Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with OpenID
Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

In this Discussion

Was DMCA ignore hosts allowed here?
New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

Was DMCA ignore hosts allowed here?

omelasomelas Member

I thought it didn't allowed when I first read the rules. Was it changed recently?

«1

Comments

  • pikepike Member

    DMCA ignored is just a marketing term. Any sane host will kick you on the first valid abusemail, be it copyright related or not.

    Thanked by 1DewlanceVPS
  • CrandolphCrandolph Member
    edited March 12

    No host is really DMCA ignored. Specifically the ones that advertise it.

    It's more or rather shunned upon for the general stupidity of it.

  • You could call every non-US based providers DMCA ingnored since most of them don't care and they don't have to

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    We happily ignore DMCA take down requests... Just so long as the reports are bogus. There are no safe harbor for copy right infringement

  • EwokEwok Member
    edited March 13

    There are no safe harbor for copy right infringement

    Rather bold statement considering there is at least 2 well established providers on here who'll ignore DMCAs

  • randvegeta said: We happily ignore DMCA takedown requests... Just so long as the reports are bogus. There are no safe harbor for copyright infringement

    How will you divide copyright and non-copyright content? Just interesting. I know some company which just trolling and sending over 100k reports already to all inside specialized market of some product. They do not even HAVE any rights, they just a company which is hired to take down all market and take monopoly over the product. And what do you think? Around 80% or more companies WITHOUT ANY EXTRA STEPS just taking down hosts. No one even care is request legit or not, they just turning off the server with content and banning their customers.

    So, my question is next: - How providers divide legal requests from non-legal? Can you show any legal request (with hidden names of course) and nonlegal one? What is a difference?

    Because in my experience, and experience of all people who I know in my small hobby project, that everyone had the same problem like I'm facing, and only really big companies have very well tuned plan how to work with these fake / real requests.

    Thanked by 2ricardo mksh
  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited March 13

    ^ Fact. I suppose only a moderator/admin can clarify the forum's position. AFAIK they aren't keen on a hosting provider using it as a selling point.

    Thanked by 1omelas
  • AidanAidan Member

    desperand said: 100k reports

    If I received 100K reports, I'd label it as abuse & request the reports to be consolidated.

    desperand said: How providers divide legal requests from non-legal?

    That's really not up to the provider to decide, bias here will lose them their safe harbour status - though smaller hosts might have their own policies.


    If you receive a false DMCA takedown notice, then lodge a counter-notice stating that the takedown request is invalid - the issue will be resolved 99.9% of the time.

    (The above-mentioned was written assuming you're in the clear. If you're actually infringing someone's copyright then filing a counter-notice will have you up shit creek without a paddle.)

  • There are few hosts here that completely ignore DMCA but not the european copyright equiviliment.

  • ZenZen Member

    stefeman said: There are few hosts here that completely ignore DMCA but not the european copyright equiviliment.

    Here's the issue, the European directive outlines that your limited liability as a host is only valid if you are unaware of the content - additionally you must take action as swiftly as possible when you are made aware of the content. While the DMCA holds no valid jurisdiction in the EU, receiving one could technically be considered notification of illegal content, in which case you are now aware and are just as liable as you would be via DMCA.

    curl -L range.website

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • ITT: ignoring DMCA != ignoring infringement

    Thanked by 1randvegeta
  • teamaccteamacc Moderator
    edited March 13

    @Aidan said:

    desperand said: 100k reports

    If I received 100K reports, I'd label it as abuse & request the reports to be consolidated.

    In their defense, they're probably sending it to [email protected]

    Yo mama so fat each of her butt-cheeks has its own /8.

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • deankdeank Member

    If I received 100k reports, I'd be PMSing over the client.

    A proud member of LET apocalypse cult.

    The customer is usually wrong.

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    Ewok said: Rather bold statement considering there is at least 2 well established providers on here who'll ignore DMCAs

    Upstreams drop traffic if your servers are actually hosting copyright content. I cannot think of a single host that actually allows the hosting of actual copyright material.

    Linking and other stuff is different because that may not be explicitly illegal in some countries. Obviously I'm talking about blatant hosting of copyright material with no means of removal. File hosts are the closest thing, but they do actually tend to remove content on demand.

    desperand said: How will you divide copyright and non-copyright content? Just interesting.

    The number of bogus reports we get is really quite surprising. Basically a 3rd party company sends us a DMCA or similar take down request, but then they provide 0 proof of infringement, let alone that they have the rights to the content they claim is being infringed.

