Irvine resigns thread

[WJL]

SeaJay once bubbled...


....
So... You're saying that you know of a case where someone was successfully sued for posting a link or forwarding an email?
....

A few posts back I cited a few cases for you where site operators were "successfully sued" for posting links to copyrighted material. The Napster case is probably the most well-known. If you read those court opinions, you will find references to a number of other similar cases.

I know this is a touchy subject for you, but you ought to lay off the insults to people who are better informed than you on this issue.

 

[PhotoTJ]

...and here I thought this was the basic scuba discussion forum of Scubaboard. What a colossal waste of bandwidth.

 

[SeaJay]

I responded to the first post I saw (after having come back from work), which is the above post. Wish now that I'd read the whole thing first.

This didn't have anything to do with me... This was about posting a link, forwarding an email, and your accusation that it was copyright infringement, which is wasn't... Even if it was persecutable... Which it isn't.

I knew that when I entered this conversation and it turned to me... And then when I was asked about the photos... That sooner or later, the songs would come up. I actually considered taking them down for a while so as to avoid hearing you bellyache some more.

But then I thought, "Naaaah." Responding to your brow-beating would only encourage you.

Don't worry... There's no real song there. It's just a bogus file. Go ahead and check it and let me know what you find.

BTW, thanks for the advertising.

Jonny: I'd tell you if you were successful. It didn't go down exactly like you think it did.

The owner of BBLabs, with whom I am personally aquainted, emailed me and basically said, "What's up with this putz that's got some sort of "knight in shining armor" syndrome?" I gave him a brief overview... And he said, "What, does he have nothing better to do?" (And by the way, I asked his permission to quote him, so as to avoid copyright infringement... He just laughed.)

Our discussion about it improved traffic to my site about about 10%. That was enough to exceed my monthly bandwidth limitations... And I'd already exceeded my storage limitations by about ten times, 'cause of all the multimedia files. So... He said to me, "Should I bill you?" I told him I'd put the site on my own servers.

...So yeah, it got moved... And yeah, it was a result of your actions. But not exactly as you think.

In the meantime, I'm tired of hearing your bellyaching. Sue me or not - but quit bellyaching about it.

I'm tired of hearing that dog bark.

 

[mgri]

Genesis once bubbled...
....

I had situations arise where I traced a high-bandwidth (as in DS-3 speeds PLUS) denial-of-service attack aimed at my core equipment to one of their customers and STILL had them tell me to go pee up a rope. My next call was to the FBI and I simultaneously posted on our NOC web page that we were dropping all of their AS-announced routes and black-holing packets from their IP allocations due to the incessant DDOS coming from their network and their refusal to respond to it. THAT got their attention (which part woke 'em up I'm still not certain of.)

Yikes, were they hitting one of your core routers? Was it just one host from Sprint or a block of ip's? How were you able to deal with the increase bandwidth when you dampened all the routes coming from Sprint? Did you have enough peering points to other ISPs? What was the finally resoultions on this? Kinda of curious how a low level ISP would deal with this.

 

[Genesis]

a spare, old shoe.

Genuine leather with a nice rubber sole.

You know you want it SeaJay....

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Genesis once bubbled...


Nope. Not if the infringement commenced prior to the registration.

You claim to do this kind of law and you haven't read the case law behind it? I even provided the cite for you!

You must register within three months of first publication.
However, an infringement that commences prior to the effective date of registration is immune from claims for statutory damages and fees, even if it continues past the registration date.

THERE IS NO ZONE OF DANGER. It is a bright-line test, and the only factor is whether or not the infringement commenced prior to the effective date of registration (which is NOT when you filed for it - its when it ISSUES.)

If the answer is "yes", then you are immune from a statutory damage and fee claim.

(Again, reading from the case law, and not as a barrister...)

Are we having reading comprehension issues?

17 U.S.C. s. 412 provides that

In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for...(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, UNLESS SUCH REGISTRATION IS MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE FIRST PUBLICATION OF THE WORK.(capitalization supplied).

Seems to me that you can seek statutory damages, costs and fees so long as you register within three months of first publication, which would probably be the date that the work was posted.

Nice try, but its a swing and a miss.

 

[Genesis]

Yikes, were they hitting one of your core routers? Was it just one host from Sprint or a block of ip's? How were you able to deal with the increase bandwidth when you dampened all the routes coming from Sprint? Did you have enough peering points to other ISPs? What was the finally resoultions on this? Kinda of curious how a low level ISP would deal with this.

Yep, they were.

It was several hosts, but the bulk of the traffic was coming from Sprint. Not all of it - it was a classic distributed denial of service attack.

We were VERY well connected. Multiple full DS-3s and multiple full route exchanges with others; we weren't a "low level" ISP by any means, but rather a pretty large regional player. A small ISP would have been buried and unable to provide any service to anyone. That was the attacker's intent, of course.

