Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:41:46 -0500 Jack Bates wrote: > Jeroen Massar wrote: > > But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again, > > you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache > > listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can > > move that complete /64 to a different box ;) > > > > You are still comparing an application level decision to a stack level > decision. Thousands of addresses on a stack could definitely pose an > issue depending on the OS. > Depends a bit on how the OS handles interface address assignments. Linux creates host routes in a separate 'local' route table, which you can see via ip route show table local or for IPv6 ip -6 route show table local which I think would suggest that Linux's interface address assignment scalability is as scalable as it's route table scalability. Performing concurrent IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection on that many addresses when the interface/host comes up might be an issue. Regards, Mark.
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
Brian Johnson wrote: >> Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was >> around 4096. > > So in this circumstance you could route a /116 to the server. COOL! These days what we might at one point have refered to as a host or server may actually be a hardware container with N > 1 or so virtual systems... which may variously be: attached to the network via dedicated interface individual vlans a virtual bridge a layer-3 topology >> In practice though, you also have to consider the physical limitations >> of the server itself. The biggest bang for the buck in dense hosting >> environments seems to be running about 1000 sites per box, with a few >> boxes dedicated to your heavy hitters with 100 or less ea. > > So in this circumstance you could route a /118 to the server serving > 1000 sites and a /125 to the server serving 100 sites. Also COOL! How many ips you can park on a particular hardware container is probably bounded only by the over-subscription rate of what you intend to serve. Most of the superficial limits (macs on a bridge table, ips on an interface etc can be worked around in fairly simple fashion but the number of connections per second or pps rate a given hardware container can pass though whatever abstraction is applied is less fungible. >> Until we start seeing IPv6-only hosting though, I suspect that we will >> see IPv6 address mirror the configuration of the IP assignments. >> Sites with dedicated IPs will have dedicated IPv6, sites with shared >> IP will have shared IPv6, if only to maintain sanity. > > This passes my smell and duh tests. :) > >> If you're trying to make the case for IPv6 to hosting companies, >> you're barking up the wrong tree. IP address just became a scarce >> commodity, instead of providing you with a free IP address, the can >> now charge $100 a mo for one. They know darn well that it will take a >> while for every user to have IPv6 from their SP and that if you want >> to run a site you'll need access to the "legacy" IP Internet to reach >> your customers. On the bright side, this will encourage the market to >> adopt IPv6 because they can't afford IP. Hopefully ARIN adopts a >> policy of decommissioning IP space as they reclaim it to prevent >> people from receiving new allocations as people begin to go IPv6-only, >> otherwise we'll be stuck with two Internets for a very long time. > > Agreed, except for one thing. ARIN shouldn't "decommission" IP space. > The Internet will dictate that IPv4 will go away all on its own once > IPv6 becomes the protocol of choice for enough of the net. At some > point, the people who depend on IPv4 will not be able to pay for their > providers supporting the IPv4 infrastructure as new devices become > available that either only support IPv6, or don't implement a full suite > of IPv4 to keep costs down. > > Also remember that at some point, there will be no IPv4 left. When this > happens new entrants will suffer greatly at the hands of this > circumstance. But we will get through it and there will be new sites > that will be IPv6 only, then there will be demand for these sites, then > there will be people who vote with their wallets for the new sites... > > Was I rambling there? :) In the end it will be economics that dictate a > single protocol Internet. I am one who wishes we put a date in stone now > to establish the "cut date" of IPv4 to IPv6, but that is unreasonable. > This will take care of itself. > > _ > Brian Johnson > Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA) > Dickey Rural Networks > >
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
To expand on this from a programmers perspective, usually at the kernel/network stack level, a "patricia" radix-style trie is used for fast ipv6 lookups. The benefit of the patricia trie being that if you only have a difference keylength of 8 bits (/120) then the ip lookup only takes 8 steps in a worst-case scenario. The same concept applies to ipv4 cidr as well, but it is less obvious. William --Original Message-- From: Adrian Chadd To: Jeroen Massar Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks Sent: Oct 27, 2009 10:39 AM On Tue, Oct 27, 2009, Jeroen Massar wrote: > But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again, > you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache > listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can > move that complete /64 to a different box ;) Funny you should mention that. A couple of tricks I've seen: * instead of a linked list and O(n) searching of interface aliases, use some kind of tree to map local IP -> interface. * hacks to do a "bind to all damned IP addresses and let userspace sort it out". I've done the former for a few thousand aliases with no degredation in performance. The hacks available for freebsd-4.x for the Web Polygraph software did something similar. 2c, Adrian -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-866-519-6149
