Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Anderton
thought about it before posting the links (Smilie)

---

I didn't post links, someone posted them in a comment back in a post from Jan 2007! It's nearly impossible to know what people have commented where there are 1000s of comments on the site.

Taking down a website is an unnecessary step, it's power abuse in my opinion and it was a real hassle for me. Why should I go through all that because some kid posted a link to rapidshare without me knowing. If I did know I would of deleted the comment (I have done things like this in the past).

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I didn't post links, someone posted them in a comment back in a post from Jan 2007! It's nearly impossible to know what people have commented where there are 1000s of comments on the site.

---

Oh. That's just stupid then
Tried getting in touch with them? Ask DH to get you contact details or something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee

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.

---

True, but this has nothing to do with going to court. Microsoft has indeed contacted the webhost before launching any legal action at all!
The webhost is exposing themselves to legal liability by allowing their user to host this sort of material on their servers in the first place (the exact same reason that the website owner is liable for links to WLM9 posted on their website by their users) - it is therefore the webhost's responsibility to deal with this issue as they are able to make direct contact with their client and take any immediate actions necessary (which they are most likely entitled to as per their web hosting terms and conditions).

I don't see any problem with Microsoft's actions, they are a corporation and they take these issues very seriously (as they should and are entitled to). Furthermore Microsoft has no reason or incentive to maintain good relations with the webhost or the website author and you are very fortunate that Microsoft did not choose to pursue this issue further.

I agree with everything Cookie said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv
I don't see any problem with Microsoft's actions, they are a corporation and they take these issues very seriously (as they should and are entitled to). Furthermore Microsoft has no reason or incentive to maintain good relations with the webhost or the website author and you are very fortunate that Microsoft did not choose to pursue this issue further.

---

Apart from the fact that the site they took down is a news site relating to their product that promotes it.  It also makes recommendations and has a large user base.  If they piss them off then it could have some effects on the ammount of people using WLM (especially if it happens to other people - imagine if mess.be got taken down for 11 hour over something like this).

Once again, the fact that the site was taken down was not Microsoft's fault in any way.
I'm sure as far as they were concerned they didn't care what the webhost did as long as the offending content (the link) was no longer displayed, and won't be displayed in future. The webhost is the one who absorbation should take this up with, they are the ones who (should) want to maintain relations with their clients and had probably overreacted (although they are, most likely, also within their legal rights to take down the site).

quote:

---

Originally posted by markee

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv
I don't see any problem with Microsoft's actions, they are a corporation and they take these issues very seriously (as they should and are entitled to). Furthermore Microsoft has no reason or incentive to maintain good relations with the webhost or the website author and you are very fortunate that Microsoft did not choose to pursue this issue further.

---

Apart from the fact that the site they took down is a news site relating to their product that promotes it.  It also makes recommendations and has a large user base.  If they piss them off then it could have some effects on the ammount of people using WLM (especially if it happens to other people - imagine if mess.be got taken down for 11 hour over something like this).

---

Yeah, but lets face it... I think microsoft don't care about a couple of hundred extra users to wlm, because they have millions of people using it everyday, and practically everyone knows about msn/wlm!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Volv
The webhost is exposing themselves to legal liability by allowing their user to host this sort of material on their servers in the first place

---

As Ross has explained, and I know there are no infringing files held on the server, some noob kid posted a link to the file on rapidshare, Microsoft should report the link to rapidshare and have contacted Ross and his host regarding removal of the comment.

I also believe that the host is to blame, as they should have contacted Ross on this issue before taking the site offline.

It'd be interesting to know whether it was the host or Microsoft request for the site to be taken offline.

Even though I can understand your feeling about the fact that your website got cut off because of a comment, Microsoft had their right to do so. There wasn't even a disclaimer on msgstuff.com.

I recommend you get a decent disclaimer on the site, as there isn't any at the moment.  Disclaimers can easily save you a lot of trouble, and a DMCA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer#Example
Of course it depends on what you write in the disclaimer.

I'm pretty sure Ross has a disclaimer somewhere

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
I'm pretty sure Ross has a disclaimer somewhere

---

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amsgstuff.com+disclaimer

Google disagree.