Irvine resigns thread

[Northeastwrecks]

More like I've decided that it simply isn't worth discussing this issue any further with a copyright thief.

 

[Genesis]

17 USC 412 does not say you can necessarily recover statutory damages in the circumstance where you register after the infringement commences.

It says you are BARRED if you do not meet certain requirements, and I will direct you to the word "OR" in there, which prevents recovery from an infringement on any unpublished work, irrespective of later registration (even within the three month window.)

I assume you remember the BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL separation of powers in the government? You know, the rules you were supposed to learn to pass HIGH SCHOOL?

Let me refresh your memory.

1. The Legislature WRITES laws.
2. The Judiciary INTERPRETS laws.

The law has been INTERPRETED.

In fact, the exact argument you're running here was tried in the cited case, as the infringement extended beyond registration, on the claim that each act was an indivdual offense, and failed on appeal.

The clear legislative intent (in the House notes, which I have read) provides the three month exception SPECIFICALLY for reporting on news items that must be immediately published and other similar circumstances where registration prior to publication was impossible. It was not intended to provide safe haven for people to play "gotcha", and given the case law history, unless you have something more recent than the cited case, I'd bet an attempt to play that game fails on the general principles of equity if nothing else.

You might, however, be able to persuade a judge to award statutory damages if you have (1) a timely registration in the
"grace" window, (2) actual notice to the infringer post registration, and (3) a refusal to deal with it at that point.

That would comport with the intent of the 1990 revision. Using the tardy registration post-infringement as a means of playing "legal gotcha" is clearly outside of the intent of the 1990 revision to the law and I wouldn't bet a nickel that you'd win that argument.

 

[mgri]

Genesis once bubbled...


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.

Right, the router gets hit with enough direct traffic and the processor goes into hyper drive eventually driving the process utilization over 70% to 80% causing the router to no longer be able to route. How long ago was this? Seems like you could have pointed everything from that block to a null interface and chunked it there or was enough coming from individual host address making this impossible?

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.

That's what I was trying to figure out... how you didn't penalize your own customers by essentially shutting down a peering point.

Right, the router gets hit with enough direct traffic and the processor goes into hyper drive eventually driving the process utilization over 70% to 80% causing the router to no longer be able to route. How long ago was this? Seems like you could have pointed everything from that block to a null interface and chunked it there or was enough coming from individual host address making this impossible?

Did the law enforcement ever address this?

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Genesis once bubbled...
17 USC 412 does not say you can necessarily recover statutory damages in the circumstance where you register after the infringement commences.

It says you are BARRED if you do not meet certain requirements, and I will direct you to the word "OR" in there, which prevents recovery from an infringement on any unpublished work, irrespective of later registration (even within the three month window.)

I assume you remember the BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL separation of powers in the government? You know, the rules you were supposed to learn to pass HIGH SCHOOL?

Let me refresh your memory.

1. The Legislature WRITES laws.
2. The Judiciary INTERPRETS laws.

The law has been INTERPRETED.

In fact, the exact argument you're running here was tried in the cited case, as the infringement extended beyond registration, on the claim that each act was an indivdual offense, and failed on appeal.

The clear legislative intent (in the House notes, which I have read) provides the three month exception SPECIFICALLY for reporting on news items that must be immediately published and other similar circumstances where registration prior to publication was impossible. It was not intended to provide safe haven for people to play "gotcha", and given the case law history, unless you have something more recent than the cited case, I'd bet an attempt to play that game fails on the general principles of equity if nothing else.

You might, however, be able to persuade a judge to award statutory damages if you have (1) a timely registration in the
"grace" window, (2) actual notice to the infringer post registration, and (3) a refusal to deal with it at that point.

That would comport with the intent of the 1990 revision. Using the tardy registration post-infringement as a means of playing "legal gotcha" is clearly outside of the intent of the 1990 revision to the law and I wouldn't bet a nickel that you'd win that argument.

In Mason, the only case you've cited, the Court specifically noted that "The issue in the first motion is whether Plaintiffs' late registrations would bar recovery of statutory damages, if there is an ultimate finding of infringement. Defendants assert that pursuant to sec. 412(2) of the 1976 Act, there is no entitlement to statutory damages as provided in sec. 504(c) for infringements of 233 of the copyrights because registration did not take place until more than three months after their publication." In other words, the plaintiffs missed the three month grace period. The Court held that this was fatal to the claims.

In the present case, the registration would still fall within the grace period for published works. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that statutory damages are available for all infringements when the registration is filed within the three month grace period. Television Digest, Inc. v. U.S. Telephone Ass'n, 841 F.Supp. 5 (D.D.C. 1993).

Do you have anything else you'd like shot down?

 

[JeffG]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...

Do you have anything else you'd like shot down?

<snicker>

 

[Genesis]

pertained to a newsletter which could not be reasonably registered prior to publication.

That clearly falls within the intent of the original House record, as I noted.

You're reaching here guy. Can 'ya find a cite that shows someone using late registration as a "legal gotcha" that has survived?

I already pointed out that the 3 month exception was, according to the House record, placed there SPECIFICALLY to allow registration of works that were "hot news" that would otherwise be non-registrable. Citing a case that clearly falls within the original intent of the change in the law is no surprise.

Now find one where the ONLY reason for the late registration was to play "legal gotcha" with an infringer who (1) was infringing before registration, (2) the work was registered, and (3) was given notice of the registration and either refused or failed to cease and desist.

If you can find that, I'll concede the point. I don't think that case exists.

