Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 162
  1. #51
    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.
    Is it the same pdf I linked? If so, it's full of legal jargon; I'm not a lawyer. Other hosts link to an outline of what they expect regarding removal of copyrighted material, in their T&C pages. Again, how is them supplying a link any more difficult than me googling?

    Leaseweb doesn't appear to offer anything like that, just an abuse@leaseweb email.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Is it the same pdf I linked? If so, it's full of legal jargon; I'm not a lawyer. Other hosts link to an outline of what they expect regarding removal of copyrighted material, in their T&C pages. Again, how is them supplying a link any more difficult than me googling?
    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    This account is no longer active!

  3. #53
    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.

  4. #54
    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.
    If you read the entire thread, you'd see I did that.

    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.
    Again with this?
    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.
    You may be right.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    If you read the entire thread, you'd see I did that.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Again with this?
    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.
    They did, you even quoted it in your first post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    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.
    Where are you then? If you are not in the US, why use a US law?
    This account is no longer active!

  6. #56
    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.
    Show you a copy of the emails I've sent to Leaseweb's customer, then later Leaseweb? What would the point of that be. I've already stated numerous times they're DMCAs.

    They did, you even quoted it in your first post.
    Oh? And in the only post Leaseweb's done in this topic, they didn't know who I was. I never posted a ticket number to them until after they PM'd me.

    Where are you then? If you are not in the US, why use a US law?
    Canada. What else do you suggest I send to hosts who are housing pirated content? A hand-written email asking them nicely to take it down? Would I have gotten any farther doing that, instead?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Show you a copy of the emails I've sent to Leaseweb's customer, then later Leaseweb? What would the point of that be. I've already stated numerous times they're DMCAs.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Oh? And in the only post Leaseweb's done in this topic, they didn't know who I was. I never posted a ticket number to them until after they PM'd me.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Canada. What else do you suggest I send to hosts who are housing pirated content? A hand-written email asking them nicely to take it down? Would I have gotten any farther doing that, instead?
    How about a legal takedown notice, one that complies to that jurisdictions laws, that might help more than throwing your toys out of the pram because a Dutch company is not responding to a US law.
    This account is no longer active!

  8. #58
    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.

  9. #59
    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.

  10. #60
    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.
    They were.
    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"??
    Exactly this.
    Because the customer pays them.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,018
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhang View Post
    They were.
    In Virginia to be specific.

    This is what broke Kim Dotcom's neck.
    Gotcha, thank you for the clarification!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhang View Post
    Exactly this.
    Because the customer pays them.
    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.
    Last edited by TimothyH; 02-05-2012 at 05:09 PM.

  12. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by InstantPH View Post
    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?
    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?
    Well, the correct laws have very little to do with who has power if you ask me. The hollywood lobbying power is greater than any law, and should the law not fit their needs, they make a new one or change it, usually silently. Though, they failed the "silent" part with sopa/pipa for the first time ever. They've been doing this for decades and have become quite efficient at it.
    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.
    Because DMCA abuses are rampant. Look at my previous post on this thread for example. Lets say you have a nasty competitor hosting similar content as you. They obviously want you bankrupt and calls up your host and says x y and z are copyright infringing. Imagine if your host just took it down without even notifying you. You'd be royally screwed. If you own a file hosting website, this becomes lot worse and quite fast. You do not own the files, so you have no right to file a counter dmca notice. This once again gets worse because there are even bots that crawl the web just to send DMCA notices (courtesy of MAFIAA, attributor (these guys have dozens of /23 blocks, that's how big they are), cyveillance, etc, etc). And there are literally tens of thousands of these bots. Whether the claims are real or not (since they haven't even been reviewed by any person), you have to abide by them. That is the power of DMCA. So, having a host like leaseweb force them to send a dutch one instead forces a human review and only the legitimate problems are actually handled.
    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.
    Significant majority of piracy happens over P2P. SOPA/PIPA which targets DNS does absolutely nothing against P2P. What p2p protocol have you seen that actually relies on dns?? They're all purely IP based. These bills however do give more power to mafiaa in numerous ways, most of which are political if you ask me.


    And... I have ranted too much.

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by GCM View Post
    Oh? If you saw the site we referenced you'd think otherwise. All the post within that search regex are infringing.

    If you're interested PM me. It's NSFW otherwise I'd link to it
    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.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sorting Office
    Posts
    9,523
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    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.
    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?

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by coax View Post
    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.
    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-.html
    Last edited by GCM; 02-05-2012 at 08:21 PM.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by F-DNS View Post
    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,
    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.
    Not quite. Was hoping to get their attention so they could outline specifically, what I did not do correctly.
    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.
    A reputable host would have deleted the file by now. I'm not asking for dozens of files or even a website to be taken down. It's a file containing a pirated music album.

    Have you sent them valid documentation yet?
    If they would tell me whether or not they checked the headers of my emails to their customer, I would know. As you can see by the Dutch law, that is one of the requirements!

    Has anybody read the links GCM posted? Someone relative to the situation at hand.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by gpl24 View Post
    Has anybody read the links GCM posted?
    Sure have. Leaseweb made money by providing a service. Wow.
    Quote Originally Posted by GCM View Post
    Feel free to defend LeaseWeb. If you can understand Dutch this may change your attitude.
    Makes me wonder how much you understood of it.
    Last edited by 8088; 02-05-2012 at 09:45 PM.

  18. #68
    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.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    442
    Pillar, did you at all read the thread?

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by 8088 View Post
    Sure have. Leaseweb made money by providing a service. Wow.

    Makes me wonder how much you understood of it.
    I speak Dutch.

  21. #71
    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?

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,469
    Quote Originally Posted by 8088 View Post
    Then you'll have understood that Leaseweb has rented 630 dedicated servers to and colocated 60 servers for Megaupload, earning approximately 9 million dollars between March 2007 and July 2010, as estimated by 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?
    I bolded it for you. That's BS. I highly doubt LW never received any complaints about MU.

  23. #73
    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.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    620
    Quote Originally Posted by GCM View Post
    I bolded it for you. That's BS. I highly doubt LW never received any complaints about MU.
    If it's BS I'm sure you can provide us with some proof. If you think it's only doubtful...well, then it's just your word against his. Either way, I still wonder how this is supposed to change the attitude of the unprejudiced, or worse, of the defenders.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    442
    Safe harbor for piraters? Seems relatively cut & dry to me.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. DMCA complaint, Hostso.com account suspended
    By themarper in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 04:03 PM
  2. Is this a legitimate DMCA complaint?
    By Victor Lugo in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 06:25 PM
  3. DMCA Complaint on a Customer
    By xxkylexx in forum Running a Web Hosting Business
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-23-2006, 12:50 PM
  4. Hosting Provider not responding to DMCA
    By Floris in forum Web Hosting
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-15-2006, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •