DMCA takedowns of networks

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

2

BS to say the least...first the US Chamber of Commerce is not a government organization. And even if there were what right does anyone have to tread on Freedom of Speech?!? Was there a court order?

I'd really be interested in know what strong arm tactic they used with HE.

William Allen Simpson wrote:

3

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.

Jeff

4

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.

5

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."

6

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

7

Not sure how much I believe of the article and its lack of detail and chopped quotes...but did HE really disconnect an entire downstream network over a DMCA notice, or did they null route a /32 that was used by a customer to host hundreds of virtual web sites?

8

>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.

The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled.
One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the
takedown notice.

http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID130
http://chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID132

To quote:

In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the
removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights,
the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the
subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them
with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider
stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a
subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the
material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then
promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection.
[512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in
district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required
to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use, so the proper
response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then wait
for the complainer to settle the issue in court. No doubt the lawsuit
would never come, because they don't stand a chance in hell of actually
winning, but sending letters is cheap and surprisingly effective against
the uninformed.

The reason you don't typically see these kinds of issues with providers
blocking large amounts of content by taking out whole IPs of their
downstreams is that it is cheap and easy to become your own service
provider for the purposes of DMCA. If you are hosting any content
yourself, you should really go to Online Service Providers | U.S. Copyright Office and
file for a designated agent.

9

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 8:00 AM, William Allen Simpson

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?

Since people are afraid. Organizations may send DMCA letters,
whether they are valid or not; the recipient may disconnect what the
sender wants, and is unlikely to consider whether they really must do
it or not. It's easier to do what the bully wants than be a guinea
pig and have some risk of being sued, or other unforseen
consequences.

Note that the 512(a) safe harbor of the DMCA does not include a
requirement of removing material when notified; only the 512(c)
safe harbor includes that requirement,
and it's for providers that actually store the material.
- http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID472

US Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec 512, (c)
Chapter 5 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office
" (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users."
ersus
"(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications. ... A service provider
shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in
subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for
infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting,
routing, or providing connections for, ...."

It's a bit hard (impossible) to "expeditiously remove" material
that your equipment isn't storing, but that a downstream network
is storing.

The DMCA doesn't say anything about severing connectivity to
computers on a network. That's just what the wronged party wants,
the collateral damage doesn't effect them.

10

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.

The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be handled.
One of the options in that process is to send a counter-notice to the
takedown notice.

Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.

This seems like a very obvious case of parody/fair use,

Possibly, but I do not blame a provider to not being willing to make that distinction.

so the proper
response would be for the victim to send a counter-notice and then wait
for the complainer to settle the issue in court.

See previous comment. The website owner, however, has that option.

Let's just agree that there were multiple avenues open to lots of people here, that HE should not have taken down more than the site in question (if, in fact, that is what happened), and that the DCMA has silly parts.

Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though.

11

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.

It most certainly does not.

The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be
handled. One of the options in that process is to send a
counter-notice to the takedown notice.

Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you
don't have to follow the law.

But you should understand the law.

The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down
material because they were notified that the material is infringing on
a copyright holder's rights.

What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a
notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is
immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers
routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down notice.
But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so,
they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose to
take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from being
sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can
choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by the
copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would have
to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable for
it.)

(I'm not commenting on the merits of HE's actions here. Just on that
the DMCA actually says. It's certainly a good practice for providers
that don't want to spend time evaluating copyright claims and defending
copyright infringement suits (which, I think, is most providers) to
take advantage of the DMCAs safe-harbor provisions. I'm not disputing
that.)

     -- Brett

12

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.

It most certainly does not.

It "most certainly" does.

The DMCA defines a process by which copyright violations can be
handled. One of the options in that process is to send a
counter-notice to the takedown notice.

Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you
don't have to follow the law.

But you should understand the law.

That's a matter of opinion. :slight_smile:

The DMCA does NOT require that any provider, anywhere, ever, take down
material because they were notified that the material is infringing on
a copyright holder's rights.

Who said it does? I "most certainly" did not. If you think I did, try reading again.

What the DMCA does say is that if a provider receives such a
notification, and promptly takes down the material, then the ISP is
immune from being held liable for the infringement. Many providers
routinely take down material when they receive a DMCA take-down notice.
But if they do so out of the belief that they are required to do so,
they are confused. They are not required to do so. They can choose to
take it down in exchange for getting the benefit of immunity from being
sued (many, probably most, providers make this choice). Or they can
choose to leave it up, which leaves them vulnerable to a lawsuit by the
copyright holder. (In such a lawsuit, they copyright holder would have
to prove that infringement occurred and that the provider is liable for
it.)

See, we agree.

So what was the problem again? =)

And if anyone wants to get upset at a provider for doing what is best for their business, perhaps by saying they are 'giving in to a bully' or other silliness, then they should be ignored.

Sometimes it's worth the $$ on lawyers so you can get more customers because people believe you will stand up for them. Sometimes it is not. But a for-profit business is, well, for-profit. And even if you make the wrong business decision, it's still YOUR decision. You risk your business either way you decide, and things are rarely cut-and-dried. People from the outside without all the information telling you you what to do are being silly.

Like I always say: Your Network, Your Decision.

Anyone care to argue otherwise?

13

Patrick,

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.

Jeff

14

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.

15

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

omg... "it's morally wrong"..!!1oneoneeleven

well.. that's up for discussion and btw, copyright law was created to
protect the investment in a book printing press in order to accomodate
people to be able to publish their views on things.

now that they can use our internet to publish their work, copyright has
become obsolete. (and no, their jedi mind tricks don't work).

not to provide leeching attorney firms and lazy artists with free money
over the back of the general population.

when considering if a law holds any legal value one must look at the
situation for which the law was created, as well as democratic aspects and
wether it can and should be enforced. (putting 99% of the population in
prison because 1% has corrupted the governments and wants to make money on
products people clearly no longer want, which they try to sell using an
even more outdated business model, isn't rather democratic :wink:

darwin bitch, the 70s are over.

as my 386 already generated all possible combinations of sheet music
somewhere in 1996, i'd say all copyrights on music now belong to me.
so far for "feasability" (i'm quite sure they piss their pants we would
ever enforce their own laws against them, blocking them from ever releasing
anything again).

there are also people that consider porn "morally wrong" yet porn paid for
the entire internet infrastructure, and then ofcourse there are people
that consider computers in general "the tool of the devil".

you can't give any idiot with some fake "morals" their way.

furthermore, we own the internet, we make the rules.
use is on an as-is basis and if anyone is to be kicked out they can be
damn sure it will be the MPAA/RIAA members first (there is after all, as
they so nicely point out themselves, no basic right to having your packets
relayed, so they'd better act friendly to isps, or paramount pictures may
well find their own networks inaccessible from most of the world rather
soon). at this moment, we can see such people as nothing else but a clear
threat to the internet itself.

16

[realizing that I am veering OT]

Last Thursday I videotaped a talk "Jefferson's Moose in Cyberspace" in NYC.
http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=959 (still editing - soon come)

One point made was that the "progress" vs "moral rights" dichotomy in
copyright philosophy is so deep that there really is little, if any, prospect of
consensus.

About 10 days ago I videotaped another one - William Patry, Chief
Copyright Counsel at Google - "Moral Panics & Copyright Wars"
http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=990

His theme is that the two points of view are irrelevant, all that's needed is
an effective law in the public interest.

At the 'Moose' talk one attendee, who I later learned is a criminal court judge
was particularly vociferous on the moral right side. I spoke with him afterwards
and he volunteered the opinion that the internet itself was not in the
public interest
and should be shut down forthwith by the governments of the world, since it
is they who control the satellites!

joly