Howdy, Stranger!

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


Yearly webhosting with DDOS protection + DMCA 'ignored' - Page 2
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.

Yearly webhosting with DDOS protection + DMCA 'ignored'

2»

Comments

  • Mark_R said: DMCA appears to be more focused on cashing in on individual downloaders instead of terminating the real source of piracy.

    Nowadays, individual downloaders are the real source of piracy.

    It can be very difficult to get at the original uploader (probably foreign). And it does nothing to stop the problem; even assuming you get one shut down, another will soon claim the throne of lulz.

    Turning piracy into profits within the bounds of existing copyright law is much more sustainable.

  • I'm hosting Microsoft Windows iso in my shared hosting

    never received any DMCA or such things.

  • deployvmdeployvm Member, Host Rep

    @lewissue said:
    I'm hosting Microsoft Windows iso in my shared hosting

    never received any DMCA or such things.

    Is your ISO file link being shared on multiple sites? It depends if it is public or not.

    Obviously private ISO files will create no interest, unless the provider does an investigation of users files.

  • OVH, Voxility, pretty much any provider who isn't based in the USA or parent company owned and registered in USA. Anyone outside USA doesn't have to comply, however, be warned some do. It's best you ask the provider before you start hosting.

  • @singsing said:
    Nowadays, individual downloaders are the real source of piracy.

    It can be very difficult to get at the original uploader (probably foreign). And it does nothing to stop the problem; even assuming you get one shut down, another will soon claim the throne of lulz.

    Turning piracy into profits within the bounds of existing copyright law is much more sustainable.

    No.

    Going after the individual downloaders is pretty useless because they just act like amplifiers, increasing the availability of piracy content that has already been provided/leaked.

    With real source of piracy i obviously meant those release groups and private tracker sites, if you were to shutdown this then there would be nothing to amplify by the individual downloaders.

    But like i said before, DMCA rather chooses to go after the small fish instead of the real problem because this approach generates unlimited profit for them.

    Thanked by 1GCat
  • I've seen some dumb DMCA stuff too. The kind of stuff that makes you start drinking early.

    Thanked by 1GM2015
  • Anyone with google can write a DMCA notice.

    My name is INSERT NAME and I am the INSERT TITLE of INSERT COMPANY NAME. A website that your company hosts (according to WHOIS information) is infringing on at least one copyright owned by my company.

    An article was copied onto your servers without permission. The original ARTICLE/PHOTO, to which we own the exclusive copyrights, can be found at:

    PROVIDE WEBSITE URL

    The unauthorized and infringing copy can be found at:

    PROVIDE WEBSITE URL

    This letter is official notification under Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (”DMCA”), and I seek the removal of the aforementioned infringing material from your servers. I request that you immediately notify the infringer of this notice and inform them of their duty to remove the infringing material immediately, and notify them to cease any further posting of infringing material to your server in the future.

    Please also be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to remove or disable access to the infringing materials upon receiving this notice. Under US law a service provider, such as yourself, enjoys immunity from a copyright lawsuit provided that you act with deliberate speed to investigate and rectify ongoing copyright infringement. If service providers do not investigate and remove or disable the infringing material this immunity is lost. Therefore, in order for you to remain immune from a copyright infringement action you will need to investigate and ultimately remove or otherwise disable the infringing material from your servers with all due speed should the direct infringer, your client, not comply immediately.

    I am providing this notice in good faith and with the reasonable belief that rights my company owns are being infringed. Under penalty of perjury I certify that the information contained in the notification is both true and accurate, and I have the authority to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright(s) involved.

    Should you wish to discuss this with me please contact me directly.

    Thank you.

    YOUR NAME

    Address

    City, State Zip

    Phone

    E-mail

  • GM2015GM2015 Member
    edited December 2015

    You can put a company blog, spell the Alphabet A-Z on it, and some numbers to your post 0-9 and you can put a big copyright disclaimer on your footer.

    Bam, start sending your dmca notices to every provider.

    At least every mofo using Latin characters will be infringing on your copyrighted letters and numbers.

    No, wait, this sounds like something bitninja would do.

    Thanked by 1TheLonely
  • Mark_R said: Going after the individual downloaders is pretty useless because they just act like amplifiers, increasing the availability of piracy content that has already been provided/leaked.

    With real source of piracy i obviously meant those release groups and private tracker sites, if you were to shutdown this then there would be nothing to amplify by the individual downloaders.

    But like i said before, DMCA rather chooses to go after the small fish instead of the real problem because this approach generates unlimited profit for them.

    Or content producers could stop being cunts to people that want to pay and watch stuff at the same time as America :p

  • LIFETIME webhosting with DDOS protection + DMCA 'ignored' PM me!

    Server located in my basement, 24/7 protected by my lovely cats.

  • Mark_R said: Going after the individual downloaders is pretty useless because they just act like amplifiers, increasing the availability of piracy content that has already been provided/leaked.

    Exactly. Which is why going after them "works" to a certain extent. There'd be a lot more torrenting going on if people thought they couldn't be sued for it. Some content that is not terribly popular is probably not available on p2p right now, but it would be available if nobody sued "downloaders" (actually "amplifiers" is a much better word for what p2p does).

    Mark_R said: But like i said before, DMCA rather chooses to go after the small fish instead of the real problem because this approach generates unlimited profit for them.

    I don't think profits are unlimited. Say a consumer has the option of buying a DVD for $12 or pirating for a chance of being caught and having to pay a big settlement. The consumer will only go for the latter option if the chance of being caught times the big settlement is -less- than $12, right? So the content producer can only make -less- money than if piracy didn't exist. Exactly at the point when combined revenues would approach those available through legitimate channels, consumers would be buying only through legitimate channels.

Sign In or Register to comment.