DMCA takedowns of networks

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

> > So why are we having this discussion?
>
> Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
>
> Excuse me for stating the obvious. :slight_smile:
>
> ... 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

2

I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our
users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...
The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple
and quite effective.

Thanks,

John van Oppen
Spectrum Networks LLC
Direct: 206.973.8302
Main: 206.973.8300
Website: http://spectrumnetworks.us

3

John van Oppen wrote:

I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our
users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...
The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple
and quite effective.

And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation.

Jack

4

From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net]
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 9:52 AM
To: John van Oppen
Cc: Joe Greco; Brian Johnson; North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks

John van Oppen wrote:
> I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our
> users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...
> The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources,

simple

> and quite effective.
>

And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information
always leads to much speculation.

Jack

You beat me to it, but my point exactly.

Is there any reason to believe that HE didn't do that? The report
doesn't mention if HE contacted the customer before doing this.

Let's put away our rollers and take out our watercolor brushes.

- Brian

5

Jack Bates wrote (on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:52:01AM -0500):

John van Oppen wrote:
>I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our
>users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...
>The only time this does not apply is with active spam sources, simple
>and quite effective.
>

And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information
always leads to much speculation.

Jack

But, if HE *didn't* do that, why aren't they commenting? Like, on this
forum, for example? HE ppl seem to know the address of NANOG ...

6

N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote:

Jack Bates wrote (on Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 09:52:01AM -0500):

John van Oppen wrote:

I think that is a pretty standard procedure. We generally give our
users 12 hours to remove the content before we null-route the IP...

And yet, that may have been exactly what happened. Lack of information always leads to much speculation.

But, if HE *didn't* do that, why aren't they commenting? Like, on this
forum, for example? HE ppl seem to know the address of NANOG ...

They aren't commenting (this is an opinion, and I have NO inside information) because it's a legal matter. Jeeze, people, go on their reputation. Hurricane Electric are the good guys.

Enough already.

7

> 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.

8

Is there any reason to believe that HE didn't do that? The report
doesn't mention if HE contacted the customer before doing this.

According to May First's own statement, this is exactly what happened:

https://support.mayfirst.org/wiki/chamber-he-statement

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent Hurricane Electric a letter
complaining about a website spoofing the Chamber's obstructionism on
climate change policies that was created by MF/PL member the Yes Men
(read more about the spoof).

Hurricane Electric immediately ordered us to remove the spoofed site
or face a turn-off of service. We responded that such a demand was:

* arbitrary since it represented a legally untested complaint;
* unconstitutional since it quashed the fair use of logos in a
  satirical way;
* and overreaching because it affected 3/4 of of our membership (over
  300 organizations) whose websites, email and other online tools
  would be taken down in such an action.

1. Hurricane receives complaint letter
2. Hurricane notifies customer and requests that they remove content
3. Customer claims that content is fair use and not violating copyright
4. Hurricane turns customer off anyways
5. Customer agrees to move content elsewhere
6. Hurricane turns them back on

They neglect to mention if May First has a registered DMCA agent (in
which case they could have handled the complaint directly and not
involved Hurricane), or if they responded with a proper DMCA counter
notification. Had either of these been the case, Hurricane would have
had no liability in the matter. Of course Hurricane is well within their
rights not to serve any customer that they please, but the customer is
also well within their rights to find another provider who better
respects the rights of free speech on the Internet (if the above is what
actually happened).

9

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

had no liability in the matter. Of course Hurricane is well within their rights not to serve any customer that they please, but the customer is also well within their rights to find another provider who better respects the rights of free speech on the Internet (if the above is what actually happened).

I'm sure HE respects the rights of free speech just fine. That being said, a notice was delivered, customer may not have replied with the appropriate legal notice, and so HE honored it's obligation to maintain safe harbor.

One would have to be an idiot to jeopardize their company by rolling the dice in an effort to protect free speech (which may not legally be free speech). Courts determine what is free speech. ISPs just try to stay the hell out of the way.

Jack

10

Just to add some facts to the debate, the "Yes Men" get them
themselves somehow on as speakers to some group such as the COC and
give a speech that exposes the organization to ridicule. For example
they pretended to discover climate change would be bad for business at
the COC and proposed the return to slavery as a solution to Africa's
economic problems at a Wharton Business School conference. The amazing
thing is their pronouncements are taken seriously by the audience.

I am not a lawyer, but I know satire when I see it and this is damn
good political satire, something the courts have given broad free
speech protection to.

Satire can incorporate a great deal without copyright infringement.
The Supreme Court ruled that a song named "Pretty Woman" that used
much of the words and all the music of another song "Pretty Woman"
that satires the original song by having the "pretty woman walking
down the street" being a prostitute in their neighborhood and arrested
was protected speech in spite of consisting of over 90% of the
original work.

Not that HE should act as a judge, but just to clarify what is being done.

http://theyesmen.org/

Bruce Williams

11

A reminder that discussion of the following topics and off-topic for the
NANOG list:

6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are prohibited.

Simon Lyall
NANOG MLC ( on behalf of)

12

Bruce Williams wrote:

Not that HE should act as a judge, but just to clarify what is being done.

Hey. I think it's great satire. Given the nature of their content, you'd expect them to have been better prepared for a DMCA notice. I suspect they will be in the future.

Jack

13

But, if HE *didn't* do that, why aren't they commenting? Like, on this
forum, for example? HE ppl seem to know the address of NANOG ...

probably because they, like many of us, are deeply amused by days of
conjecturbation.

randy

14

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. :slight_smile:

- Brian

From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:sven@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@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.

> > > > So why are we having this discussion?
> > >
> > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites?
> > >
> > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :slight_smile:
> > >
> > > ... 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

15

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