    Many of the requests are automated and we basically now ignore automated requests since it's almost always non-sense. The most common nuisance take down requests basically provide the domain of a website that is allegedly infringing someones copyright. But the reporter does NOT:

    a.) Provide a direct link to the location of the material for us to actually verify.
    b.) State the IP of the server for which the infringement is allegedgly taking place.
    c.) Provide any kind of instruction to reproduce or verify the infringement.

    In 90% of cases, the websites are behind CloudFlare and so we do not know which IP they are referring to. And when we actively tried to follow up with the requests, most of the sites actually were not actually hosting any copyright material at all. In most cases, it would be something like a screenshot, or posters or a link to youtube or something, so all the media was hosted off-server any way.

    The reporters seem to think that the hosts should do the investigation for them, when they can't even be bothered to actually do any themselves. So now all automated reports get ignored entirely, and we insist on having all the evidence provided to us before we take action. If the client is indeed violating some laws of any kind (in HK), then we take action right away. But if the reporter doesn't do everything they can to make our lives easier to verify their claims, then they basically just cant be bothered. And if they cant be bothered, why should we?

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @iwaswrongonce said: ITT: ignoring DMCA != ignoring infringement

    Totally. Technically any non USA based host can 100% ignore DMCA take down requests. But the term DMCA is now synonymous with Copyright Infringement notification, which most hosts cannot ignore. I mean, they can technically ignore it, but most treat it the same as their local equivalent.

    DMCA is more ambiguous than some country's copyright laws.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 13

    @randvegeta said:

    @iwaswrongonce said: ITT: ignoring DMCA != ignoring infringement

    Totally. Technically any non USA based host can 100% ignore DMCA take down requests. But the term DMCA is now synonymous with Copyright Infringement notification, which most hosts cannot ignore. I mean, they can technically ignore it, but most treat it the same as their local equivalent.

    DMCA is more ambiguous than some country's copyright laws.

    Are you sure ? I’d argue that the DMCA takedown request is a notification under EU copyright directives. This in turn prevents your defence as a hosting provider that you didn’t knew what the contents were as you’ve now been informed. If you don’t take action to prevent the copyright violation you can be sued along your Client as being complicit.

    Whether said notification is called ‘DMCA takedown’ or ‘To Whom It May Concern’ doesn’t really matter.

    Do read the actual law.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

    Thanked by 1Aidan
  • williewillie Member, Moderator

    ricardo said:

    ^ Fact. I suppose only a moderator/admin can clarify the forum's position. AFAIK they aren't keen on a hosting provider using it as a selling point.

    That was basically Jarland's approach when he was adminning the site. I.e. he he didn't care what people were doing as long as they weren't blatant about it. That seemed fine to me.

    If we -really- want to cleanse the forum of eeeeevil pirates the first thing to do is ban all the storage server providers, since we all know what LET members fill those servers with. Heh.

  • ricardoricardo Member

    willie said: If we -really- want to cleanse the forum of eeeeevil pirates the first thing to do is ban all the storage server providers, since we all know what LET members fill those servers with. Heh.

    Yes, I think he liked a bit of don't ask, don't tell.

  • desperand said: So, my question is next: - How providers divide legal requests from non-legal? Can you show any legal request (with hidden names of course) and nonlegal one? What is a difference?

    Pay more for a provider than under $7/mo

    Why are we still allowing bypassing AUP/TOS (Netflix) requests? We're one thread pull away from being HF.

  • deankdeank Member

    I think 7/mo is a lot for LET lowbies nowadays. It's 1/year.

    A proud member of LET apocalypse cult.

    The customer is usually wrong.

    Thanked by 3mksh lazyt willie
  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said:

    @randvegeta said:

    @iwaswrongonce said: ITT: ignoring DMCA != ignoring infringement

    Totally. Technically any non USA based host can 100% ignore DMCA take down requests. But the term DMCA is now synonymous with Copyright Infringement notification, which most hosts cannot ignore. I mean, they can technically ignore it, but most treat it the same as their local equivalent.

    DMCA is more ambiguous than some country's copyright laws.

    Are you sure ? I’d argue that the DMCA takedown request is a notification under EU copyright directives. This in turn prevents your defence as a hosting provider that you didn’t knew what the contents were as you’ve now been informed. If you don’t take action to prevent the copyright violation you can be sued along your Client as being complicit.

    Whether said notification is called ‘DMCA takedown’ or ‘To Whom It May Concern’ doesn’t really matter.

    Do read the actual law.

