RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Jeff, In a nutshell you're saying do nothing. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Ogden Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. > >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more >than empty threats. >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? > >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. Just to state the obvious, no one is authorized to represent NANOG in this fashion, not even folks here at Merit. NANOG isn't a decision making organization. NANOG isn't something that can take actions (other than holding a few meetings each year and managing this e-mail list). Individuals and organizations that participate in NANOG can take actions, but not in NANOG's name. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that lawyers should be consulted before taking individual or coordinated action of the sort being suggested against another organization. Of course IPSs do take action against individuals or organizations all of the time, but they need to do that based on policies and procedures that take into account their obligations to their customers as well as their obligations under the law. As an end user I really don't want my ISP to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with me or who I am allowed to communicate with except when those decisions are based on policies designed to protect me or others from serious problems (DDOS attacks and the like), even then I want those policies to be written and available so I can review them, and I want them to be applied fairly. As an ISP I really don't want my upstream ISPs to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with my network or who my network is allowed to communicate with except under the conditions outlined in my agreements with those ISPs. This is important to me if I am in turn going to be able to meet my obligations to my own end users. So, I really don't want the RIAA to tell me or my upstreams who I can't communicate with, but neither do I want my upstreams to tell me that I can't communicate with the RIAA or the labels if I (or really my customers) want to do so. -Jeff Ogden Merit Network At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. > >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more >than empty threats. >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? > >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >J.A. Terranson >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM >To: Nigel Clarke >Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: >> > >> > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any >> > access... >> >> And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle >> threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking >> attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. > >The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would >produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their >basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them >to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. > >Let the money do the work. > >Yours, > >J.A. Terranson >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >* SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. >We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. > >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more >than empty threats. >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? > >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. Just to state the obvious, no one is authorized to represent NANOG in this fashion, not even folks here at Merit. NANOG isn't a decision making organization. NANOG isn't something that can take actions (other than holding a few meetings each year and managing this e-mail list). Individuals and organizations that participate in NANOG can take actions, but not in NANOG's name. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that lawyers should be consulted before taking individual or coordinated action of the sort being suggested against another organization. Of course IPSs do take action against individuals or organizations all of the time, but they need to do that based on policies and procedures that take into account their obligations to their customers as well as their obligations under the law. As an end user I really don't want my ISP to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with me or who I am allowed to communicate with except when those decisions are based on policies designed to protect me or others from serious problems (DDOS attacks and the like), even then I want those policies to be written and available so I can review them, and I want them to be applied fairly. As an ISP I really don't want my upstream ISPs to make decisions about who is allowed to communicate with my network or who my network is allowed to communicate with except under the conditions outlined in my agreements with those ISPs. This is important to me if I am in turn going to be able to meet my obligations to my own end users. So, I really don't want the RIAA to tell me or my upstreams who I can't communicate with, but neither do I want my upstreams to tell me that I can't communicate with the RIAA or the labels if I (or really my customers) want to do so. -Jeff Ogden Merit Network At 10:32 PM -0700 8/21/02, Nigel Clarke wrote: >However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. > >Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more >than empty threats. >Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? > >A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >J.A. Terranson >Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM >To: Nigel Clarke >Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: >> > >> > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any >> > access... >> >> And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle >> threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking >> attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. > >The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would >produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their >basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them >to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. > >Let the money do the work. > >Yours, > >J.A. Terranson >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >* SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. >We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
> Blackholing the RIAA and hating them is pointless, that is what they are > there for. Blackholing them accomplishes nothing. > If you want to cause change you need to go after the labels. The labels > are > the member organizations which fund the RIAA. It's the labels who need to > be stopped, the RIAA is just their puppet and shield. However, blackholing is effective in regards to anti-piracy bots that rove the Internet like web spiders attempting to discover copyright violations by verifying P2P data that has been collected elsewhere. Since March of 2001, we have used complaints originating from anti-piracy organizations hired by various labels, most notable Sony, to maintain our own BGP blacklists. Since we have a significant xDSL customer base, we frequently received copyright infringement complaints from these organizations. This policy has eliminated those complaints. We were able to reduce legal exposure and reclaim some of the protection once afforded by open carriage by preventing these intrusive verification tests from even occurring. However, we do act on all complaints that we receive. Ben
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Avleen Vig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > Ok, start listing IPs... > > If you have them (and can confirm them of course :P), I'm certain a dozen > > people on this list would put up a bgp feed before you can say > > "blackhole". Heck I'm certain people would have something to do if you > > even knew the provider that was planning on giving them service for such > > activities. > > Start here: > avleen@apple:avleen : host -t MX riaa.org > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=50) by mail3.riaa.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by list.sparklist.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.riaa.com > riaa.org mail is handled (pri=25) by mail2.riaa.com And continue to here: [sgifford@sghome sgifford]$ whois [EMAIL PROTECTED] [whois.arin.net] RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOC OF AMERICA (NETBLK-RECORDIN50-191) 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW SUITE 300 WASHINGTON, DC 20036 US Netname: RECORDIN50-191 Netblock: 12.150.191.0 - 12.150.191.255 Coordinator: EGAS, JACK (JE332-ARIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2027750101) - Record last updated on 11-Aug-2001. Database last updated on 21-Aug-2002 20:01:34 EDT. The ARIN Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Network Information: Networks, ASN's, and related POC's. Please use the whois server at rs.internic.net for DOMAIN related Information and whois.nic.mil for NIPRNET Information. -ScottG.
