Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
It was an unnecessary step and provided a lot of hassle to get my site running again.

---

As Cookie said, that's the fault of your host not Microsoft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeEtc
maybe microsoft should shut google down until they remove all the links to WLM 9

---

Its a search engine. Its algorithms show what it judges should be shown. Personal sites are however written by people and thus accountable to a DMCA

quote:

---

Originally posted by MeEtc
maybe microsoft should shut google down until they remove all the links to WLM 9

---

They should shut down browsers for facilitating the transfer/download of WLM9 too (like Kazaa) and the internet altogether while they're at it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
It was an unnecessary step and provided a lot of hassle to get my site running again.

---

As Cookie said, that's the fault of your host not Microsoft.

---

DH takes this very seriously They've always said it.
If you had leaked betas on the server or had links to download them then you should have, as mean as it sounds, thought about it before posting the links

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
I beg to differ though. Ok, sometimes it could be more 'polite' to contact the author of the website. But the problem is quite often that it isn't that easy to contact them (if they react at all, and if they even have a 'contact' form). And to check each site each time for a contact form (and checking if you got the correct contact) is time consuming I suppose.

Contacting the host seems normal to me, and not "wrong". What the host does with the email is another thing. If your host decides to preventive close your site, you should complain to them. Although it is their perfect right to do so without even noticing you. Most hosts don't allow illegal content and if you still put illegal contact on your site they have every right to close it down.

---

I disagree.  When studying law, you are taught that you shouldn't just go to court, you should try to contact the person first and to have mediation if that doesn't work before proceeding.  This is to lower costs and to not ruin any relationships.

If they don't want to spend 2 seconds on the site to find a contact form then they could have used the forum, or even just the WHOIS information (which should be kept up to date and accurate anyway).

I understand that having links at all is bad, and they realised that hence not posting them themselves.

It doesn't take much effort to send a reminder about these things to people before getting them offside.  I personally have been a supporter of Microsoft and Messenger in particular (even though they could be better for what resources they have) but this is something that I think thy should relise is not accepted by people.

If it continued after a warning to abs then I can understand themgoing to dreamhost, just not as a first step.

---

Just out of curiosity, if I were to have links on my site, do you think the letter would come to me as I have the dedicated server in my name, or my provider?  Where do you think they draw the line?

I think that Microsoft finds out the the WhoIS information and compile a list of websites who are providing links to betas. Then they email that list to each host with the list of websites using that host who are providing those links. That saves time for Microsoft writing an individual letter to each author detailing where the breach has occurred.

I'm not disputing if it's right or wrong to go straight to the host to save time but that's what I think they do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by High Speed Chaser
I'm not disputing if it's right or wrong to go straight to the host to save time but that's what I think they do.

---

Just because it saves time doesn't mean that it is right.

What I can't believe is that first of all I don't believe the link was active; I may or may not be wrong. Second of all when Neowin.net and Mess.be published the feature list (That I unknowingly copied/pasted from a post on the forums) they were not issued a formal DMCA. To be frank they weren't even contacted by Microsoft employee's to remove the content, they were pounced with MVP's, Butterflies, and Testers to remove the content so the beta could continue. To give further detail, Neowin.net did not even remove the content until 5 days later when all the major news sources spread it like wildfire.

There are many websites that still give a download for Messenger v9, and I've reported them, and yet they still don't have the content removed. I don't understand why Messenger Stuff was on the hit list for a petty comment. Although I can understand Microsoft's point of view on this, I don't believe they should have went straight to the host. I've seen them on many occasions to contact the website directly instead of going to the web host.

it's like real life. if you do something bad, and you're under someone else, then THEY get the heat. it's like if you're a kid, and you steal candy, then your parents get in trouble. that's all it is. dont take offense because they didnt email you personally. they probably do searches regularly for that kind of junk because it's not supposed to be public yet or whatever the case is. they're protecting their product, so they go to the momma, not address the boy who made the mistake.

oh and plus, who wants to send out personalized emails saying they'll threaten you with that if not taken down when they can just threaten you with the real thing and actually take it down themselves? cause that's more of a BANG and it worked [faster] righttt?

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee

quote:

---

Originally posted by High Speed Chaser
I'm not disputing if it's right or wrong to go straight to the host to save time but that's what I think they do.

---

Just because it saves time doesn't mean that it is right.

---

Did I say they were right. I just said I'm not disputing it. I actually think it's more "gentlemen like" (can't think of a better word or phrase) to approach an author rather than going over the authors head straight to the host.

I wouldn't want my site taken down for 11 hours while I'm away just because I made mistake or something beyond my control like a comment.