5 ms·

The headline seems misleading. Pearson seems to have executed a valid DMCA claim on a single dis-used blog from 2007. Maybe a little silly, but within their r

by Lazare 14y ago

The headline seems misleading. Pearson seems to have executed a valid DMCA claim on a single dis-used blog from 2007. Maybe a little silly, but within their rights, and certainly not egregious. And then ServerBeach decided to pull the plug on an entire rack of servers with no real notice, no real justification, and AFTER the customer had removed the content. Unless ServerBeach has a really amazing explanation (and frankly I can't imagine what that might be) this is simply horrifying. If ServerBeach will pull the plug on a customer paying $7k/month without warning and with essentially no justification, imagine what they'd do to someone smaller? My takeaway from this: DMCA still not a serious problem. Pearson no more assholeish than any other publisher. ServerBeach a bunch of dangerous loons who need to be kept away from your servers.

farms 14y ago
See my comment re: call I just had with them , hope to be able to report some new policies that'll stop this from happening to their other customers shortly!
001sky 14y ago
This is an interesting point. But the story does raise the issue of "social-engineering" other people to do your bidding using (or as a consequnce of) DMCA notices. There's still the troubling question as to why ServerBeach felt compelled to take down 1.5 million blogs over a single DMCA notice. There's nothing in the DMCA process that demands an entire "ecosystem" be killed off to eliminate a single "bad apple." In that context, and perhaps with a re-written headline, the issues raised here are more generally extended a single company, no?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- cft 14y ago
  >What would you have them do instead? They're bound under OCILLA and the DMCA in general to act in a certain way. Any other host on the Internet will, if they are interested in remaining in business, act exactly as ServerBeach did. No, not EVERY host. FusionStorm for example actually read and comprehend DMCA claims, to narrow down their scope. You DO NOT turn off a customer of this size WITHOUT GETTING ON THE PHONE with them FIRST. I hope this will teach ServerBeach a lesson. However, as I said in another comment, the overall landscape here is deteriorating is far beyond ServerBeach's control: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657833 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657833 PS. I should also add here that the revenues of a company that pays $70,000 for hosting annually could well be above $2m/yr, and such company could be capable of raising serious legal issues with their hosting company.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - farms 14y ago
      I think your Tiny and our Tiny are clearly quite different ;)
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tluyben2 14y ago
    Like I said elsewhere; the hoster is supposed to defend and support their clients. Who cares if they were justified in doing this.
paulsutter 14y ago
The only change needed in the headline is to replace Pearson with Serverbeach. Im no fan of Pearson, or DMCA notices, but yes Serverbeach is the dangerous incompetent here.
mark_l_watson 14y ago
And, do you know what? ServerBeach is not even a good hosting service (my experience). Good things sometimes come from shit: maybe ServerBeach will clean up their act.
- bwb 14y ago
  We do a lot of business with ServerBeach / Peer1, they are good and have gotten a lot better in the last 24 months. I just don't think they deserve total blame in this situation. If you are you are providing unmanaged servers, that client misses the warning and doesn't respond, you have to take the next step and suspend that server because many times your contract prohibits you from going in and removing one URL. I wish they had called too but sometimes that isn't possible given the margins on some of these businesses. Thanks, Ben (CEO at Site5.com)
  - wlesieutre 14y ago
    Still, 12 hours after receiving notice seems a bit extreme. Especially for content that wasn't publicly accessible anymore.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    You're seriously saying that ServerBeach's margin on $70k in annual hosting is so low that they can't be expected to pick up the phone before taking down somebody's site? Gosh, whose fault could that be? I'd say it's the people who set those prices. Given that the first item in their "Why Server Beach?" list is "Superior Service", they should price in some actual service. Including, say, checking to see if you had fixed the DMCA issue before turning off the site.
  - csomar 14y ago
    Thank you. Just added another hosting site to my black-list.
  - bryanh 14y ago
    Really? Downvotes? Is HN becoming Reddit? He isn't spreading misinformation or misleading anyone, just offering a different viewpoint (and one of a hosting company, mind you).
saraid216 14y ago
According to the article, ServerBeach did have justification: it's the letter of their policy. That doesn't make it smart or sane, but it is justified. They did what they said they'd do.

by Lazare 14y ago

farms 14y ago

See my comment re: call I just had with them , hope to be able to report some new policies that'll stop this from happening to their other customers shortly!

001sky 14y ago

This is an interesting point. But the story does raise the issue of "social-engineering" other people to do your bidding using (or as a consequnce of) DMCA notices. There's still the troubling question as to why ServerBeach felt compelled to take down 1.5 million blogs over a single DMCA notice. There's nothing in the DMCA process that demands an entire "ecosystem" be killed off to eliminate a single "bad apple." In that context, and perhaps with a re-written headline, the issues raised here are more generally extended a single company, no?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cft 14y ago
>What would you have them do instead? They're bound under OCILLA and the DMCA in general to act in a certain way. Any other host on the Internet will, if they are interested in remaining in business, act exactly as ServerBeach did. No, not EVERY host. FusionStorm for example actually read and comprehend DMCA claims, to narrow down their scope. You DO NOT turn off a customer of this size WITHOUT GETTING ON THE PHONE with them FIRST. I hope this will teach ServerBeach a lesson. However, as I said in another comment, the overall landscape here is deteriorating is far beyond ServerBeach's control: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657833 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4657833 PS. I should also add here that the revenues of a company that pays $70,000 for hosting annually could well be above $2m/yr, and such company could be capable of raising serious legal issues with their hosting company.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - farms 14y ago
    I think your Tiny and our Tiny are clearly quite different ;)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- tluyben2 14y ago
  Like I said elsewhere; the hoster is supposed to defend and support their clients. Who cares if they were justified in doing this.

paulsutter 14y ago

The only change needed in the headline is to replace Pearson with Serverbeach. Im no fan of Pearson, or DMCA notices, but yes Serverbeach is the dangerous incompetent here.

mark_l_watson 14y ago

And, do you know what? ServerBeach is not even a good hosting service (my experience). Good things sometimes come from shit: maybe ServerBeach will clean up their act.

bwb 14y ago
We do a lot of business with ServerBeach / Peer1, they are good and have gotten a lot better in the last 24 months. I just don't think they deserve total blame in this situation. If you are you are providing unmanaged servers, that client misses the warning and doesn't respond, you have to take the next step and suspend that server because many times your contract prohibits you from going in and removing one URL. I wish they had called too but sometimes that isn't possible given the margins on some of these businesses. Thanks, Ben (CEO at Site5.com)
- wlesieutre 14y ago
  Still, 12 hours after receiving notice seems a bit extreme. Especially for content that wasn't publicly accessible anymore.
- wpietri 14y ago
  You're seriously saying that ServerBeach's margin on $70k in annual hosting is so low that they can't be expected to pick up the phone before taking down somebody's site? Gosh, whose fault could that be? I'd say it's the people who set those prices. Given that the first item in their "Why Server Beach?" list is "Superior Service", they should price in some actual service. Including, say, checking to see if you had fixed the DMCA issue before turning off the site.
- csomar 14y ago
  Thank you. Just added another hosting site to my black-list.
- bryanh 14y ago
  Really? Downvotes? Is HN becoming Reddit? He isn't spreading misinformation or misleading anyone, just offering a different viewpoint (and one of a hosting company, mind you).

saraid216 14y ago

According to the article, ServerBeach did have justification: it's the letter of their policy. That doesn't make it smart or sane, but it is justified. They did what they said they'd do.