    Yes I'm sure. Again, if you read what I said, most hosts may simply treat it as the same as the equivalent laws in their own countries. But DMCA is specific to the US. The specifics laws of each country prevails as US law is not world law.

    Being informed of copyright infringement is not the same as being informed of a crime if you don't know the alleged act is a crime. You're not responsible for the actions of others and have no obligation to act unless you know a crime is being committed. A DMCA notice does not specify which laws have been violated or what responsibilities and liabilities the host has. Of course if it's blatant copyright infringement then it's generally expected that everyone knows what that means so people treat DMCA the same in most cases. But what about for nuanced cases? It's not obvious and so we must look at local laws, not just DMCA.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 13

    I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Please re-read what I posted and try to understand that the headline of the document doesn’t matter. The contents do and they are very much sufficient to make you culpable under EU directives.

    Or keep ignoring it. One can always learn the hard way at the expense of their Customers.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

    Thanked by 1Zen
  • ZenZen Member
    edited March 13

    randvegeta said: Yes I'm sure. Again, if you read what I said, most hosts may simply treat it as the same as the equivalent laws in their own countries. But DMCA is specific to the US. The specifics laws of each country prevails as US law is not world law.

    Being informed of copyright infringement is not the same as being informed of a crime if you don't know the alleged act is a crime. You're not responsible for the actions of others and have no obligation to act unless you know a crime is being committed. A DMCA notice does not specify which laws have been violated or what responsibilities and liabilities the host has. Of course if it's blatant copyright infringement then it's generally expected that everyone knows what that means so people treat DMCA the same in most cases. But what about for nuanced cases? It's not obvious and so we must look at local laws, not just DMCA.

    Yeah you are wrong. EU limited liability is only valid under the assumption that the host does not know about the illegal content.

    curl -L range.website

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • omelasomelas Member

    @Clouvider said: I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Please re-read what I posted and try to understand that the headline of the document doesn’t matter. The contents do and they are very much sufficient to make you culpable under EU directives.

    Or keep ignoring it. One can always learn the hard way at the expense of their Customers.

    he's in Hong Kong(asia) not in EU, maybe law works differently there.

  • williewillie Member, Moderator

    Clouvider said: One can always learn the hard way at the expense of their Customers.

    Can you name any LET host who has had significant legal problems over anything like this? I get the impression that some have been booted from their upstreams, but that's more at the level of "oh well, it was nice while it lasted". Many things in life are that way and people are used to it. Yes Kim Dotcom got in trouble, but he was massively taunting the system rather than quietly minding his knitting like most LET hosts try to do.

    I do know that Scihub continues to operate despite years of court cases, injunctions, etc. I don't know what will eventually happen with it, but I think it shows there are no foregone conclusions.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 13

    @omelas said:

    @Clouvider said: I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Please re-read what I posted and try to understand that the headline of the document doesn’t matter. The contents do and they are very much sufficient to make you culpable under EU directives.

    Or keep ignoring it. One can always learn the hard way at the expense of their Customers.

    he's in Hong Kong(asia) not in EU, maybe law works differently there.

    He has a DC in Lithuania IIRC and that's in the EU.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • Selectel.ru

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    willie said: Can you name any LET host who has had significant legal problems over anything like this?

    I don't care.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • omelasomelas Member
    edited March 13

    @Clouvider said: He has a DC in Lithuania IIRC and that's in the EU.

    @randvegeta said: DMCA is more ambiguous than some(bolded my me) country's copyright laws.

    Well, he said some contury, so it doesn't need to be EU one. if you can ignore DMCA in HK (or any other place, like Russia) then his statement is true.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said: I don’t think you understand what you’re talking about. Please re-read what I posted and try to understand that the headline of the document doesn’t matter. The contents do and they are very much sufficient to make you culpable under EU directives.

    Or keep ignoring it. One can always learn the hard way at the expense of their Customers.

    You seriously have a reading problem. Or one with English. Probably both. Very unprofessional.

    Protocol matters. Communication matters. As I said, if the host is made aware of a violation of applicable laws, they must take action. Otherwise they don't. If I send you a take down report in Chinese, that doesn't count as a report. Not everyone speaks or understands the same language. You are a clear example of reading and understanding only what you want to.

  • deankdeank Member
    edited March 13

    I long for the space age where future LET jackasses will talk about Earthian, Martian, and Venusian laws...

    A proud member of LET apocalypse cult.

    The customer is usually wrong.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said:

    willie said: Can you name any LET host who has had significant legal problems over anything like this?

