Results 76 to 100 of 162
-
02-05-2012, 10:28 PM #76Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
Is using Google too hard? Let me help you find an example of what is cut & dry: http://www.google.com/search?q=leaseweb+Diwana.org
-
02-05-2012, 10:34 PM #77Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
-
02-05-2012, 10:35 PM #78renegade
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,044
I'm not defending Leaseweb, but rather some of how DMCA and similar things work in practice. Usually they allow copyright holders to send notices to hosts, because of copyrighted content they own themselves, and then the host can take action. You don't send notices for other peoples content. You'll see on sites like Google search that in the emails they link to every picture and media file on the website they send a mail to (many times hundreds of files), and if the host/webmaster doesn't take down the files (or webpages, or tweets, or in the case of pirate bay, torrent files and torrent pages, and the list goes on) they can proceed with legal action. So, not the entire website, is my point.
-
02-05-2012, 10:37 PM #79Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
-
02-05-2012, 10:43 PM #80Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
-
02-05-2012, 10:43 PM #81renegade
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,044
Well whatever it was, it was too broad apparently for LW. It's the same thing with Google and any number of sites. Sure as a host you can go and censor users broadly, but in LW's case and also Google's case, you're walking a fine line between being open and being overly strict. If either of them were to proactively go and censor huge sections (and you need to think of this in the long range, not just in your specific situation) then 1. you end up with a lot of work, and 2. you may end up censoring too much, and you may even break principles you have of freedom, due process and similar things.
I don't think LW is leaving infringing content up on purpose, it's more about the big picture.
-
02-05-2012, 10:45 PM #82Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
-
02-05-2012, 10:46 PM #83Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 5,105
I know you may believe this and you may even be correct. Honestly I don't know as I don't have the information you have but I think you really need to take a step back and understand that as a matter of protection for the host many hosts do not follow DMCA as a rule if it doesn't apply to them.
The reason may not be because they don't agree with the principles of copyright but because it is a) doesn't contain the information they need for their legal jurisdiction b) will not protect them from repercussions if they take down valid content.
Every company needs a policy about how to handle this. I know that it may be faster for you to simply use the DMCA you already created and send it to them but that doesn't work. Ask any lawyer if they would simply take a legal document formatted for one jurisdiction and expect it to work as expected in another.
While the legal jargon may be difficult to follow you pretty much have to read and understand it or have someone like a lawyer help you if it is important enough.
For the record I don't think Leasweb is trying to stonewall you. Just follow their process and before you say it, I read the thread. You haven't followed their process yet.
-
02-05-2012, 10:46 PM #84Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
I don't think LW is leaving infringing content up on purpose, it's more about the big picture.
It's easy for spectators to comment here and say "you didn't follow Dutch law" - but as I said in my very first post, I did supply copies of the email to Leasweb between me and their customer. They have yet to either take action and have the single file deleted, or tell me my emails between me and their customer isn't satisfactory to them.
If they were truly interested in ensuring they weren't host to pirated content, they'd of at least emailed me back!
-
02-05-2012, 10:48 PM #85Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Coolraul,
I completely understand what you say and agree. But I do feel like I'm being stonewalled. I mentioned why in my post that I just sent before I saw your reply.
-
02-05-2012, 10:50 PM #86Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
Yup.
We've never had a problem with Google and submit upwards of 10K+ URLs per day to them. Automation is key, they handle our request fairly quickly.
Google's Blogger doesn't seem to mind when referencing certain search phrases or specific categories... Then again Google is competent and removes content accordingly. They're actually pretty proactive. In numerous cases they've terminated the whole blog for a few infringing blogs.
-
02-05-2012, 10:52 PM #87Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
GCM, did you do the whole "dutch law" thing, too? They just ignored it?
-
02-05-2012, 10:57 PM #88renegade
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Posts
- 1,044
Understood, Google has been taking down a lot of stuff, but there's still tons left (YT/blogger), and they also follow the DMCA which I'm guessing you've 'perfected' in your mails.
Another thing with LW is also whether it is a dedicated server or web hosting, because I imagine it's harder to get a whole server taken down, and LW doesn't have direct access to individual sites there. DMCA's get sent to server owners as well, so it can take longer.
I'd be curious to see if you got a hold of a complete dutch takedown letter and see how long it took for them to take action, when following their due process to the letter.
-
02-05-2012, 11:32 PM #89Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 4,666
You are submitting 10,000+ DCMAs to Google per day? With that volume it would make sense to take the time to figure out Dutch requirements. At 10,000/day, if true, I suspect you are acting as an agent and therefore have to show proof that you legally represent the copyright holder.
