Hosting provider sysadmin here. We're required to do exactly what soft layer did here, and 72 hours is pretty generous. We typically call the client if they don't respond to the DMCA takedown notice within 24 hours an give them another 24 to take down whatever content they're being DMCA'd for. It's shit and I hate it, but if they don't respond, we do the very minimum damage possible to make the content unavailable, as required of us by DMCA safe harbor provisions.
If it is a managed service, we'll just chmod the image to 000 or whatever does the least damage to their site. Unfortunately, if we don't have the login to the server (unmanaged) or if it's a colo, we just have to disable that IP on the switch or router (or null-route their IP for a bit) until they contact us and can take their "illegal" content down.
My point: hate DMCA, not SoftLayer, for this. They (assuming unmanaged service) just did what they were legally
required to do.
[edit] It's good that you call the clients. Nothing drives me nuts more than trying to sift through a painful ticket system where everything is tracked only by reference number.
What pisses me off was that this wasn't even a DMCA request--SL had no legal responsibility to take action. It was just some random internet vigilantes making an unsubstantiated threat.
Come to think of it, SL may have taken us down for DMCA as well. We had an obvious path for handling abuse that both the accusers and SL could have used. After some negotiation I think we were able to convince them to just forward abuse emails to our address--but it took some doing.
Ahh, Gotcha. When that ("frivolous legal threats")happen to us, we just don't even reply to the person reporting it in most cases. If they're persistent, we say in so many words "get a court order, then we'll talk".
We've had India law firms call us screaming at 6PM on a friday, and we told them:
- we require that they submit all abuse matters to our abuse@ e-mail address per RFC 2142 (kinda, but this sounds official when you say it to some law intern chump)
- they can scream all they want; we're not taking it down unless they submit a "valid legal order" to us (I don't even mention DMCA because I don't want to give them ideas)
- we're not responsible for the content of our clients, so they need to take it up with them
>"We had an obvious path for handling abuse that both the accusers and SL could have used."
They (accusers) don't, and they do this on purpose. They don't really want the content just gone, they want collateral damage as revenge for your "violation".
>"After some negotiation I think we were able to convince them to just forward abuse emails to our address--but it took some doing."
Sorry that that even required negotiation. We forward all abuse e-mail besides spam complaints for managed services. With anything like this, we try our best to do as little damage as possible to our clients.
No, everyone involved is to blame, just nobody has the fortitude to do do anything about it as long as they are getting paid. If a hitman is paid to kill you, is he not guilty? The problem is everyone is okay with everything, as long as the gun isn't pointed to their heads. This is wrong. People need to realize this and start protesting for the laws to change. Everyone needs to wake up and start taking responsibility for being a pawn in this chess game.
Compliance does not excuse them from responsibility. Yes, both are trying the best job they can in the face of a request, but both also have the individual freedom to choose not to execute a hit job. Outrageous actions call for outrageous metaphors.
>"Compliance does not excuse them from responsibility"
Please read about how DMCA Safe Harbor works. If we don't comply with it, we are held responsible for the "violations" of our clients.
Because we're in the US, it's critical that we comply with all the DMCA crap, otherwise DHS/FBI/CIA/whatever will come in and seize our equipment. They've actually done it before when we SWIP'd some stuff for a client, so we didn't get the abuse mail. They just ignored it, and one day some people showed up with a court order and we had to hand over their server (it was a colo.)
I see now that this JotForm issue might not be due to DMCA, which is pretty appalling, but to put it lightly, "they [gov't] have ways of making you comply".
"GoDaddy had complied with a Secret Service request to take down the domain"
Are you suggesting that service providers should say "no" to the secret service? Real talk: I really don't think that telling the secret service to get stuffed would turn out well. In fact, since ATT is so in bed with gov't at this point, they'd probably just have our uplink shut off if we tried to pull that.
If it is a managed service, we'll just chmod the image to 000 or whatever does the least damage to their site. Unfortunately, if we don't have the login to the server (unmanaged) or if it's a colo, we just have to disable that IP on the switch or router (or null-route their IP for a bit) until they contact us and can take their "illegal" content down.
My point: hate DMCA, not SoftLayer, for this. They (assuming unmanaged service) just did what they were legally required to do.