RE: [7.8.2002 44916] Notice of Copyright Infringement

From: lists@polerecky
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 23:53:09 PDT

  • Next message: Valdis.Kletnieksat_private: "Re: [7.8.2002 44916] Notice of Copyright Infringement"

    > > "Funny, if you are getting
    > > DOSs'd or Spammed to hell, your ISP won't budge to fix it 
    > but, the MPAA
    > > sends one letter and they threaten to cut you (the customer) off."
    
    
    Note: the client is being DOSs'ed or Spammed, not the client being the
    instigator of the activity. I worked with safemode.org for 2+ years,
    during that time we had many DOS problems that our ISP would not help us
    with, but each time someone wanted a mirror removed from our site we
    ended up getting kicked from our ISP.
    
    Bottom-line, if you have the cash you can do what you want. As much as
    many of us hate it the internet has become a place of corporations. Many
    times I enjoy reading about companies losing millions to hackers or
    pirates, stay of our internet, we liked it just fine before you bought
    your way in.
    
    </RANT>
    Mystakill.
    
    
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Steven J. Sobol [mailto:sjsobolat_private] 
    > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 3:12 PM
    > To: Vinnie Lima
    > Cc: Vachon, Scott; vuln-devat_private
    > Subject: RE: [7.8.2002 44916] Notice of Copyright Infringement
    > 
    > 
    > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Vinnie Lima wrote:
    > 
    > > 
    > > "Funny, if you are getting
    > > DOSs'd or Spammed to hell, your ISP won't budge to fix it 
    > but, the MPAA
    > > sends one letter and they threaten to cut you (the customer) off."
    > > 
    > > Isnt within the ISP's rights to require a SUBPOENA to do 
    > any intrusive
    > > action including, but not limited to, shutting off a user's 
    > service? Or has
    > > the new Digital Millenium Act supersedes that right?
    > 
    > As far as I know, no. If I determine you spammed or DOS'd 
    > someone from a 
    > DSL or dialup account you pay me for, no, I wouldn't 
    > typically demand a 
    > subpoena from the complainant. If I'm smart, I will exercise due 
    > dilligence in making damned sure that you *did* violate my 
    > policies, but 
    > checking my own server logs doesn't require a subpoena either.
    > 
    > You're thinking of times when someone demands information 
    > about a specific
    > subscriber - in that case, unless the service provider is a 
    > flaming idiot,
    > they will not give out any info about who the subscriber is, 
    > etc., without
    > a subpoena. But the decision to terminate service doesn't require the
    > release of any of your personal information to third parties.
    > 
    > **SJS (speaking as a service provider)
    > 
    > -- 
    > Steve Sobol, CTO  JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH  
    > 888.480.4NET
    > - I do my best work with one of my cockatiels sitting on each 
    > shoulder -
    > 6/4/02:A USA TODAY poll found that 80% of Catholics advocated 
    > a zero-tolerance 
    > stance towards abusive priests. The fact that 20% didn't, scares me...
    > 
    > 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 04:22:06 PDT