Piratereports.com cause damange to my business

Actually, SMF is updated quite regularly. So that statement is false

And if he invested a lot of money into the site, he has every right to sue them. Just because you think it's funny doesn't mean the OP thinks it's funny. People will sue over less. And an attorney doesn't bave to be an idiot to accept the case. There are a lot of attoney's out there that would accept this. You just have to do a little looking.

Now, if the OP only invested a couple thousand, than I agree, it is pointless and will cost you more money in the long run (just attorney fees before you even get into a courtroom). But if its tens of thousands of dollars, than thats a whole new ball game. We don't know how much the OP invested.

 

I only think it is funny that every redneck wants to sue over a few nickels...when
actually there are only a few nickels involved...

yes it is everyone's god given right to sue...go for it...reality
I know this will not happen...its just life...there is nothing here
more then mere arguement...

attorneys have more better things to do then deal with this
guys loss of nickels and his frustrations with VB...if he has $2k-$5k
for attorney retainer which i doubt, then I am sure some attorney
will at least listen to him for a bit while taking more of his money...

at this point he can do 1-2 things, he can continue to sit and whin
in anguish (which does not accomplish anything) or he can just move
on with whatever he was doing before, and since he made no claims of
investing 10's of thousands of $$$, all i seen was he invested $1k and
time, then I already know this is a dead-arguement issue.

I know reality hurts...

im moving on, so should you...

 

interesting thread. sounds like vBulletin behaved very badly indeed. luckily i use SMF, which is free so i have no fear of a DMCA complaint! lol

well, at least you got your forums back up and running, and i guess it was a learning experience too.... i don't think it will be worht it to sue anybody now

 

Way to demean rednecks, that goes a long way in showing you a level headed thinker, which is what people usually listen to.

And, since you can't read apparently, I said we don't know how much money he invested. If it was only a couple thousand, than I agree, there is no point. But, you have no idea what type of business it was, how much he invested. NOTHING. You have to think more than the normal internet thing going on here with a couple k invested. Some people actually start their businesses the right way and invest a decent amount of money into it. He could have had to purchase things to stock up on them.

 

Thanks for the reply everyone, the host I use is rosehost/3ix. And the site has problems sometime my site shows 404 error. Its time I move away. But is looking at different hosts-which hosts are good and loyal to its customers?

As for Jelsoft pulling license because of complaint against them? or they do not like the content use on the forum? that's probably wont be Jelsoft. I think they would understand lawyers are itch for publicity even if the case is not won.

so if I had a complaint against Jelsoft and posted that on my Vbulletin forum and they decided to pull the license, is it worth it? Lawyers love this kind of stuff, they don't really care about money because publicity will get them far in their careers. As for Jelsoft, I dont think they will be pulling anything like you mentioned hostlonestar.

Anyway....I need a new host that doesn' delete my forum or site because some lousy so call rightous "good faith" pirate junky send a DMCA legal letter claiming to be from Jelsoft land. And that has have to be reliable too.

Any recommendations ?

 

I assure you that you have nothing that will advance a lawyers career...you can always prove me wrong, call 20 lawyers, I bet you will get 20 laughs, their are plenty of career jumps, but not with you having a dispute with vb...dont fool yourself thinking you are that important, your not..

as far as you new host...before you accept, be sure to talk to them about this, and prove
that you do have a legal VB so to head this off in the future, if it happens again...

you are asking is it worth it? you want to basicly talk trash about VB on their forum, and
you are asking is it worth it? thats your decision...if they run across this on your forum,
this time it may not be a simple misunderstanding, it may be a permanent ban using VB altogther...
if you want to burn your bridges, then feel free to talk trash about them on your forum.

apthost is very good, and have very good support, and they are fairly cheap...so I would
discuss your problem with them first and see what they say, at least if they get any
complaints on you, then to discuss them with you before taking any drastic action.

VB is very good forum script. if you want to keep using it, I surely would not attempt
on burning any bridges if you want to continue to use it or continue to use it in the future.

a dmca is nothing more then an email notice..in my opinion I think it should take a court
order to shut down a domain if someone thinks a domain is in violation, not some type
of chicken crap dmca sent by some company pretending to have some type of authority.....
so some company overseas files a DMCA with your host, how does this carry any legal weight at all?
in my opinion it doesnt. there is nothing legal about a DMCA that I can tell, it is just a fancy written email sent
out in a threating manner...this is why we have a legal system called the courtroom...

It does surprise me that VB would do business with some company that
is overseas that has no legal jurisdiction in the US, and from what I
can see, they are nothing more then a website that sends out
threating emails...or DMCA notices aka threating emails...

here is a good example of a DMCA...your credit card company calls you
and says they are taking you to court because of your failure to
pay them...most of the time it is just a threat...similar to DMCA...
your CC company sends you a professional letter saying they are
going to take you to court, and they never do, so you just
received a DMCA from your cc company, so what...their overall
goal is to scare you into doing what they want you to do...

so unless your host acually rec'd a court order to shut you down,
then to be honest, they had no legal right to cut you off, they
did it because they were scared of a prof looking email.