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 02:05:36PM +, Michael Dillon wrote: > But, when IPv6 is a bit more common, there is no need for virtual > hosters to share > a single IP address between several sites. They may as well use a > unique IPv6 address > for every single site, even if they are all on the same server. The > side effect of this is > that it makes the network operator's tool sharper, and able to knock > down single sites > with a /32 ACL. A /128 you mean. If you look in Apache's httpd/server/vhost.c, you may notice that the server locates addressed virtual hosts using a simple 32->8 bit integer reduction hash, which produces a well balanced hash table in typical virtual server applications (generally these servers get addresses in contiguous blocks). Named virtuals are relegated to an extra hash bucket, essentially placing them all on a single unsorted linear list, which is searched if a by-address match is not found. Probably in the modern day, the additional processing (and system calls) necessary to render a web object into a reply is significantly higher than the overhead to locate a virtual server even at these orders of magnitude, but it's interesting that the software works differently. -- David W. Hankins"If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgp5lDTPDChD6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-866-519-6149 -Original Message- From: "Brian Johnson" Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:03:29 To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: RE: DMCA takedowns of networks 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. :) - Brian > -Original Message- > From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@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: s...@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. > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > > > So why are we having this discussion? > > > > > > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > > > > > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > > > > > > > ... 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 > apples. > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog" > >
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
Mayfirst / Peoplelink did not get any notice that service would be turned down prior to it happening. Hurricane has had a really bad history of handling copyright complaints. The situation for example resulting in mayfirst's circuit being turned down had nothing at all to do with copyright and was instead a trademark violation dispute. IANAL, but trademark issues are not copyright issues nor are they handled via the dmca. Therefore what hurricane did in this instance is really unacceptable. It should be emphasized that the dmca does not require turning down service - only sending the takedown notice along to an appropriate contact. See also: common-carrier immunity concept. I don't know about you, but hurricanes actions in this instance has made me reevaluate the use of their products in future projects. (this post definitely does not reflect the opinions of my employer.) William --Original Message-- From: Jack Bates To: Richard A Steenbergen Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks Sent: Oct 26, 2009 1:44 PM 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 -- William Pitcock SystemInPlace - Simple Hosting Solutions 1-866-519-6149
RE: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
> -Original Message- > From: Ray Soucy [mailto:r...@maine.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:45 AM > To: Jeffrey Ollie > Cc: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks > > > But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or > > thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the > performance > > implications be? > > > > Jeff Ollie > > Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was > around 4096. So in this circumstance you could route a /116 to the server. COOL! > > In practice though, you also have to consider the physical limitations > of the server itself. The biggest bang for the buck in dense hosting > environments seems to be running about 1000 sites per box, with a few > boxes dedicated to your heavy hitters with 100 or less ea. So in this circumstance you could route a /118 to the server serving 1000 sites and a /125 to the server serving 100 sites. Also COOL! > > Until we start seeing IPv6-only hosting though, I suspect that we will > see IPv6 address mirror the configuration of the IP assignments. > Sites with dedicated IPs will have dedicated IPv6, sites with shared > IP will have shared IPv6, if only to maintain sanity. This passes my smell and duh tests. :) > > If you're trying to make the case for IPv6 to hosting companies, > you're barking up the wrong tree. IP address just became a scarce > commodity, instead of providing you with a free IP address, the can > now charge $100 a mo for one. They know darn well that it will take a > while for every user to have IPv6 from their SP and that if you want > to run a site you'll need access to the "legacy" IP Internet to reach > your customers. On the bright side, this will encourage the market to > adopt IPv6 because they can't afford IP. Hopefully ARIN adopts a > policy of decommissioning IP space as they reclaim it to prevent > people from receiving new allocations as people begin to go IPv6-only, > otherwise we'll be stuck with two Internets for a very long time. Agreed, except for one thing. ARIN shouldn't "decommission" IP space. The Internet will dictate that IPv4 will go away all on its own once IPv6 becomes the protocol of choice for enough of the net. At some point, the people who depend on IPv4 will not be able to pay for their providers supporting the IPv4 infrastructure as new devices become available that either only support IPv6, or don't implement a full suite of IPv4 to keep costs down. Also remember that at some point, there will be no IPv4 left. When this happens new entrants will suffer greatly at the hands of this circumstance. But we will get through it and there will be new sites that will be IPv6 only, then there will be demand for these sites, then there will be people who vote with their wallets for the new sites... Was I rambling there? :) In the end it will be economics that dictate a single protocol Internet. I am one who wishes we put a date in stone now to establish the "cut date" of IPv4 to IPv6, but that is unreasonable. This will take care of itself. _ Brian Johnson Converged Network Engineer (CCNP, ENA) Dickey Rural Networks
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
Once upon a time, Jeffrey Ollie said: > But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or > thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance > implications be? I've got Linux (and even Windows) boxes with several hundred IPs bound today; I don't see why IPv6 addresses would be any different. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
