Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have
to clean up the resulting messes...
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
Would malicious actions on the part of copyright holders violate the
AUP of most networks? Or are service providers more willing to tolerate
denial of service attacks by large corporations than say, spam?
If this legislation is passed, they certainly will earn Null0 on mine.
Regards,
James Thomason
I second that. If I see any of my clients having any sort of malicious
activity directed at them, then there is no chance of me allowing their
traffic through. I would be more than happy to send all their traffic to
packet hell. Large corporations do not get any special consideration if
it comes down to the stability of my network vs. receiving their
traffic.
Derek
Agreed here. Has this even got a bill number yet?
Unless, of course, the RIAA, MPAA, and friends carry out their
cracking through throw-away dial and DSL accounts, like they
purportedly use now to troll for copyright offenders, and send
automated nasty-grams to their upstream providers.
Carrying out their cracking from a uniform netblock or AS, which we
could all identify and filter, would be too easy. They're flagrant,
but they're not stupid.
-a
The Business Software Alliance appears to be using this technique to flush
out people distributing their Members' software via Gnutella and others. I
have received the obligatory nasty-gram advising me as the "owner" of an IP
(not taking into account the IP has been allocated and then assigned to
consecutive downstream providers) that I could be held liable for the
actions of this particular user.
Mike
If it starts happening, just unplug whoever's doing it and treat them like a DDOSer...poof, you just lost your Internet connectivity.
Something Sony or MCA would love to have happen...huh?
Sorry, your'e causing malicious problems on the Internet, operational procedure requires us to disable your address block..click...
What these slugs in Kongress don't realize, this will trigger a war, and one they can not win...
Who are they going to give waivers to, to damage personal property next, the ACLU, the ADL, the eco-terrorists? the politically korrect?
This is a war they can not hope to win, and all it will do is create chaos on the Internet, chaos that WE will bear the brunt of...like there isn't enough problems now?
All this because the media leeches won't recognize they have been trumped by technology...pitu!
The BSA is even flexing it's muscles here in the GWN.
http://www.istop.com/BSALetter.txt
Although they seem to have lots of money for scanning services and
lawyers, they expect ISPs to provide services (assisting them enforce
their copyrights) for free.
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
The upside to this is that if you are a hacker, you can now
legitimize your activities and legally protect yourself by
spending $30 to incorporate as a record company.
The Business Software Alliance appears to be using this technique to flush
out people distributing their Members' software via Gnutella and others. I
have received the obligatory nasty-gram advising me as the "owner" of an IP
(not taking into account the IP has been allocated and then assigned to
consecutive downstream providers) that I could be held liable for the
actions of this particular user.
The BSA is definately scanning P2P networks for alleged copyright
infringements. I received several of a similar notice for my netblocks.
This earned the BSA a null-route (not that they would care).
Although this complaint was not for a system of our own, I do own both of
the software programs cited in the complaint. After receiving legal
threats, I wonder if I will give my $150 to Intuit next year, or a local
accountant.
--- snip ---
Where the infringing content was located:
Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> writes:
Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have
to clean up the resulting messes...
The courts. There is no possible way that this bill (as I
read it) could, in any way, be conceived as even remotely
constitutional. This is pure vigilante: the entertainment
thugs aren't the police and don't have the rights or authority
to do anything other than report abuses to the *proper* authorities.
Peace,
Petr
The fact that a law is unconstitutional on the face of it has rarely stopped it
in the past - that's why the courts have the authority to throw out bad laws.
Unfortunately, we better be ready for several years of pain while a test case
makes it way up the judicial pecking order...
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers
and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction
to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any
party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret
and the letter of the Bill of Rights.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed.
Off topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups
to /dev/null.
This only applies to US citizens ...
To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies".
In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no
one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by
a government official with a warrant.
If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into
that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item.
I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement
agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution.
A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue the warrant.
The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house.
I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected
*by the law* from trespassers.
Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=116&invol=616#626
"By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my
license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which
is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called
upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil.
If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that
some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is
submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such
a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by
the principles of the common law."
Private individuals are not necessarily bound by the 4th amendment. A good
example are bail agents (i.e. Bounty hunters). Look it up - they can do
warrantless searches and entries in some states.
- Daniel Golding
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Joseph T. Klein
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 8:14 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hackingOff topic a bit, I'll shut up after this ... all follow ups
to /dev/null.This only applies to US citizens ...
To follow up on the private responses "IV does not apply to companies".
In the case of stolen copyright material being stored within the home; no
one has the right to enter a home unless they are accompanied by
a government official with a warrant.If my neighbor steals something from me I have no right to go into
that person's house and take or destroy the stolen item.I am required by common and civil law to ask the local law enforcement
agency to act on my behalf. That officer must abide by the constitution.
A warrant must be issued. A judge must have due cause to issue
the warrant.The Internet is no different than the sidewalk leading to my house.
I do not need to have my door locked or have a fence to be protected
*by the law* from trespassers.Note ... I suggest reading the caselaw sources for the 4th amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=
us&vol=116&invol=616#626
"By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so
minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my
license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which
is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called
upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil.
If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that
some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is
submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such
a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by
the principles of the common law."
Apples and oranges. They can only do so after someone has failed
to appear for a court hearing, and generally if bench warrant has
been issued for their detainment and return. They are able to make
exigent circumstances searches when they have reason to believe
their target is in a location and likely to not be there when they
return with law enforcement and a search warrant.
They're also required to be licensed and post a bond in many states,
and aren't allowed to operate in some other states; they are not
controlled by federal law. In most states such arrests are only
empowered after a bail contract has been entered into; i.e. I can't
just arrest you because you're skipping out on an appearance, I
have to have been your bail bondsman or contracted by him.
Interesting counterexample, though.