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
@DediRock do are we safe with this report?
[Content removed by Arkas].
[Do you want google to index this and potentially having a host get into trouble??]
I don't see a joke here. This is a genuinely valid concern I have with them.
If you use too much traffic, you are evil. If you are using too much electricity (via CPU) they may ban you as well. What is the difference between video transcoding and cpu-based mining?
Also I did ctrl +f for "torrent" in https://www.hetzner.com/legal/terms-and-conditions
and I see nothing about "bittorrent" being not allowed... Piracy not being allowed, understandable, but bittorrent not allowed? that's insane.
Their reps are regulars on r/seedboxes so I think you're fine for legal torrents.
Only private trackers i hear.
Even if you download legal torrents only from public trackers, the DMCA sending parties will waste no time to make bogus claims.
We did a small study on this around 2015-2016, out of sample size of 13 to 33k (cannot recall exact number, but in that range, probably on the upper range) in the timespan of a month or two, something like 95% were duplicates, from the rest like 90% were completely bogus and made up. From the last might be or might not be legit, we only know that the material had been present on the servers.
It was completely and utterly ridiculous the amount of SPAM those parties send, making abuse inboxes completely unuseable for the most part. I think the worst ones were that same complaint was duplicated like 3000 times, sent like 300 times per day.
From those where material had been present on the servers, it is unknown what percentage was legit and what is not, and the percentage where the complainer actually had rights to the material. It was something super silly like 0,1% may have been valid complaints or something like that. We cannot determine if that final 0,1% was valid because it's up-to the end users to determine if it is legal for their country and/or if they have legal rights to the content (ie. backup purposes). This varies country by country, and user to user. Not our job to determine that.
Larger percentage than the potentially valid DMCA complaints was completely made up, we could not find a single trace of any such content ever being present on the claimed servers at all. Not a single shred of evidence of it ever existing.
That being said, we are limited on the scope we can study, we had to do our utmost best to avoid seeing any irrelevant user content and the username attached to that data. So the actual valid % could of have been higher, just named completely differently. However, i believe our confidence for the study was rather high.
Another study found that often there are cases where the complainee do not have rights to the material, but those cases were more common in cases where they were seeking for penalties. AKA scamming.
There's also been much evidence that DMCA complaints carry no penalty in practice, you can claim anything from anyone and it's unlikely you get penalized.
Legally speaking if an european country follows and adheres to DMCA they might be committing treason, since they are considering foreign laws to be higher than their own country's. This has not been tried in court, to my belief.
Further, you could claim the LOGO of say company ACME in any country under DMCA, and they would be according to DMCA be responsible to remove it immediately, irregardless of copyright ownerships and would have to be tested in country.
Yes, Mr. John Doe could send DMCA notice to a service provider claiming their logo under DMCA, and according to DMCA they would have to comply with the takedown and take to the court. If i recall right, it's been close to decade when i last studied DMCA nuances and it's ridiculousness etc.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer, and anything above is not legal advice -- and neither will I, Pulsed Media or any affiliated company take any responsibility for above text. It is provided merely and purely for entertainment value. This may or may not be our company's legal standing, view or practice -- and should not be considered as company policy. Consult your own legal counsel. This post has been provided entirely for it's entertainment value.
-Aleksi
You shouldn't post anything like court orders against the host, because it can cause troubles to the host even if is not legit or legit. Not cool.
You are refusing that, i already told you that those hostings here ignores that. Looks like you want to pay cheap prices like Kimsufi, I'm sorry in such case DMCA won't be ignored so easily
Check the list or just search in forum "dmca ignored hosting" you may find other threads with useful content.
https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3575150/#Comment_3575150
There are enough suppliers out there for this client that might work at his price point. But he demands the big chips in dual mode , 24cores.
If he drops the 2609 requirement and go for a lower cpu, then he can get alot.
For his use case it shouldnt matter if he is using Dual 2650 or 2609 whatever.
We can offer whats in stock.
There wont be any new shipments probably until Apr/May.
@HostMT3 @HostSlick we are running 5 servers Dual E5-2680 v4 at $160/m/server with DMCA ignored and we are satisfied
Yes, OP should decide what he wants to do, sometimes not all dedicated servers are available due to market lack of stock / availability and of course the price that he wants.
Your offer seems good to him
OP go with hostslick.