> But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or > thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance > implications be? > > Jeff Ollie Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was around 4096. In practice though, you also have to consider the physical limitations of the server itself. The biggest bang for the buck in dense hosting environments seems to be running about 1000 sites per box, with a few boxes dedicated to your heavy hitters with 100 or less ea. Until we start seeing IPv6-only hosting though, I suspect that we will see IPv6 address mirror the configuration of the IP assignments. Sites with dedicated IPs will have dedicated IPv6, sites with shared IP will have shared IPv6, if only to maintain sanity. If you're trying to make the case for IPv6 to hosting companies, you're barking up the wrong tree. IP address just became a scarce commodity, instead of providing you with a free IP address, the can now charge $100 a mo for one. They know darn well that it will take a while for every user to have IPv6 from their SP and that if you want to run a site you'll need access to the "legacy" IP Internet to reach your customers. On the bright side, this will encourage the market to adopt IPv6 because they can't afford IP. Hopefully ARIN adopts a policy of decommissioning IP space as they reclaim it to prevent people from receiving new allocations as people begin to go IPv6-only, otherwise we'll be stuck with two Internets for a very long time. -- Ray Soucy Communications Specialist +1 (207) 561-3526 Communications and Network Services University of Maine System http://www.maine.edu/
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
Jeroen Massar wrote: But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again, you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can move that complete /64 to a different box ;) You are still comparing an application level decision to a stack level decision. Thousands of addresses on a stack could definitely pose an issue depending on the OS. Jack
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009, Jeroen Massar wrote: > But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again, > you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache > listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can > move that complete /64 to a different box ;) Funny you should mention that. A couple of tricks I've seen: * instead of a linked list and O(n) searching of interface aliases, use some kind of tree to map local IP -> interface. * hacks to do a "bind to all damned IP addresses and let userspace sort it out". I've done the former for a few thousand aliases with no degredation in performance. The hacks available for freebsd-4.x for the Web Polygraph software did something similar. 2c, Adrian
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
Jeffrey Ollie wrote: [..] > But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or > thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance > implications be? Remember that IP addresses are 128bits, while hostnames (the ones for the "Host:" header in the HTTP query) are well, quite a bit longer than that on average. If thus something like this would become common-place, there definitely will be quite some people who will be paying some attention on optimizing Apache. But yes, the network stack itself is a different question, then again, you can just route a /64 into the loopback device and let your apache listen there... (which also allows you to do easy-failover as you can move that complete /64 to a different box ;) Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > > But, when IPv6 is a bit more common, there is no need for virtual > hosters to share > a single IP address between several sites. They may as well use a > unique IPv6 address > for every single site, even if they are all on the same server. The > side effect of this is > that it makes the network operator's tool sharper, and able to knock > down single sites > with a /32 ACL. > > For a hosting provider, I would think that this strengthens the > business case for IPv6. But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance implications be? -- Jeff Ollie
Re: IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
Michael Dillon wrote: [..] > [..] The > side effect of this is > that it makes the network operator's tool sharper, and able to knock > down single sites > with a /32 ACL. You actually mean a /128 in the case of IPv6, the /32 would be the complete ISP... > For a hosting provider, I would think that this strengthens the > business case for IPv6. and they can just use a single /64 for a single 'virtual webhost', then assign a 32 bit customer-id and have every customer have 2^32 sites, bingo. Greets, Jeroen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
IPv6 could change things - Was: DMCA takedowns of networks
> 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? Since the tools at a network operator's disposal are ACLs which make it easy to block traffic to a /32 without the need for deep packet inspection, one would expect that this regularly causes collateral damage if that /32 is a web server hosting hundreds of virtual websites. But, when IPv6 is a bit more common, there is no need for virtual hosters to share a single IP address between several sites. They may as well use a unique IPv6 address for every single site, even if they are all on the same server. The side effect of this is that it makes the network operator's tool sharper, and able to knock down single sites with a /32 ACL. For a hosting provider, I would think that this strengthens the business case for IPv6. --Michael Dillon
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
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. :) - Brian > -Original Message- > From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@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: s...@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. > > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > > > So why are we having this discussion? > > > > > > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > > > > > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > > > > > > > ... 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 > apples. > > > > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog" > >
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
> 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
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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
ADMIN: DMCA takedowns of networks
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) -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > 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 > > 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
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
[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 On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > 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. > -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 10:11:47AM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote: > > 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). -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
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: s...@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. On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Joe Greco wrote: > > > > So why are we having this discussion? > > > > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > > > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > > > > > ... 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 apples. > > > X-CONTACT-FILTER-MATCH: "nanog" >