 

I must disagree. There aren't any IP attorney's that would take this case without you paying them a hefty retainer of thousands of dollars. You can have a great case, but even if you win, the award wouldn't come close to paying legal costs. You could spend tens of thousands of dollars to get it through court.

The blame is really with Jelsoft, not Piratereports. They are hired by Jelsoft to send out DMCA's and act based on what Jelsoft gives them. A lot of hosts will take down a site when a DMCA is involved. Acting on a DMCA is the only way they remain protected. Some hosts will contact you first, but for the little amount of money they get per month for hosting, many don't.

I would just move on. What happened wasn't right, but those things happen in business and you'll waste too much time if you dwell on it. It's just not worth it to pursue suing them.

 

Me being a host and having a lawyer on retainer, I am able to say this. A host does not have to act immediately upon receiving notification of a copyright infringement. They have to remove the content from their servers within a reasonable amount of time. That has yet to be decided by a court opinion on what a reasonable time is, but, it's safe to say around 72 hours.

If a host does not remove the content, after they have received proof that it is there, they loose all legal immunity. Some hosts are scared to stand up for their clients. I personally think it's irresponsible to just take it down without hearing both sides and receiving proof that the license is not valid.

To be honest, I do not act right away on DMCA's. I will hear the clients side as well. I also require the person making the complaint to either give me a court order telling me to take the stuff down, or prove to me that the copyright for material belongs to them. My lawyer says that is the right thing to do, as if you actually cause a client to loose large amounts of money because of just taking the site down without even hearing their side, I'd be opening myself up to legal action with them instead of the complainter.

 

I'd say you should move to IPB.. at least they won't treat you like crap.

No offense, but vBulletin is falling behind. I myself am moving away, if vB4 doesn't meet my expectations.

vBlog/vBproject tools has been a total BUST.

 

Went through your posts . thanks for letting us know that 3ix.org SUCKS .I was about to buy hosting from them .I would love to see this result coming up in google search .They deserve it . Just did a search on this keyword and found that 3ix.org SUCKS Bigtime .you will find some real horrible stories about their hosting .People are even stating them as thieves lol .
Also this could very well have been strategy of your competetor to bring your site down . Piratereports.com must be lamers for not to investigate within the matter and directly send the report to 3IX.ORG hosting .

 

I have to disagree with you in regards to a hosts liability. You cannot be held responsible for a take down when a properly filed DMCA take down is filed. The safe harbor provision is clear and absolves the host regardless of the validity of any claim of infringement. A host is required to "expeditiously" remove the offending material once the DMCA is filed. Demanding a court order for copyrighted content (not libelous statements) is going to open the host up to being sued. I fail to see what "proof" you could possibly get in the majority of DMCA cases - and in over a hundred DMCA notices I have filed, I have never once been asked for any "proof" - the (US) host is required to act upon the DMCA if they want to be shielded from liability.

If I file a DMCA on an image or article I own, what "proof" could I possibly supply you with that I indeed owned the rights - especially if I have IA blocked? Even if I could show the content was on my site first, that certainly isn't legal proof of ownership. What about a fair use claim? Are you going to render a legal opinion on whether or not content was legally able to be displayed? Make the wrong call, and you're liable.

As I said, the host didn't have to take down the content before notification to the client - but they can. A lot of the larger hosts don't get involved and will act rather quickly (within 24 hours) - some take up to a week. I do think that Jelsoft or their agent should have sent an advance notice in this situation, and I think it was bad business not to have issued an apology - but I don't think the hosts actions are uncommon, although I personally wouldn't want to host with someone that didn't give me advance notice before acting upon the take down. I think had they even waited 24 hours it would have prevented this specific situation.

 

Not legal proof of ownership. But enough burden of proof to sway me, just like in a civil court case. I, will not just take a clients site down becuase someone claims to own a copyright. It is not right, and I am allowed by law to verify the authenticity. Plus, it's just good business to do it. All of my abuse staff are aware of our policys and have received guidance from our company lawyer kept on retainer as well as a copyright lawyer who's business card I keep in my office

The one I hold on retainer, in our contract, he has stated he will pay all damages should I loose a civil case in that respect so I'm willing to trust his judgement.

I keep him very close, don't want to loose him, how many attorney's do you know that are like that? But, then again, I've probably spent 50k on legal fees with him since last july.

 

Verifying the authenticity of the person filing the DMCA is different than verifying the actual basis for the claim. What portion of OCILLA Title 17 Section 512 gives you the right to not act upon a valid DMCA because you have decided you want more "proof" of the validity of in actual infringement claim?

As far as not being "good business" to act upon a DMCA, I would have to disagree. You have a client paying $5 a month for hosting. Getting an attorney involved means you will never make money on that client, it's an automatic lifetime loss. In over 10 years of hosting, I have never had a DMCA filed against me and most web owners don't either. The people who do have a DMCA filed, the majority are likely guilty of infringement.

