On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see
> Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit
> through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue InterNAP? I guess
> it would sure be nice prece
> "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania
> computer scientist and an
> early architect of the Internet, filed an
> affidavit in the case, saying
> it would be relatively easy for the Internet
> companies to block the
> Internet address of the Web site without
> disrupting other traff
Hm, why stop with just backbone networks?
Why shouldn't edge networks, corporate networks, and household
networks chip in to uphold civil judgements against infringers?
Surely I should not object if the RIAA insists that I block
access of my small collection of computers to hosts which exist
so
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Sean M. Doran wrote:
> Hm, why stop with just backbone networks?
>
> Why shouldn't edge networks, corporate networks, and household
> networks chip in to uphold civil judgements against infringers?
The record labels don't want to give you that choice. If you read the
compla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> The record labels don't want to give you that choice. If you read the
> complaint you'll notice the record companies never attempted to contact
> the immediate upstream ISP in China. ...
Am I the only one who finds it odd that it's illegal to export
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Digital data is much easier to move that the physical items of economic
blockades which are also restricted not only by customs but by them appearing on
accounts etc which should declare enough info to show a business was acting
illegally by sending to a blocka
> > The record labels don't want to give you that choice. If you read the
> > complaint you'll notice the record companies never attempted to contact
> > the immediate upstream ISP in China. ...
Well, maybe the record industry doesn't want to interfere
with the 'anti-copy' oriented Chinese a
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Am I the only one who finds it odd that it's illegal to export crypto
> or "supercomputers" to certain nations or to sell such goods with
> prior knowledge that the goods are going to be resold in those
> nations... or even to travel to certain nations... yet
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> How long, in this new era of homeland security, can we expect it to last?
> How long before someone has to say "I'm sorry, I can't peer with you or sell
> you transit because you have downstreams or peers inside the axis of evil"?
The question has already been
At 03:07 PM 8/17/2002 -0700, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> I want to know what the homeland security department is likely to do
>> about all this, not what is good/bad for the citizens of hostile
>> nations or even nonhostile nations.
>
>Likely nothing, unless
A question :
Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they
sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4
providers ?
SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do
nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Inter
Behalf Of
> Marshall Eubanks
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: Sean Donelan
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
>
>
>
> A question :
>
> Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balanci
> Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at
> that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions
> to Internap solves the problem.
There is a "historical" precedent that supports this theory.
For those who can set their Way-Back Machin
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do
>nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ?
I'm not even sure if shutting listen4ever down is on the RIAA agenda.
Wouldn't the easiest course of action be t
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Tim Thorne wrote:
> I'm not even sure if shutting listen4ever down is on the RIAA agenda.
> Wouldn't the easiest course of action be to file suit against Verisign
> and have their DNS nuked?
that would be the logical approach. or they could get an order against
the usg an
15 matches
Mail list logo