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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. -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 ... -- _ Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM aw...@ziskind.us Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
> -Original Message- > From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@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
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
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 7:45 AM To: Brian Johnson Cc: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks > > > So why are we having this discussion? > > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > > > ... 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 apples.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
> > > So why are we having this discussion? > > > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > > > ... 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 apples.
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
> > So why are we having this discussion? > > Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? > > Excuse me for stating the obvious. :-) > > ... 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? - Brian
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
> 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 ;) 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. -- Sven Olaf Kamphuis CB3ROB DataServices Phone: +31/87-8747479 Skype: CB3ROB MSN: s...@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. On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Brandt, Ralph wrote: > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] > Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:36 AM > To: North American Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks > > 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
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
I've excerpted, and posted anonymously, a few quotes from this thread on the ISOC-NY website. I hope that this is acceptable - if not, let me know off list. http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=996 -- --- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
> On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > >> Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean > >> you don't have to follow the law. > > > > A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the > > "force > > of law" claimed above. > > You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force > has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They > are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why > you should not. I think you need to read the DMCA. You may feel free to point out where it says "service provider must do X." Because I suspect you will find out that it _really_ says, "in order to retain safe harbor protection, service provider must do X." The latter is not lawfully compelling me to do anything. > This is no different from many "legal" notices. If > you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the > loss of Safe Harbor defense. > > This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What > would you call "the force of law?" > > Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe > I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who > thinks otherwise. I "believe" what the lawyers tell me. They tell me that we may lose safe harbor if we do not comply with a takedown notice. That's about all. > >>> 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. > > > > Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would > > make > > such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a > > DMCA > > (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted > > through a > > server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that > > Usenet > > news server's address. > > [snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent] > > It is almost certainly not "like" anything. > > I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are > making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info. > Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly. > > Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted. > Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS > HAPPENED. Of course not. But there are at least some of us who have been through all of this; we can fill in the blanks and make some reasonable conclusions. > > To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a > > distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's > > not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by > > the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering > > with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at > > least as a first step. > > I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non- > infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened. > > So why are we having this discussion? Because it appears that HE took down non-infringing sites? Excuse me for stating the 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 apples.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Joe Greco wrote: Laws frequently have multiple options for compliance. Doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law. A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above. You say potato, I say whatever. "In the field of law, the word force has two main meanings: unlawful violence and lawful compulsion." They are lawfully compelling you to take down the content, or explain why you should not. This is no different from many "legal" notices. If you ignore the notice, you risk legal ramifications, including the loss of Safe Harbor defense. This pice of paper has the "force" of the US gov't behind it. What would you call "the force of law?" Feel free to believe otherwise. IANAL (or even an ISP :), so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm not going to think poorly of any provider who thinks otherwise. 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. Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would make such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a DMCA (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted through a server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that Usenet news server's address. [snip - bunch of stuff about Cogent] It is almost certainly not "like" anything. I'm guessing that you have no clue what actually happened. People are making assumptions from third-party accounts using 5th hand info. Generalization is bad, generalization on such flimsy info is silly. Maybe they typo'ed a filter list. Maybe some newbie over-reacted. Maybe the customer did not pay their bill. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS HAPPENED. To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at least as a first step. I have stated over & over that it is not right for HE to take down non- infringing sites - _if_ that is what happened. So why are we having this discussion? Doesn't mean you should "wait for a court order" though. That is, of course, completely correct. Glad we agree. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: 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. 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. -- TTFN, patrick On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 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. 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." -- TTFN, patrick 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.simp...@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. -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