    I don't care.

    You don't care about law or jurisdiction. That much is obvious.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Zen said:

    randvegeta said: Yes I'm sure. Again, if you read what I said, most hosts may simply treat it as the same as the equivalent laws in their own countries. But DMCA is specific to the US. The specifics laws of each country prevails as US law is not world law.

    Being informed of copyright infringement is not the same as being informed of a crime if you don't know the alleged act is a crime. You're not responsible for the actions of others and have no obligation to act unless you know a crime is being committed. A DMCA notice does not specify which laws have been violated or what responsibilities and liabilities the host has. Of course if it's blatant copyright infringement then it's generally expected that everyone knows what that means so people treat DMCA the same in most cases. But what about for nuanced cases? It's not obvious and so we must look at local laws, not just DMCA.

    Yeah you are wrong. EU limited liability is only valid under the assumption that the host does not know about the illegal content.

    That's exactly what I said. So I'm not wrong

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    randvegeta said: You don't care about law or jurisdiction. That much is obvious.

    lol, completely opposite mate, as per my posts above. I'd suggest you seriously take a step back and think before hitting 'Post Comment'. That would go a long way.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 13

    randvegeta said: That's exactly what I said. So I'm not wrong

    No, you did not say that, you said opposite and now you're backtracking perhaps you

    randvegeta said: seriously have a reading problem. Or one with English. Probably both. Very unprofessional.

    Here is what you said in response to this very point:

    Clouvider said: Are you sure ? I’d argue that the DMCA takedown request is a notification under EU copyright directives. This in turn prevents your defence as a hosting provider that you didn’t knew what the contents were as you’ve now been informed. If you don’t take action to prevent the copyright violation you can be sued along your Client as being complicit.

    Whether said notification is called ‘DMCA takedown’ or ‘To Whom It May Concern’ doesn’t really matter.

    randvegeta said Yes I'm sure. Again, if you read what I said, most hosts may simply treat it as the same as the equivalent laws in their own countries. But DMCA is specific to the US. The specifics laws of each country prevails as US law is not world law.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • FlamesRunnerFlamesRunner Member
    edited March 13

    @willie said:

    ricardo said:

    ^ Fact. I suppose only a moderator/admin can clarify the forum's position. AFAIK they aren't keen on a hosting provider using it as a selling point.

    That was basically Jarland's approach when he was adminning the site. I.e. he he didn't care what people were doing as long as they weren't blatant about it. That seemed fine to me.

    If we -really- want to cleanse the forum of eeeeevil pirates the first thing to do is ban all the storage server providers, since we all know what LET members fill those servers with. Heh.

    I only store backups on my storage VPS servers -- I have a nice storage box at home for anything else.

    Many don't host illegal content on their storage servers. Even if they do, so long as they don't expose it publicly, I don't see how it could be taken down in the first place if the evidence cannot be obtained.

  • EwokEwok Member

    Upstreams drop traffic if your servers are actually hosting copyright content. I cannot think of a single host that actually allows the hosting of actual copyright material.

    How are they going to know if DMCAs are ignored? The two hosts in question on here send DMCAs to /dev/null

    Hell one of the two even says you can host such content.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    Clouvider said: lol, completely opposite mate, as per my posts above. I'd suggest you seriously take a step back and think before hitting 'Post Comment'. That would go a long way.

    It's like speaking with a lemon. Seriously, you either have some real difficulties understanding English or you're trolling. Either way, it's not good.

    Clouvider said: No, you did not say that

    randvegeta said: Being informed of copyright infringement is not the same as being informed of a crime if you don't know the alleged act is a crime. You're not responsible for the actions of others and have no obligation to act unless you know a crime is being committed.

    It's actually exactly what I said. The host needs to know about the infringing content. DMCA's scope is ambiguous, more so than in the EU or HK. Not everything covered under DMCA is considered illegal in the EU or HK, and it is not obvious what is not always obvious what is and is not illegal.

    Of course if you are made aware of blatant copyright infringement, where it is expected and reasonable for everyone to know that the alleged act is illegal, then the host must take action or indeed lose their limited liability. I have already said as much, and never denied it.

    But even if the alleged act is blatant copyright infringement, a DMCA take down notice may, in some cases, not actually constitute as being informed. Not everyone speaks English (you apparently struggle a lot with it) and the notice may not communicate the message adequately to the host. As I said, if I send you a notice of copyright infringement in Chinese, you would probably delete the E-Mail thinking it is spam, and you may have every right to discount it.

