New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Y'know, seed.st is probably a better deal if you want to torrent, at least you won't be constantly looking over your shoulder.
Well as Linux is freely available in the public, this is not something they would terminate for. Unless you were hogging the network.
Anything on their hardware is their concern.
If they can clearly see packets that look suspicious then they have a right to protect themselves.
OP, in a nutshell, you agreed to AuP and ToS without reading it and now you're butthurt cos you've been caught.
Grow up.
I see... well I haven't gotten caught :P
@instatech then its there responsibility to check if the DMCA is legit or total BullSh*t . The DMCA notices go out for everything weather the person owns the content or not. They cry wolf all the damn time. Even for content that is public domain. So just getting one and shutting someone down is just as big BS. But in this case it was admitted but still.
This is Vultr' saying they arent very responsible if you ask me. Just taking the word of a DMCA notice is stupid.
Oh look Vultr is in the league with evil. Because ive said it , then it must be true. No need to investigate.
Every post like this causes me to lose a little bit more faith in the human race.
edit: nvm
edit2: @princeshoko you say "in this case it was admitted but still", but still what? Seems like you argument completely breaks down...
hommie;
the client should have been given notice of a vps termination so they could save their data.
i think we'd all like to see these socalled DMCA's @DaveA
This is not their helpdesk, not your problem and certainly not your place to start asking to see anything that is nothing to do with you.
@darkshire What makes you think there are DCMA's mate?
how many times have we seen OP's make statements and then we hear the rest of the story form the provider and we realize how the op was crafted to fit a point of view. In this case, to the OP's credit- he totally admits he was wrong. Most companies handle disputes in private. I don't see them rushing to forums to state their positions etc. OP has a method to attempt to retrieve funds he thinks he is owed- file a dispute. Op has court system if his valuable data (which he didn't do daily backups on) was destroyed in a sinister fashion outside of his contract. In the AUS- it didn't state a DMCA takedown was required - read section I- if reasonably expected. The dude screwed up, the provider has no need to publicly defend a private contract. If everyone is so damn concerned- spin down your instances make backups and close your accounts and move them elsewhere.
@DaveA doesn't owe anyone here an explanation other than informing the OP that they are following the contract and immediately terminating the agreement per the terms of the contract.
Why would a company come in here and keep stirring up shit with people who want to argue DMCA when that isn't even the true issue. Provider saw things on network and eliminated the issue.
Take your money to other providers- capitalism changes companies not theoretical arguments about perceived rights.
if @DaveA would respond to this thread with his side of the story, they we could put it to rest finally, but thats yet to happen. so.. at this point we cannot discredit the OP, and all fingers still point to shady snooping tactics.
Hmm OP says "Now the email I have received claims my account was terminated for "REPEATED TORRENT ACTIVITIES" "
From this DMCA's and snooping in containers has appeared as claims by some others.
Yet others say the bandwidth and other usage graphs will show this immediately to someone who knows what to look for in them.
Did the OP limit input and output of the torrents? Or were they wideopen? I wonder what amounts of Bandwidth and other metrics were being consumed by the torrents?
Just thought I'd clarify some details I may have overlooked out as they may provide some explanation.
I received a dmca from vultr close to 2 months ago after I accidentally added a non private torrent to my seedbox, that was then removed within a few hours after I noticed, shortly after which I received a dmca simply letting me know to remove said content.
So from that they were well aware I was running a seedbox, they gave no warning or even seemed to care, just as long as the infringing content was removed which it was.
Now what's different this time compared to the last is I have received a similar email with a template, but no dmca notice, and not exact mention of the file name, just a general name of the tv show, saying my account will now be terminated.
Also I think people are taking the word client a bit to serious, the main server I lost just contained a few of my websites, and a few I host for friends, one of my websites, makes quite a bit of money (forum) although all sites except a few of my small private ones are up and fully functioning as if nothing happened now.
So i'm quite over it and have already moved on to a new host.
Also it's been 24h+ and I still haven't had a reply to my ticket to Vultr.
My seeedbox didn't run much bandwidth, if anyone's familiar with BTN, it's quite hard to seed as every torrent will have atleast 20 seedboxes on it instantly. I have a spreadsheet oh how much I was using uploading and download at the trackers end, and on an average day 50-100GB, and so far this month around 1-1.5TB, So not a great deal, but I've been running that seedbox for at least 2 months now.
i would recommended you start a charge-back with your CC company.
I would recommend you let people know what name you order under so the hosts that frequent here can go ahead and demand all payments be made in cash or terminate your account. Now that we know you'll file a chargeback when terminated for violation of policy, we know that you should be denied service.
Isn't that counter-intuitive considering that anyone who closes an account with him will receive a chargeback?
Abuse most places is Monday through Friday. Usually around 9-5 it seems at most of the hosts I've dealt with. Normally though most of the hosts would also send an it's been escalated message.
OpZe thanks for the answer. I'm just trying to guess what could have happened like everyone else.
ok so he got a dmca 2 months ago then did it again. Guess he got adequate notice for those wanting notice first. yet behavior repeated and as he said he's moved on. So evidently, vultr behaved with restraint -then applied their TOS. Guess it deflates everyone arguing for explanations and chargebacks blah blah blah. Would love to read the chargeback request- "I stole content 2 months ago, got a dcma, stopped, then did it again; I deserve my money back" would love to see if that works
Well these kinds of details make a pretty big difference
Indeed, although from my view things don't seem right.
Upon the first dmca they should have said something regarding it's against their AUP and to stop, they made no mention so I presumed it was essentially like most other hosts, where you're fine as long as you don't get dmcas. They also forwarded me the dmca with their message.
This time, there's no dmca, or any mention of it, a specific file is not mentioned, and I was using a private tracker for all files where it would be pretty much impossible to get a dmca.
Still seems strange to me, even if there somehow was a dmca for this one, seems a bit extreme to go from not even caring 2 months ago to terminating an account with unrelated servers in it, and to not even refund any unused credits without warning.
And just to clarify once again, I do understand I broke their AUP, but I believe the way they have handled the situation is extremely poor, and also brings privacy into question.
OpZe they should at least give you refund of your reaming credit so that you can move to other company.
@OpZe The only thing that brought their privacy into question came from assumptions made about details that you omitted from your original post. We have every reason to assume they received a DMCA notice until they say otherwise. If serving a DMCA notice to you does not indicate a problem to you, then you did not read their policies. They are not obligated to write you a 3 page letter about the event. It is an unmanaged service.
What is being called into question, this moment, is your integrity for rallying the troops here behind you against their company by conveniently leaving out the most important details of the event.
DMCA not just in the USA? Or its in Europe too? Or why the providers have to terminate it.. why not suspend then solve the problem? Or the provider get a DMCA email or etc?
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a law in the USA, however copyright laws exist in other countries too.
Looks like they let the first one go, then cancelled the account after the second one was received. Suspending wouldn't solve the problem in this instance if Vultr believe the OP to be a 'repeat offender'.
I would close the case as repeated offender who does not really care about his business. I agree it was a bit harsh to not let him take backups, but after the first warning that would have been mandatory for anyone who values the business. It is mandatory for everyone with a business to have up to date or CDP style backups, unless the data does not change.
The server is in EU but Vultr is in the US, so even on their EU servers they have to comply with US law.
chargeback chargeback chargeback.
I totally agree