BTW, "statutory damages" are not necessarily awarded in dramatic amounts, and its not at all unusual to bring suit, demand statutory damages, and get the minimum (which is something like $250 and NO FEES!)

Copyright law is not intended to be used as a "punitive" enforcement measure in virtually all cases; making MONEY from infringement is one case where that can be the case, however. But lifting things on the Internet, where no money is being charged for the access in either the original or lifted case, ain't gonna impress the guy in the black robes behind the bench.

Oh, you have to play in FEDERAL court with a copyright case too. The judges there REALLY don't like to be jacked around and are known to sanction people who play games with them.

I'm off to bed - its been fun.

 

[SeaJay]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...
More like I've decided that it simply isn't worth discussing this issue any further with a copyright thief.

Oh, honey... You hurt me so.

Last I looked, libel was still illegal. Of course, if you were really a lawyer, you'd know that.

Any lawyer in the world would have dumped this conversation long ago and simply filed suit. Why would they sit here for eight pages and argue?

I suspect you're a fraud. (Notice the "I suspect" part, which officially clears me from committing libel.)

Maybe you'll feel "punchier" in the morning.

No comments from the peanut gallery relative to my accusations of the fact that they did EXACTLY what they yelled at someone else for doing? That is... Posting a link? After all, the original point was that THAT was illegal and in violation of copyright laws. Then, later... They do the identical thing.

In fact, they did that with MY website!

Newsflash for everyone... Assuming that it IS illegal to post a link (due to copyright laws), then can it be reasonably assumed that you can post a link, with permission from the copyright owner? And is it not also true that if you want to pursue a copyright suit, then the copyright owner needs to be the one doing the suing?

If that's the case, then there's a huge problem here.

GI3 - the original author of said "copyrighted" material - has not brought suit. Illegal or not, he doesn't care... And so suit isn't going to come of it.

However, in the case of YOUR offense... Guess who the author is?

Me.

I'll let you know in the morning whether or not I feel like filing suit.

Or... You can look at this situation realistically, and realize that it's a pointless exercise that would cost me thousands and with no possibility of recovery. So... Why would I pursue it? Can you not see how the same applies in opposite?

...Or is this just a "it's a wrong thing to do" kind of thing? Last I looked, court was the last place in the world you'd find justice.

...But *sigh* if you insist, I'll do what's right... And sue for copyright infringement and libel.

C'mon, man... Come back down to reality.

 

[Steve_S]

Hello to my new found friend SeaJay

You said:"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."

Are you saying that all those .mp3 files on your server are currently not real files/songs? Please think very carefully before you answer this question.

BTW, I can get you plenty of traffic if you want it but it will require a few changes in your site content, changing to an Apache/Linux solution, and a business plan to monetize this traffic.

I'm loving the other high level geek speak from you network/abuse folks. I had no idea this Community has such versatile divers

BTW, just so others aren't confused, the talk about Sprint is referring to their role as a Tier 1/ Backbone provider which is very very different than a normal US based "host" where the DMCA actions often get immeduate and swift results as per my posts and others.

Think of Sprint as the top of the food chain which provides the necessary freeway for you to reach a given site who uses their line via their host who is position 2 in the food chain. Somewhat simplafied to help you.

 

[RichLockyer]

WJL once bubbled...
I remember a case about 8 or 10 years ago where the owners of one site successfully enjoined another site from linking to their site without permission. If I have time I'll try to find it for you this afternoon.

There was also a more recent case (within the last 3 years) allowing page owners to prohibit "deep linking", or the practice of sites like slashdot and drudge of linking directly to a page other than the home page of a site.
The claim of "damage" was in lost advertising revenue as the link bypassed the banner ads on the home pages.

I don't recall the final resolution of the case, but I see that "deep linking" is still being done.

 

[SeaJay]

Steve_S once bubbled...
Hello to my new found friend SeaJay

It's been a colossal waste of time for both of us, but I've enjoyed the diatribe. I think that you have too. Are we friends now because of my threat? How 'bout we just be friends anyway?

You said:"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."

Are you saying that all those .mp3 files on your server are currently not real files/songs? Please think very carefully before you answer this question.

Yes. That's what I said. Why do you ask? Have you found differently?

BTW, I can get you plenty of traffic if you want it but it will require a few changes in your site content, changing to an Apache/Linux solution, and a business plan to monetize this traffic.

Been there. I made quite a bit of money with revenue-producing sites from 1996 until about 2000. I got out when I saw the market turn south.

I'm loving the other high level geek speak from you network/abuse folks. I had no idea this Community has such versatile divers.

It's great, isn't it? I know the business perspective... And I know a good bit of geek stuff, but these guys are leaving me in the dust.

I'll have to keep their screenames in mind... They could be an excellent resource.

BTW, just so others aren't confused, the talk about Sprint is referring to their role as a Tier 1/ Backbone provider which is very very different than a normal US based "host" where the DMCA actions often get immeduate and swift results as per my posts and others.

Yeah, but with that 512 stuff going on, do you think they'll really react as quickly any more?

BTW... As an ISP, of course I'm redundant. The DSL circuit you speak of is a commercial grade thing, not the residential/business type that you might be familiar with. It was available and very fast, so I took it. There's redundancy anyway, so if for some reason you're successful in raising a stink, my customers won't be SOL.

Think of Sprint as the top of the food chain which provides the necessary freeway for you to reach a given site who uses their line via their host who is position 2 in the food chain. Somewhat simplafied to help you.

Me? Help me? I'm aware of the structure.

So... You think they'll turn it off? What about UUNET? Them too?

Don't forget that Sprint's simply a reseller...