    There are no specific EU rules for take down request / copyright infringement notifications. The mere sending of a DMCA take down request is not the same thing as reporting copyright infringement under EU law. I don't think this is that difficult a concept to understand.

    To be perfectly clear, I agree that if a host in the EU is made aware of copy right infringement (as defined under EU / International law) then of course the host has an obligation to act, or lose the their limited liability privileges.

    In some cases, a DMCA Take Down Request can serve the function of notifying the host of Copyright infringement, but in many cases that's not what happens. And there are reasonable exceptions as to why a DMCA notification may not constitute as actually notifying the host of any infringement.

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    Here is an example of why a DMCA Copyright Infringement notification is not the same thing as being notified of copyright infringement. It is generally accepted that in the US, linking to copyright material is not really allowed, and the procedures to remove links from websites uses the same process. But in HK, linking is definitely not considered copyright infringement. But DMCA notice will be the same either way. So receiving a DMCA notification is not the same thing as being notified as a crime.

  • @randvegeta said: Here is an example of why a DMCA Copyright Infringement notification is not the same thing as being notified of copyright infringement. It is generally accepted that in the US, linking to copyright material is not really allowed, and the procedures to remove links from websites uses the same process. But in HK, linking is definitely not considered copyright infringement. But DMCA notice will be the same either way. So receiving a DMCA notification is not the same thing as being notified as a crime.

    This is pretty much the opposite of what courts have found. Linking has been found multiple times in the US to not be indirect infringement, whereas in the EU the opposite has been found.

  • MikePTMikePT Member, Provider
    edited March 14

    @randvegeta said:

    Clouvider said: lol, completely opposite mate, as per my posts above. I'd suggest you seriously take a step back and think before hitting 'Post Comment'. That would go a long way.

    It's like speaking with a lemon. Seriously, you either have some real difficulties understanding English or you're trolling. Either way, it's not good.

    Clouvider said: No, you did not say that

    randvegeta said: Being informed of copyright infringement is not the same as being informed of a crime if you don't know the alleged act is a crime. You're not responsible for the actions of others and have no obligation to act unless you know a crime is being committed.

    It's actually exactly what I said. The host needs to know about the infringing content. DMCA's scope is ambiguous, more so than in the EU or HK. Not everything covered under DMCA is considered illegal in the EU or HK, and it is not obvious what is not always obvious what is and is not illegal.

    Of course if you are made aware of blatant copyright infringement, where it is expected and reasonable for everyone to know that the alleged act is illegal, then the host must take action or indeed lose their limited liability. I have already said as much, and never denied it.

    But even if the alleged act is blatant copyright infringement, a DMCA take down notice may, in some cases, not actually constitute as being informed. Not everyone speaks English (you apparently struggle a lot with it) and the notice may not communicate the message adequately to the host. As I said, if I send you a notice of copyright infringement in Chinese, you would probably delete the E-Mail thinking it is spam, and you may have every right to discount it.

    There are no specific EU rules for take down request / copyright infringement notifications. The mere sending of a DMCA take down request is not the same thing as reporting copyright infringement under EU law. I don't think this is that difficult a concept to understand.

    To be perfectly clear, I agree that if a host in the EU is made aware of copy right infringement (as defined under EU / International law) then of course the host has an obligation to act, or lose the their limited liability privileges.

    In some cases, a DMCA Take Down Request can serve the function of notifying the host of Copyright infringement, but in many cases that's not what happens. And there are reasonable exceptions as to why a DMCA notification may not constitute as actually notifying the host of any infringement.

    Wrong. EUCD does apply even if its sent as DMCA. You cannot just ignore law because the lawyer labeled it as a DMCA report. Refer to http://www.fipr.org/copyright/guide/eucd-guide.pdf And I must say that, while EU is generally flexible about torrents for example, the rest can be disputed and a good lawyer can cause you serious harm especially if the upstream is involved. Upstreams usually do not bother with small fishes that would end up costing them more with lawyers than the client is worth. Plus, do not forget their ToS where they basically forbid any illegal activity. Again, transit clients are heroes until the upstream disconnects them.

    MXroute.io - SMTP Relay Service, powered by MailChannels, fully automated, LET plans

    MXroute.com - Email Hosting, powered by MailChannels

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • SetsuraSetsura Member
    edited March 14

    @Clouvider said: Are you sure ? I’d argue that the DMCA takedown request is a notification under EU copyright directives. This in turn prevents your defence as a hosting provider that you didn’t knew what the contents were as you’ve now been informed. If you don’t take action to prevent the copyright violation you can be sued along your Client as being complicit.

