Results 51 to 75 of 162
-
02-05-2012, 03:47 PM #51Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Zhang- Very good point. No host needs to remove anything without a court order. Even if it's a valid takedown request.
However, it doesn't say much about the host that they allow such things to roam free on their network. Not the way a reputable host would handle such situations.
Did you even try googling? I did and the FIRST entry that comes up is a PDF detailing the procedure.
Leaseweb doesn't appear to offer anything like that, just an abuse@leaseweb email.
-
02-05-2012, 04:05 PM #52Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Posts
- 355
Leaseweb are NOT allowing it to "roam free" on their network, YOU ARE, because you INSIST on trying to force them to use a law from a totally different jurisdiction than them.
If you want them to take the file down, stop arguing on here, and use the time to find out how it needs to be formatted for a DUTCH company.
Sorry to burst your bubble but America is not the World Police, Team America was satirical look at how America seems to think of itself, not a documentary.
Have you even googled the term? If you had you would have noticed http://wetransfer.info/ntd/ which even a you might understand.This account is no longer active!
-
02-05-2012, 04:07 PM #53CISSP-ISSMP, CISA
- Join Date
- Aug 2002
- Location
- Seattle
- Posts
- 5,525
Jurisdiction aside, DMCA covers only voluntary compliance. If the host does not wish to comply, you're forced to enforce your copyright through traditional means (eg. courts). Looks like they're calling your bluff.
DMCA is a tool to protect the host.
-
02-05-2012, 04:23 PM #54Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
If you want them to take the file down, stop arguing on here, and use the time to find out how it needs to be formatted for a DUTCH company.
Sorry to burst your bubble but America is not the World Police, Team America was satirical look at how America seems to think of itself, not a documentary.
DMCA or not, they are allowing piracy on their network. If they had any interest in ensuring they aren't home to such activities, they'd of told me my DMCA/proof wasn't valid for them to proceed.
For the record, I am not in the USA, my content was not created or related to the USA in any way. However, DMCA seems to be a straightforward approach to reporting infringement, which is why I went that route.
Jurisdiction aside, DMCA covers only voluntary compliance. If the host does not wish to comply, you're forced to enforce your copyright through traditional means (eg. courts). Looks like they're calling your bluff.
-
02-05-2012, 04:27 PM #55Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Posts
- 355
Err, all I see is you claiming to have done that, so please, if you really have done it show us what you have sent to them.
They did, you even quoted it in your first post.
Where are you then? If you are not in the US, why use a US law?This account is no longer active!
-
02-05-2012, 04:31 PM #56Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Err, all I see is you claiming to have done that, so please, if you really have done it show us what you have sent to them.
They did, you even quoted it in your first post.
Where are you then? If you are not in the US, why use a US law?
-
02-05-2012, 04:40 PM #57Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
- Posts
- 355
So, go find out how to write a NTD, that might get you a little further than sending out a DMCA to a dutch company.
yes, I believe it went something along the lines of:In order to process copyright infringement claims, please ensure you
claim adheres to the Dutch Notice and Takedown Code of Conduct.This account is no longer active!
-
02-05-2012, 04:45 PM #58Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Correct me if I'm wrong, but part the issue at hand is that part of the Dutch law requires proof I tried to contact their customer first.
I did. I supplied that to Leaseweb and did not hear back from them.
-
02-05-2012, 05:03 PM #59Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,018
I'm actually very interested in some of the legal ramifications this has based on the recent events with Megauploads. Please understand that these are genuine questions that I'm interested in getting answers for and I am in no way bashing anyone in this thread, so please go easy.
Now I understand that the DMCA is designed to protect the host/isp from copyright liability so long as they "respond within a reasonable amount of time", block access to the infringing material and receive a valid claim from the copyright holder. So my first question is, if LeaseWeb received what would be considered a valid DMCA take-down notice, they're now aware of the infringing work on their network and have failed to act in blocking access to the copyrighted works, does this make them liable for prosecution in the United States of America if a "Hollywood" movie company wished to pursue such action to remove their copyrighted movie from LeaseWebs network and claim damages?