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
OOPS - my typo sorry! (standing in the corner with egg on my face ;-) ## On 2002-08-22 11:10 +0300 Rafi Sadowsky typed: RS> RS> RS> ## On 2002-08-22 08:04 +0100 Avleen Vig typed: RS> RS> AV> RS> AV> Start here: RS> AV> avleen@apple:avleen : host -t MX riaa.org RS> AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=50) by mail3.riaa.com RS> AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by list.sparklist.com RS> AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.riaa.com RS> AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=25) by mail2.riaa.com RS> AV> RS> AV> RS> AV> RS> RS> RS> Not quite ;-) RS> RS> (1021)> whois -h whois.networksolutions.com riia.org RS> RS> RS> Registrant: RS> Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA-DOM) RS>Chatham House, 10 St James Square RS>London, SW1Y 4YE RS>ENGLAND RS> RS>Domain Name: RIIA.ORG RS> RS> RS> RS> RS> RS>
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
## On 2002-08-22 08:04 +0100 Avleen Vig typed: AV> AV> Start here: AV> avleen@apple:avleen : host -t MX riaa.org AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=50) by mail3.riaa.com AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by list.sparklist.com AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.riaa.com AV> riaa.org mail is handled (pri=25) by mail2.riaa.com AV> AV> AV> Not quite ;-) (1021)> whois -h whois.networksolutions.com riia.org Registrant: Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA-DOM) Chatham House, 10 St James Square London, SW1Y 4YE ENGLAND Domain Name: RIIA.ORG
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Ok, start listing IPs... > If you have them (and can confirm them of course :P), I'm certain a dozen > people on this list would put up a bgp feed before you can say > "blackhole". Heck I'm certain people would have something to do if you > even knew the provider that was planning on giving them service for such > activities. Start here: avleen@apple:avleen : host -t MX riaa.org riaa.org mail is handled (pri=50) by mail3.riaa.com riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by list.sparklist.com riaa.org mail is handled (pri=10) by mail.riaa.com riaa.org mail is handled (pri=25) by mail2.riaa.com -- Avleen Vig Work Time: Unix Systems Administrator Play Time: Network Security Officer Smurf Amplifier Finding Executive: http://www.ircnetops.org/smurf
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, David U. wrote: > Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > Surprisingly enough, they didn't seem to care too much that their > > website was offline fora few days. You never can tell though. > > And that's exactly the point. I hate to continue this OT thread but../ > > The RIAA is a decoy. Their sole purpose is to fight for the labels and take > the bullets. The RIAA has a budget in the tens of millions of dollars and > when they need more they will get it. > > Blackholing the RIAA and hating them is pointless, that is what they are > there for. Blackholing them accomplishes nothing. > If you want to cause change you need to go after the labels. The labels are > the member organizations which fund the RIAA. It's the labels who need to > be stopped, the RIAA is just their puppet and shield. Agreed, however, I assume[d], possibly incorrectly having now read your post, that when we are discussing "RIAA", we are in fact refering to RIAA "proper" as well as all the component members. The recording industry is a *business*, just like the networking industry: if a given course of action leads to suboptimal financial results, the actions will change (eventually ;-). We need to doit, and doit now, to each and every member of RIAA - no connectivity, no Internet advertising, no Internet revenue stream. Doit till they scream Uncle. J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nigel Cl
arke" writes:
>
>Start now, do whatever it takes.
>
>Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where
>it's hackers would work from. Why not start there?
>
I assume you're talking about the Berman bill -- for the full text, see
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107Pidyhy::
(it's not law yet). Note in particular that although they have to
notify the Attorney-General of the technologies they intend to use,
the bill doesn't say anything about IP addresses. Note also that the
technology list is confidential.