    @Zen said: Yeah you are wrong. EU limited liability is only valid under the assumption that the host does not know about the illegal content.

    Disclaimer: Not here to argue for copyright infringement

    I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say, I don't think anyone in this thread(myself included) is a legal professional. That said, is it unreasonable that a host not take any action if they aren't a trained legal professional or employ one? If they don't actually know whether a complain is valid, or if some content is really infringing, is it actually reasonable for them to just comply blindly? Could you not put yourself in a bad position for wrongly taking down something that was in fact not violating? @randvegeta above said Of course if it's blatant copyright infringement then it's generally expected that everyone knows what that means but is it really so obvious?

    I'd like to present my situation many years ago where I was assisting in running a video game review blog which received many a takedown notice over what was pretty clearly fair use screenshots for reviewing purposes, something which was fairly well established to fall into fair use. I can count about 6 hosts who bent over on the very first notice seemingly without any understanding what-so-ever of whether or not the content really was infringing, and decided to kick first ask never. I eventually ended up having to help move that site over to some "bullet proof" type host just to get away from the ever trolling DMCA bots that patrol google for keywords not even bothering to involve a human to verify if something was infringing, and even if they did involve a human said person was likely not a trained legal professional who could actually say for certain something was infringing. DMCA(EUCD/etc) are "notices of infringement", but they certainly aren't sent by attorneys or anyone who can well and truly make an informed legal decision, I'd like to think it isn't too unreasonable to wait for a real court notice to take any potentially harmful actions. If this puts your position as a host in jeopardy, I can understand why you'd rather just flip than try to stick up for a client, it is a fairly unfortunate position to be put in that you could be held liable over something you may not be in a position to understand legally, especially if you have no on-staff legal professional.

    Will shill for Pop-Tarts(must be strawberry flavour).

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 14

    So @randvegeta when has no more arguments goes in a loop and then personal. Disgusting and unprofessional. I’m out, discussing with you is like talking to a an early days eassistant capable only Of repeating itself with an added mix of insults. No point to waste my precious time on you.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said: So @randvegeta when has no more arguments goes in a loop and then personal. Disgusting and unprofessional. I’m out, discussing with you is like talking to a an early days eassistant capable only Of repeating itself with an added mix of insults. No point to waste my precious time on you.

    You're literally not reading anything being said. You form your own opinions and ignore anything said that doesn't fit your own narrative.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    randvegeta said: You're literally not reading anything being said

    Well, I think, and I believe quite a few people that explicitly told you that what you say is wrong would agree with me, that it's actually you who is not reading anything being written here, not me.

    Anyway, good luck ;-). I'm out.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said:

    randvegeta said: You're literally not reading anything being said

    Well, I think, and I believe quite a few people that explicitly told you that what you say is wrong would agree with me, that it's actually you who is not reading anything being written here, not me.

    Anyway, good luck ;-). I'm out.

    Actually you will find no one agreed with you at all. You just kept repeating yourself that EU law is absolute and HK laws (or any other laws) are irrelevant. Bloody disgusting and fascist attitude if you ask me.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider

    Just stop tagging me already.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

  • randvegetarandvegeta Member, Provider

    @Clouvider said: Just stop tagging me already.

    Stop trolling me. And have some respect for the laws and languages of other countries an cultures.

    You may think that DMCA is world law, and English must be spoken by all, but advocating oppression is just wrong. Violence is never the answer.

  • @randvegeta said:

    @Clouvider said: Just stop tagging me already.

    Stop trolling me. And have some respect for the laws and languages of other countries an cultures.

    You may think that DMCA is world law, and English must be spoken by all, but advocating oppression is just wrong. Violence is never the answer.

    Where the fuck did violence get threatened? Regardless of what two hosts do here it's better to verify the legitimacy of such complaints and forward them to clients even if not a legal requirement in your specific jurisdiction. You'll just attract the wrong crowd otherwise...

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Provider
    edited March 14

    Sorry for the words, but what what the fuck are you talking about ?

    Violence ?

    Are you all right ?

    Grow up.

    Again think before posting comments, you’re making a clown out of yourself now mate.

    Clouvider Leading UK Cloud Hosting solution provider || UK Dedicated Servers Sale || Tasty KVM Slices || Latest LET Offer

    Web hosting in Cloud | SSD & SAS True Cloud VPS on OnApp | Private Cloud | Dedicated Servers | Colocation | Managed Services

This discussion has been closed.