The main reason I ask this question is due to the recent action taken against the owner of Megauploads. Being based in New Zealand, the owner wasn't subject to the DMCA and thus didn't have to comply with a take-down notice, but yet, he's now arrested and facing extradition the US. Now I don't know the exact details of this case, but my understanding was that the servers hosting the copyrighted content wasn't hosted in the US either. Is there a specific fact about the Megauploads case that is different to LeaseWebs refusal to remove copyrighted works?
Now my last question, why would any host, not just LeaseWeb, refuse to remove copyrighted material from their network no matter how they're notified of it? Even if I just sent a quick email "Hi LeaseWeb, you've got the movie "Insert Hollywood Movie Name Here" hosted on this IP which is on your network, just wanted you to know", why would they ignore it? Surely they don't sit their and go, "yeah we're hosting someones handwork and letting people download it for free, but since we have not been told correctly, we don't care"?? I would have thought that it's these type of attitudes that bring about laws like SOPA and PIPA, which are very much supported by the large Hollywood movie companies because they help to protect their copyrighted work. FYI, I know they don't have to legally do anything, but my question is more focused on the "why wouldn't they".
Sorry for the long wall of text guys, anyone with some time to read and answer these, I'd very much appreciate it.
-
02-05-2012, 05:05 PM #60Now renamed!
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Vaduz/LI
- Posts
- 2,778
but my understanding was that the servers hosting the copyrighted content wasn't hosted in the US either.
In Virginia to be specific.
This is what broke Kim Dotcom's neck.
Surely they don't sit their and go, "yeah we're hosting someones handwork and letting people download it for free, but since we have not been told correctly, we don't care"??
Because the customer pays them.
-
02-05-2012, 05:06 PM #61Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Posts
- 1,018
Last edited by TimothyH; 02-05-2012 at 05:09 PM.
-
02-05-2012, 05:37 PM #62Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 1,141
DMCA is not a blanket protection. It only provides protection under the condition that they 1. remove when requested, 2. are not intentionally breaking copyright or knowingly breaking copyright. Hosts have NO BUSINESS looking into what their users are doing. This is an invasion of privacy. So, naturally, #2 is hopefully never an issue. and #1, they do remove.
However, Leaseweb is not american, DMCA is a US specific law. However, their virginia servers are in the USA, thus should follow DMCA in that specific location.
The main reason I ask this question is due to the recent action taken against the owner of Megauploads. Being based in New Zealand, the owner wasn't subject to the DMCA and thus didn't have to comply with a take-down notice, but yet, he's now arrested and facing extradition the US. Now I don't know the exact details of this case, but my understanding was that the servers hosting the copyrighted content wasn't hosted in the US either. Is there a specific fact about the Megauploads case that is different to LeaseWebs refusal to remove copyrighted works?
But charges laid out against megaupload claimed that because megaupload failed #2, dmca does not cover them. The snooping records on megauploads (courtesy of acta) show megaupload owners using megaupload for piracy. Though, this only actually means the owners were pirates, not the service was piracy. Regardless, they have power, they can do w/e **** they want. Real reason why they wanted to shut down megaupload? I say it's because they were rolling out a program where artists get 90% of the profit instead of the traditional 1%. Which dumbass artist would want to stick around for 1%? lol They already had quite a few lined up -- none of which will happen now. Protection of the survival of your obsolete business model >> piracy.
Now my last question, why would any host, not just LeaseWeb, refuse to remove copyrighted material from their network no matter how they're notified of it? Even if I just sent a quick email "Hi LeaseWeb, you've got the movie "Insert Hollywood Movie Name Here" hosted on this IP which is on your network, just wanted you to know", why would they ignore it? Surely they don't sit their and go, "yeah we're hosting someones handwork and letting people download it for free, but since we have not been told correctly, we don't care"?? I would have thought that it's these type of attitudes that bring about laws like SOPA and PIPA, which are very much supported by the large Hollywood movie companies because they help to protect their copyrighted work. FYI, I know they don't have to legally do anything, but my question is more focused on the "why wouldn't they".
Sorry for the long wall of text guys, anyone with some time to read and answer these, I'd very much appreciate it.
So would you say that this type of attitude is somewhat behind the creation of laws like SOPA and PIPA? Which is why copyright holders like Universal support these laws.