> On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> 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. > > > > 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. A DMCA takedown notice isn't "law," Patrick, and does not have the "force of law" claimed above. It is merely a claim by a third party as to some particular infringement. A service provider CAN take certain steps listed in the DMCA and gain absolute protection under the law against almost any sort of copyright liability regarding the incident. This does not, however, make it correct or perhaps even legal for a service provider to take that action in all cases. There are plenty of examples of DMCA notices having been sent for the sole purpose of getting something someone doesn't like shut down, even where the party issuing the notice obviously does not own the copyright in question. There are a variety of techniques to deal with this... > > 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. Yes, but it's troubling that a nontrivial provider of transit would make such a mistake. This is like Cogent, who, at one point, received a DMCA (or possibly just abuse complaint) about content being posted through a server of a client's, and who proceeded to try to null-route that Usenet news server's address. Of course, they picked a hostname out of the headers of the message in question, and null-routed that. To no effect, since the users accessed servers through SLB. Duh. And since Usenet is a flood fill system, blocking the injecting host isn't sufficient anyways, since the article is instantly available at every other Usenet site, including the other local servers. Double duh. And since the subscriber's account had already been closed and cancels had been issued earlier in the day, the content wasn't even on the server anymore. Three duhs and Cogent's out... The annoying part was that Cogent decided at 2 *AM* in the morning that this was a problem, and insisted on an answer within an hour. I allocated a whole lot more time than that for reading several tiers of management and sales the riot act. Not that it had any operational impact whatsoever, but when a service provider starts implementing arbitrary kneejerk "fixes" upon receipt of a complaint, that's a bad thing, and that seems like what may have happened here, too. To be clear: I agree that a provider might not want to make a distinction between a legitimate DMCA takedown and something that's not, but it is reasonable to limit oneself to the things required by the DMCA. Null-routing a virtual web server's IP and interfering with the operation of other services is probably overreaching, at least as a first step. > > 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. That is, of course, completely correct. ... 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 apples.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >> 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. > > 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." > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > >> 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.simp...@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. >>> >> > > > -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 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. 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. :) 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? -- TTFN, patrick P.S. still doesn't mean HE should have taken down non-infringing sites.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:06:29AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> 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. 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
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 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. 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. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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) http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 " (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. -- -J
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 09:36:05AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > 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. 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 http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/ and file for a designated agent. -- Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Brandt, Ralph wrote: 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?) 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? -- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
RE: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 9:36 AM To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Re: DMCA takedowns of networks 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.simp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/chamber-of-commerce-stron_n_332 087.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. > __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
On Oct 24, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 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. 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." -- TTFN, patrick 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.simp...@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.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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.simp...@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.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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 On Oct 24, 2009 9:01 AM, "William Allen Simpson" < william.allen.simp...@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.
Re: DMCA takedowns of networks
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: 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.
DMCA takedowns of networks
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.