The attacks were in retaliation for political activity that we undertook on the kiddie porn trafficking that was, at the time, rampant. It probably still is, but I no longer monitor the issue closely, as I'm no longer "in the biz."

I was somewhat of a target for a lot of folks who got off on buggering little kids, and wanted their pictures, along with those who were knowingly providing them a conduit for their activity.

It wasn't one episode; we had a more-or-less running cat-and-mouse game with the people who were into trying to knock us off the air for more than three years. They never did actually succeed, but when the attacks got particularly bad we did notice, and there were some points where our NOC got concerned about potential instability. Those times were where I got involved directly and started raising hell.

I am VERY good at interposing technical solutions to these kinds of problems, including hacking up custom software on machines to "front run" the routing functionality, diverting the bad stuff to the trash and keep us from being melted down. Since we had plenty of raw bandwidth available, the problem didn't lie there - it lay in the core equipment (most of it CISCO based) being unable to deal with the dynamic load fluctuations.

The way you deal with it, assuming you have the raw bandwidth (if you don't then the people feeding or peering with you will probably 'feel" it and at that point they get interested in solving the problem too as THEIR gear starts crashing!) is to devise technical solutions as a stop-gap and keep you on the air, log and trace back what you can, and raise hell with the providers and, if necessary, law enforcement.

I still do some of this stuff on a commercial basis but these days its focused on spam interdiction through custom software.

 

[Genesis]

Now now Mr. Lawyer, try reading what's posted, eh? I gave you the answer, along with a cite.

Here 'ya go again - chew on this one and then rethink your (bad) advice......

"A plaintiff may not recover an award of statutory damages and attorney's fees (emphasis mine) for infringements that commenced after registration if the same defendant commenced an infringement ofthe same work prior to registration." Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir.1992).

Counselor, you win your case with a zero dollar award. Send your (very large) bill to your (now very pissed-off) client. Oh, Mr. Client, the bar's complaint department may be found at 222-555-1212 if you think this was a stupid thing for your counsel to advise you to undertake and you'd like to commence an action to revoke counsel's bar card.

Next case please.

Crap, I ain't even got a bar card, but by God, I can read! Seems that this art has been lost on the bar's participants, no? And people wonder why there are folks that think Barristers are best kept in the dredge at 8 or 9 knots.

 

[SeaJay]

DIR once bubbled...
http://www.aerialimages-photo.com/Copyrite.htm


http://www.tipz.net/sins_copyright.htm


http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1999060401.html

Steve_S once bubbled...
We are referring to the following which breaks your framesets:


http://www.deepsouthdivers.org/songs.html

Steve_S once bubbled...
The AUP of Sprint may be found at: http://www.sprint.net/policy/abuse.html

Don't look now, boys... But according to your law, you just violated copyright. And in one case, I am the copyright holder.

WJL bubbled...
A few posts back I cited a few cases for you where site operators were "successfully sued" for posting links to copyrighted material. The Napster case is probably the most well-known.

We already went over that case, and we've established that Napster was NOT "successfully sued." Were you absent that day of class? The plaintiff did not win against Napster. Napster allowed itself to be intimidated into changing the way it did business... No win necessary.

I know this is a touchy subject for you, but you ought to lay off the insults to people who are better informed than you on this issue.

Well, I'm certainly not the end-all in knowledge about this stuff, but I'm confident enough to tell you to go pee up a rope.

Here's the sad part: I'm really watching y'all get your panties in a bunch over this. The sad thing is that this isn't about me or my site or even someone "crossposting" or anything... This is about YOu having to be RIGHT.

Whatever. Y'all are acting like children. TJ is right... This is pretty stupid.

If I scream real loud, "YOU'RE RIGHT!" will you quit bellyaching then?

By the way... Since you've accused me of being a copyright infringer... You'd better be sure of that; and have proof. 'Cause if I take you to court for libel, and you can't prove that your accusation is true, guess where that puts you? That's a pretty serious charge to face.

'Course, Gen's already pointed that out... Thanks, bud. Yeah, I'm thinkin' it's time for me to borrow that shoe...

 

[Northeastwrecks]

SeaJay once bubbled...

I thought you said that you weren't a "professor" at the moment.

Why? Because I don't listen to the local hack from Radio Shack? I'm taking Fall semester off. I'll be back in the Spring.

I have a tough time believing that a credible university would have someone work for them who is afflicted with your condition.

Let's see. According to U.S. News, UConn is tied for 40th in the country. University of South Carolina is 78th. And you haven't even managed to graduate.

Mind giving some references so that I can check your story? Name... University... I'll call you tomorrow and we'll chat about this.

PM me with contact information. If I have time, I may call you.