If you've only spent $50K in legal fees, then you likely haven't gone through a full-blown court trial. $50K in legal fees won't get you far if a large company that decides to sue you. Having a policy of requiring "proof" is fine if you want to make a stand based on "principal" but it certainly isn't good business from a financial risk/reward perspective (which is why the largest and most profitable hosts don't do it).

 

I have to disagree with MJEWEL here.

Hosts are not forced to do anything unless there is actual proof of evidence. Jelsoft cannot sue a host because it has a DMCA order. Jelsoft in court has to prove that the DMCA is

1)Valid, meaning it was real and made by the right counsel.
If DMCA is not valid, made by some phony so and so, Host is not liable.

2)The DMCA has merit, it can be proven that so and so took Jelsoft property without paying for it.
If Jelsoft cannot prove that so-so stole something, base on "good faith" and "honor" would not stand in a US court of law or anywhere in the world. Good faith and honor does not equate to evidence.

3)The host intent to harbor stolen property.
If the host was merely giving its client time to properly present evidence that the client did not stole intellectual property. Host cant be held liable.

--------------------------------------
The situation is reverse, DMCA has no merit, it is based on "good faith" this will get you sue.

The host has not giving the client time to present evidence. Host deletes clients contents. Client has the right to sue for content lost, work, time, and reputation.

 

Nowadays its always better to use a host who consults his customer before taking action coz there is high competition and sometimes even a false signal could be sent or a wrong complain so use a host who gives more importance to customers

 

As I stated, the DMCA must be valid and that the host is NOT required to immediately take down the offending material and can allow the party to counter the DMCA. I am talking about a host refusing to act upon a DMCA without the party providing the hosts version of "PROOF" of ownership of the content. If a false DMCA is filed, then the party making the claim, not the host is liable. The problem of liability comes from when the host decides they are going to set additional terms before they act upon a DMCA. That is what opens the door to liability.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not adding requirements to the law. I am merely protecting my business with these policys. I've seen some hosts that require a court order. I thought that was kind of funny. Me requiring them to be a person authorized to act in that capacity and showing at least a little bit of proof that they do in fact own the copyright. I will not go around and just take sites down.

And if they do not have the ability to prove to me they are the copyright owner, they do not have the ability to prove to a court of law that they own the copyright, because my company's requirement are quite simple. Prove you at least have a copy that was created sooner, or provide a registration ID.

My company is still protected under the law for requiring some sort of validation. We are still legally immune.

And the 50k dollars in legal fees I was talking about is only for my hosting business. That doesn't count all the copyright violations I have taken to court. There have been plenty. And yes, I have faught a case in court for a decent amount of time.

Also, let me add, we perform audits of sites hosted on our servers, a small random percentage of people get their sites looked at by an abuse tech. We perform these audits once a month. We don't go through files unless we start seeing warez or something along those lines though.

 

Again, I disagree, and you need to review the section I posted about DMCA notices. The host is not allowed to set standards of the validity of infringement claims other than to verify that the contact information is valid AND keep immunity. You are NOT allowed to set the same standards as a court of law - for instance, if I file a valid DMCA regarding an image I took, you cannot act as judge and jury and request further proof (if you want to be immune). Proof of image ownership can require expert analysis of the image file and compression ratios. This can be very expensive and in a court of law, you would have experts that could testify. How could I easily "prove" a copy was created sooner when you can edit the data? You can't.

I have never had a DMCA filing contested. This is because the party knows they stole it. If a US host refused to remove it unless I provided further "proof", the stolen image is going to remain up and I am going to file suit against the individual and host and both would be subject to damages. The host had been notified of copyright infringement and failed to act upon it because they added standards of proof, standards they are not allowed to add and remain protected.

 

MJEWEL, you can only sue the host if you can prove your property is stolen. If it is not stolen, you in turn will be sue by host and customer.

Therefore, if host ask for proof, and customer proof that ownership is valid. You can't sue a host.
For what? You don't have an infringement case, you only have, "the host is not complying to me, so I am suing the host?".

Not going to be upheld in the court of law Mjewel.
So does it make sense that the information is verified? If it is verified, host can take it off. I don't see tbe kind of "liability" that you are talking about for a host to ask for verifications before taking action.

If the law requires no verfication at all, anyone could issue a DMCA.
Which doesn't make sense, then its not even the law anymore, its more garbage and abuse out there perform by some pirate junky or junkies.

 

mjewel is not saying that a person that has no claim in the first place could sue, what is being said is that if you add requirements above and beyond those listed in the DMCA then you lose your immunity. So, if a person with an actual claim submits a valid DMCA and complies with all of the rules for such a filing, but then is told by the host he/she contacts that he must submit additional documentation for action to be taken, the person with the claim can now sue because the DMCA takedown procedure was not followed.

And yes, under the law all properly filed DMCA notices must have action taken on them. And anyone can file a DMCA. If it is found later that the person either did not have good faith to believe they had the copyright or did not have any standing to file (i.e. is not an agent of the copyright holder) then there are procedures in place to report them as that is a crime to knowingly file a false DMCA notice. But still, any person can file.