-
02-05-2012, 11:33 PM #90Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
It's even easier to say you didn't follow their elementary instructions: give their client at least five working days to comply. If he doesn't comply, Leaseweb will process your notice. Cc'ing Leaseweb in the meantime, resending your DMCA's and making up ridiculous topic titles isn't going to speed up their procedures.
-
02-05-2012, 11:36 PM #91Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
You do realize I'm not the one complaining about Dutch Takedown Protocol right? I merely said they were slow and incompetent in cases. Correct, we are acting as an agent - we are marked as "Trusted" with numerous companies such as Google and have never had a problem..
The process for Dutch Takedown Law is similar to DMCA aside from the fact you have to say <XXX> failed to contact me within 5 Days blah blah blah.
-
02-05-2012, 11:44 PM #92Aspiring Evangelist
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Posts
- 442
Interesting.
I did not specify a date, more along the lines of "over a week" - which is greater than 5 days. I've re-sent messages to their customer quite a few times, actually.
Additionally, one would expect that a timestamp of an email would suffice.
But seeing how GCM hasn't gotten anywhere with them, I'm not holding my hopes up at this point.
And for the record, I'm not complaining about Dutch takedown protocol either. Merely the fact that LW hasn't replied saying my messages will suffice or not. And if not, I would expect to have a reason why, so I can give them what they need!
-
02-06-2012, 09:20 AM #93Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 620
Not really:
Nearly a week is no more than six days, so no more than five working days had passed when you started this topic.
What they need is outlined in the PDF that's been posted before:4. Reports
It is preferable that a report is only made once it is likely that the notifier and the content provider will be unable to reach an agreement. The notifier is responsible for ensuring reports are correct and complete.- The intermediary must be able to verify that reports as part of an investigation regarding a criminal offence have originated from an inspection or investigation service, or – in the case of a formal legal order – from the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
- For reports other than those stated in Article 4a, the notifier in any case provides the following information:
- the contact details of the notifier;
- the information that the intermediary needs to be able to evaluate the content, at least including the location (URL);
- a description of why the content is unlawful according to the notifier, or why it is in conflict with the criteria published by the intermediary governing undesirable content;
- a statement of the reason why this intermediary is being approached as the most appropriate
intermediary to deal with the matter.
- A notifier can request that the intermediary deals with the report as a matter of urgency. The reasons for this should be fully explained by the notifier. The intermediary determines whether the report is dealt with as a matter of urgency on the basis of the explanation of the reasons.
- An intermediary can request an explicit indemnity from a notifier against claims from the content provider as a result of taking measures in the context of dealing with the report.
Last edited by 8088; 02-06-2012 at 09:26 AM.
-
02-06-2012, 09:31 AM #94Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,297
-
02-06-2012, 10:03 AM #95
There you go again <SIGH>. At the risk of repeating myself, it's because LeaseWeb IS a responsible host that they haven't deleted the file because you have yet to provide them with the correctly formatted complaint and follow due process in order for them to act. They're acting exactly as I would expect and hope them too - They've got their customer's back until such time as they have something they can legally work with.
Probably at least twice as much as most of us. ie: Double Dutch?
-
02-06-2012, 10:20 AM #96Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Posts
- 5,105
-
02-06-2012, 12:01 PM #97Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 2,469
-
02-06-2012, 12:32 PM #98Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 2,297
█ REDUNDANT.COM • Equinix Data Centers • Performance Optimized Network
█ Managed & Unmanaged • Servers • Colocation • Cloud • VEEAM
█ sales@redundant.com
-
02-06-2012, 12:40 PM #99Master of the Truth
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Reston, VA
- Posts
- 3,131
Yellow Fiber Networks
http://www.yellowfiber.net : Managed Solutions - Colocation - Network Services IPv4/IPv6
Ashburn/Denver/NYC/Dallas/Chicago Markets Served zak@yellowfiber.net
-
02-06-2012, 12:42 PM #100Master of the Truth
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Reston, VA
- Posts
- 3,131
Not sure about dutch law, but "trusted" doesn't cut it in the USA for DMCA's. One must be an "authorized representative of the copyright owner"
99% of the time we state this to people sending DMCA requests we never hear from again. Call it what you will but the law is the law.Yellow Fiber Networks
http://www.yellowfiber.net : Managed Solutions - Colocation - Network Services IPv4/IPv6
Ashburn/Denver/NYC/Dallas/Chicago Markets Served zak@yellowfiber.net
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