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.
Best compromise between DMCA friendliness and quality of service?
@cociu has some amazing deals and I've never had any problems hosting with him, in my opinion you get far more than you pay for. Say I needed to go with a more main stream and well known provider for a client though, who would you recommend? I've heard good things about worldstream.nl. They seem to host most of the video streaming sites right now so they must be pretty friendly.
Website would likely solicit the occasional DMCA request from american textbook companies, CPU heavy so probably looking for a dedicated server
Comments
I like Maple Hostings approach: They only react to DMCA sent via postal way, not via email. And then if it happens talk to the client first
You're on a wrong forum.
That sounds very nice
, I'll look into them
I disagree, I find many excellent resources and friendly hosts here
Very simply put: dealing with abusemail, legitimate or otherwise, takes time and resources. Unless you have a particularly good relationship with a provider, they're not going to deal with a constant influx of abusemail unless you're paying them enough to make up for it. The ones that do are typically cutting corners elsewhere, usually on quality of service.
In other words: if you want decent quality of service with relaxed abusemail handling - which you'll definitely need for user-submitted content - then you'll either have to avoid bottom-of-the-barrel hosting, or get hosting from a provider that you already have a good relationship with (and who eg. likes the thing you're trying to build).
OP if you're running a pirate site then @Clouvider is right, you're on the wrong forum. If you're running a site like @joepie1 describes, that gets occasional complaints about user-submitted content and you handle the complaints properly, you might try OVH. I remember hearing them called the "seedbox capital of the world" some years back, though I think they may have tightened down some since then.
Historically, OVH has been extremely unpredictable with their abuse handling; sometimes happily hosting obvious piracy sites for years, sometimes shutting down legitimate sites with no notice after a single false complaint. I don't know if it has improved since, but I would probably not trust them with a production system for that reason.
Hmm oh well, too bad about OVH. Online.net maybe?
Or you can't go wrong with BuyVM LU except that they are out of stock all the time.
I heard echoes of Buyvm.
@Francisco
I just used wireshark to see what the big pirate video sites are using for hosting. Seems they're either using m247, worldstream, or OVH. I would assume an operation like openload would get several thousand dmca per day so m247 must be pretty friendly. I'm not considering anything more illegal than chegg, I just don't want to have to mess around with responding to DMCA complaints or worry about situations where a single complaint get my site taken down if it goes unnoticed. More for peace of mind than a necessity
so effectively stealing copyrighted works for your own sole benefit, correct @levi757?
BuyVM is a good candidate. Linode is also worth a try.
Providers from Netherlands can't ignore anything when BREIN steps in ... Maple-Hosting is just using that DMCA ignoring thing for marketing and any company can choose to accept any complain via letter instead of email.
Ignore that I have such experience in this specific niche / sector
...
@levi757 Romania seems to be quite DMCA friendly thus both M247 and OpenLoad exists. But none promise to ignore DMCA complaints. I would suggest you to completely ignore NL providers if you plan to do something like OpenLoad. Also, there's some cool tricks to avoid DMCA and not avoid at the same time, talk to someone experienced.
Maybe if Brein steps in they will react. I'm not that familar with NL but what I was getting at was, e.g. in Germany there is a whole market for lawyers sending fake/unjustified "Abmahnungen"/reports to companies/people just to trick them into paying some hundreds € promising in a letter they won't do it again and then charge more the next time. I'm not saying Maple Hosting is a pirates den or hideout. Just that they seem to have a rather client friendly approach instead or "complaint received --> suspend no questions asked" which some other companies might do.
unfortunately, any NL provider is forced to react to BREIN requests otherwise such company will not exist in NL.
It's rather rare to see this approach though. Besides i think not accepting complaints by email will drastically cut down the amount of non serious/automated reports.
Meh, if something can be automated then it will be. What we really need is significant penalties for filing false reports. As long as there is no cost to do so, the false reports will continue.
You can't "not accept complaints by e-mail". It's not a legal possibility. No matter what they say.
I see. I guess that explains why this approach is so rare.
Honestly, I suspect they're just trying to scare off people who are not familiar with how things like copyright disputes are handled outside of the US
In the Netherlands, there's no such thing as a "DMCA notification", nor any other kind of explicitly specified complaint format. The only thing that matters is whether you, as a provider, could have been aware of infringing or illegal content being hosted on your infrastructure, and whether you are capable of remediating it. How you've been made aware is irrelevant.
This is also why "DMCA-free" (in NL and probably elsewhere in Europe) is absolute nonsense. Any correctly-filled-out DMCA notification is going to contain all the information necessary to consider a hosting provider as "aware of the infringement", thus they need to deal with it.
I believe you, but I'm curious how the sender could prove receipt.
If I send via physical mail, I can send registered mail or whatever. For email...? "Sorry, we never got that email" and how could anyone prove differently?
I don't think SMTP logs would be sufficient since they don't contain content and emails are trivially forged.
You'll have to reasonably prove (ie. not necessarily 100%-water-tight-prove) receipt if you were to take it to court, which is why serious complainants usually send a snailmail copy by registered mail if a provider doesn't respond.
But if you're pretending not to have received abusemail as a provider, you're playing a dangerous game. One mistake and all that liability slams back into your face.
I think that's a very valid question. At least where i am it's actually quite difficult to prove this. To be considered received the letter needs to be signed for or at least directly handed to the person (unless you are a government agency then dumping into the mailbox is enough) so i am quite sure a mere email would never be sufficient.
Try Mikrovps.hu which is located in Hungary