Actually, the entire text is pretty appalling -- but read it for
yourself.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com ("Firewalls" book)
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > Surprisingly enough, they didn't seem to care too much that their > website was offline fora few days. You never can tell though. And that's exactly the point. I hate to continue this OT thread but../ The RIAA is a decoy. Their sole purpose is to fight for the labels and take the bullets. The RIAA has a budget in the tens of millions of dollars and when they need more they will get it. Blackholing the RIAA and hating them is pointless, that is what they are there for. Blackholing them accomplishes nothing. If you want to cause change you need to go after the labels. The labels are the member organizations which fund the RIAA. It's the labels who need to be stopped, the RIAA is just their puppet and shield. -davidu
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:30:27 EDT, Richard A Steenbergen said: > And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle > threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking > attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. If you read the URL originally referenced, they intend to blackhole riaa.com itself, and then run a honeynet gnutella network. Anything that pokes their Gnutella and then does anything else on their net that looks suspicious will get blackholed. Just imagine it - lots and lots of ISPs running honeynet Gnutellas, and if you poke around in it you get blackholed. That would make the RIAA's day. ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg04707/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > Start now, do whatever it takes. > > Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where > it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? > > NANOG should not sit on this. > > Trust me, if RIAA tried to function without email and internet access for a > day or two I think they would get the message. Surprisingly enough, they didn't seem to care too much that their website was offline fora few days. You never can tell though. > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:30 PM > To: Nigel Clarke > Cc: Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > > access... > > And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle > threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking > attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. > > I suppose if you want symbolism, you can host -l riaa.com and wack their > wcom webserver and other stuff at att, but I'd harly call that > productive. > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) >
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 22:32:22 -0700 "Nigel Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. > > Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more > than empty threats. > Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? Well, it seems pretty certain that RIAA is doing DOS attacks on the file sharing systems (by trying to flood them with fake files masquerading as real MP3's). I would assume that these are not idle threats. Regards Marshall Eubanks > > A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > J.A. Terranson > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM > To: Nigel Clarke > Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > > > > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > > > access... > > > > And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle > > threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking > > attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. > > > The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would > produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their > basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them > to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. > > Let the money do the work. > > > Yours, > > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > * SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. > We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right! >
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
However, this type of action might not be necessary at all. Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are nothing more than empty threats. Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own? A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J.A. Terranson Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > > access... > > And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle > threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking > attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. Let the money do the work. Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Miles Fidelman wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > Start now, do whatever it takes. > > Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where > > it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? > What they plan to do sounds incredibly illegal. Now if we could arrange > for their top management to spend the next few years fighting criminal > charges, that might keep them out of everybody's hair :-) Theres always the possible angle of a few hundred pissed off consumers all filing individual lawsuits against the top RIAA management as individuals, going after each one of them as a person and not as a corporate entity. Then there is also the angle of blacklisting providers who provide RIAA access to the net, blacklist them like spammers or any other net abusers. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote: > Start now, do whatever it takes. > > Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where > it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? What they plan to do sounds incredibly illegal. Now if we could arrange for their top management to spend the next few years fighting criminal charges, that might keep them out of everybody's hair :-) Miles ** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > > access... > > And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle > threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking > attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I > highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. The blocking of any an all directly RIAA sites, feeds, etc, would produce an economic reaction. Cut off their sales websites, their basic connectivity (how much money do you think it would cost them to go back to snail mail today?), their [few] subscription sites. Let the money do the work. Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * SPEAKING STRICTLY IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY * at this time anyway. We'll see if we can't change that. Tomorrow. Goddamn right!
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:36:29PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > Start now, do whatever it takes. > > Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where > it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? > > NANOG should not sit on this. > > Trust me, if RIAA tried to function without email and internet access for a > day or two I think they would get the message. Ok, start listing IPs... If you have them (and can confirm them of course :P), I'm certain a dozen people on this list would put up a bgp feed before you can say "blackhole". Heck I'm certain people would have something to do if you even knew the provider that was planning on giving them service for such activities. Until then, it's all a bunch of speculation, and my money is still on "idle threats and hype". -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Start now, do whatever it takes. Amongst the paperwork passed to congress, RIAA must have indicated where it's hackers would work from. Why not start there? NANOG should not sit on this. Trust me, if RIAA tried to function without email and internet access for a day or two I think they would get the message. -Original Message- From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:30 PM To: Nigel Clarke Cc: Jerry Eyers; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs? On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > access... And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. I suppose if you want symbolism, you can host -l riaa.com and wack their wcom webserver and other stuff at att, but I'd harly call that productive. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any > access... And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all idle threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or hacking attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything. I highly doubt they'll be attaching riaa.com to it either. I suppose if you want symbolism, you can host -l riaa.com and wack their wcom webserver and other stuff at att, but I'd harly call that productive. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Is someone mainitaining a server I can get an eBGP feed from that will blackhole all RIAA IPs? If not, how do you propose to block the RIAA? Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Nigel Clarke wrote: > > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... > > > > > > > > http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819riaa.php > > > > Too bad it's just a small ISP. > > > > - Joost > > > > ___ > > music-bar mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/music-bar > > > >
RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA any access... > > > http://www.informationwave.net/news/20020819riaa.php > > Too bad it's just a small ISP. > > - Joost > > ___ > music-bar mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/music-bar >
