmca@ispname inbox.
The main issue with the notion of keeping abuse@ separate from a dedicated DMCA takedown mailbox is companies like IP Echelon will just blindly E-mail whatever abuse POC is associated with either the AS record or whichever POCs are specifically associated with the NET block.
So it becomes kind of difficult to keep them routing to different places.
The guys doing the DMCA takedowns use automated tooling. So asking them nicely isn't going to help you.
In article <em0d4f8349-621d-4edf-90ea-c8ab95df44d1@desktop-k5pu39b> you write:
The main issue with the notion of keeping abuse@ separate from a
dedicated DMCA takedown mailbox is companies like IP Echelon will just
blindly E-mail whatever abuse POC is associated with either the AS
record or whichever POCs are specifically associated with the NET block.
So it becomes kind of difficult to keep them routing to different
places.
The guys doing the DMCA takedowns use automated tooling. So asking
them nicely isn't going to help you.
Seems to me that if you've registered your DMCA address in the Library
of Congress database, and they send takedowns somewhere else, that's
their problem, not not yours.
If you haven't registered, you should. You can do the whole thing
online in a couple of minutes. The fee is $6 per update no matter how
many business names and domain names you register.
Seems to me that if you've registered your DMCA address in the Library
of Congress database, and they send takedowns somewhere else, that's
their problem, not not yours.
If you haven't registered, you should. You can do the whole thing
online in a couple of minutes. The fee is $6 per update no matter how
many business names and domain names you register.
This is a solvable problem. If they're sending unsolicited bulk email
(aka "spam"), then they are, by definition, spammers. Block them and
move on. If/when they decide to send proper DMCA notices and send them
to the proper address, perhaps you can then allow them to petition for
the privilege of access to your mail system.
This is a solvable problem. If they're sending unsolicited bulk email
(aka "spam"), then they are, by definition, spammers. Block them and
move on. If/when they decide to send proper DMCA notices and send them
to the proper address, perhaps you can then allow them to petition for
the privilege of access to your mail system.
It doesn't work like that though. I can't just bitbucket DMCA takedown requests because I also provide people with cable TV service. That means I have content contracts and these contracts are all very specific about what I need to do to process DMCA takedown requests. I'm sure that they receive reports regularly from the companies they contract to do DMCA enforcment. Or maybe they don't and I have no idea what I'm talking about. But I'm still not going to put my content contracts at risk because I think my users would be even more pissed off if their cable TV packages were suddenly unavailable to them.
But then the question becomes "how are they supposed to find the 'proper
address' for their reports?" If you run a whois server and link it from
your RIRs or create a custom "DMCA Compliance" POC in the RIR listings then
you could maybe list that sort of thing there, but most address maintainers
do neither, so by default whatever address is listed on those net block
records with the RIR seems appropriate enough to me. There's no other
established protocol for determining an appropriate contact (like calling
the associated phone number and asking, or trying to determine your web url
and browing that site for it, or something else much more involved.) If
there should be a different protocol established for that, then we need to
figure it out and document that and get a critical mass of reporters to buy
in to it.
It doesn't work like that though. I can't just bitbucket DMCA takedown
requests because I also provide people with cable TV service. That
means I have content contracts and these contracts are all very specific
about what I need to do to process DMCA takedown requests. I'm sure
that they receive reports regularly from the companies they contract to
do DMCA enforcment. Or maybe they don't and I have no idea what I'm
talking about. But I'm still not going to put my content contracts at
risk because I think my users would be even more pissed off if their
cable TV packages were suddenly unavailable to them.
I'm very sorry to read that, as an ISP, you have to comply with a
para-judicial process that puts you in charge of censorship.
I'd like to think that you'd have some margin to let these "copyright
holders" fuck-off when it comes to your mere-pipe services. But I guess
it depends on the jurisdiction you're operating under.
Providing IP services and CATV are two different things that should not
be liable one to another.
If you have any right to give them a finger, please, on behalf of our
community, give it to them. If not, please work harder on denouncing
those indecent contracts.
In article <ace5e592-b82f-1e26-fd8c-aa4831c6b91e@ceriz.fr> you write:
I'm very sorry to read that, as an ISP, you have to comply with a
para-judicial process that puts you in charge of censorship.
Dealing with DMCA notices is a matter of statute law in the US, and it
is a really, really bad idea to ignore them unread. It doesn't matter
what anyone here thinks about it.
Plus I’m largely indifferent to it. On one hand, I’m a firm believer in a free and open Internet. But on the other hand, it’s so easy to hide your online activity that I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone who gets caught up in the drag net. Anyone who gets a notice from us is completely and utterly apathetic about online privacy and it’s astonishing to be just how lazy people really are.
I only have a few hundred users, so definitely not a representative sample size, but in all my time here we’ve only had a single repeat offender.
In article <em0d4f8349-621d-4edf-90ea-c8ab95df44d1@desktop-k5pu39b> you write:
The main issue with the notion of keeping abuse@ separate from a
dedicated DMCA takedown mailbox is companies like IP Echelon will just
blindly E-mail whatever abuse POC is associated with either the AS
record or whichever POCs are specifically associated with the NET block.
So it becomes kind of difficult to keep them routing to different
places.
The guys doing the DMCA takedowns use automated tooling. So asking
them nicely isn't going to help you.
Seems to me that if you've registered your DMCA address in the Library
of Congress database, and they send takedowns somewhere else, that's
their problem, not not yours.
If you haven't registered, you should. You can do the whole thing
online in a couple of minutes. The fee is $6 per update no matter how
many business names and domain names you register.
has anyone practical experience with how many of the usual DMCA
email sending companies actually take this into account when they send
their automated emails?
Does creating a record there actually result in a substantial fraction of DMCA
emails being routed to the email address given there?
