nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP-Echelon Compliance
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 05:43:52 -0400
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:19:00AM -0700, George Herbert wrote:
These guys are in violation of CAN-SPAM.
They're also in violation of the DMCA itself. 17 USC 512 includes this requirement for those filing DMCA notifications: (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 for full text.) It's obvious from the comments in this thread there are no attempts whatsoever to ensure that the information in these notifications is accurate, that they're sending these notifications to operations under the jurisdiction of US law, and that they're sending them to the relevant/correct operations. ---rsk
Current thread:
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance, (continued)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Jason Hellenthal (Oct 13)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Stephen Satchell (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Randy Bush (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Matthias Leisi (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance George Herbert (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Mike Hammett (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Rich Kulawiec (Oct 15)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Andrew Kirch (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 14)
- Re: IP-Echelon Compliance Eric Kuhnke (Oct 13)
- RE: IP-Echelon Compliance Tony Wicks (Oct 13)
- RE: IP-Echelon Compliance Christopher Morrow (Oct 13)