[118600] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sat Oct 24 09:36:59 2009
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <16720fe00910240628o3d9156d7v18f63e7bd634b135@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:36:05 -0400
To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> 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.
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.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Oct 24, 2009 9:01 AM, "William Allen Simpson" <
> william.allen.simpson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