And... I have ranted too much.
-
02-05-2012, 08:06 PM #63renegade
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,044
So you didn't own the copyright to the content? Or you owned all of it? It's the job of the copyright holder to file a complaint, not a third party, and the host is not liable to make the research to determine infringement (although they could be under these new laws the US is trying to pass), but for now the host must only respond to individual specific files. They don't have the time nor the legal precedence to just get handed a link to a main site, also as LW posted about earlier.
-
02-05-2012, 08:08 PM #64
Nice swipe but no cigar. We only have your word for it that there's actually anything "not right" hosted on a server at LeaseWeb, so cut the defamation campaign - It just looks like you're trying to use this thread to blackmail them into rolling over at your say-so. Fortunately LeaseWeb IS a reputable host and don't fall for games like yours.
Have you sent them valid documentation yet?
-
02-05-2012, 08:10 PM #65Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
Considering someone manually went through it and verified on our end all our client's.
Oh really? I don't know a single copyright holder who doesn't outsource Anti-Piracy. Ever heard of Irdeto, Web Sheriff, etc? Accordingly to your mindset this is wrong.
Feel free to defend LeaseWeb. If you can understand Dutch this may change your attitude.
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/01/20/...an-megaupload/
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/109260/me...leaseweb-.htmlLast edited by GCM; 02-05-2012 at 08:21 PM.
-
02-05-2012, 09:05 PM #66Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
I'm not posting links to the content, but Leaseweb is aware of them.
so cut the defamation campaign - It just looks like you're trying to use this thread to blackmail them into rolling over at your say-so.
Since I've given Leaseweb the evidence I've tried to reach out to their customer, they don't respond.
Fortunately LeaseWeb IS a reputable host and don't fall for games like yours.
Have you sent them valid documentation yet?
Has anybody read the links GCM posted? Someone relative to the situation at hand.
-
02-05-2012, 09:39 PM #67Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
-
02-05-2012, 09:39 PM #68Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Posts
- 61
@OP Besides making yourself look foolish all you're doing is advertising leaseweb, In fact there's a lot of people that do want to host copyrighted material or at least want to reduce their time dealing with DMCA's from the states. Your intended sarcasm is actually coming across as a solid endorsement
Get in touch with the abuse department at leaseweb directly. No one on this forum is going to change how leaseweb handles your single DMCA request and certainly not going to change the overall landscape of how copyrighted material is handled between countries. Who do you think you are to start demanding what leaseweb has to provide you in order to comply with law? You're a lawyer and part time forum troll?. Get a reality check, stay in school.
-
02-05-2012, 09:50 PM #69Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Pillar, did you at all read the thread?
-
02-05-2012, 09:59 PM #70Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
-
02-05-2012, 10:11 PM #71Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
Then you'll have understood that Leaseweb has rented 630 dedicated servers to and colocated 60 servers for Megaupload, earning at least 9 million dollars between March 2007 and July 2010, according to the the FBI. Meanwhile, according to De Joode, Leaseweb has received no abuse complaints at all.
How is this supposed to change the attitude of people who, allegedly, defend Leaseweb? And how is it related to this topic?
-
02-05-2012, 10:12 PM #72Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
-
02-05-2012, 10:15 PM #73Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
GCM, I am wondering what constitutes as a "complaint" to Leaseweb.
Clearly, offering evidence to support an infringement claim is not a serious issue to them. Maybe that's what they meant regarding 'no complaints' about Megaupload.
-
02-05-2012, 10:19 PM #74Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
-
02-05-2012, 10:21 PM #75Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Safe harbor for piraters? Seems relatively cut & dry to me.
Similar Threads
-
DMCA complaint, Hostso.com account suspended
By themarper in forum Web HostingReplies: 39Last Post: 04-13-2010, 04:03 PM -
Is this a legitimate DMCA complaint?
By Victor Lugo in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 3Last Post: 06-11-2009, 06:25 PM -
DMCA Complaint on a Customer
By xxkylexx in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 7Last Post: 11-23-2006, 12:50 PM -
Hosting Provider not responding to DMCA
By Floris in forum Web HostingReplies: 6Last Post: 07-15-2006, 06:55 PM