So it turns out Microsoft contacted Dreamhost about links to WLM 9 links in some comments on the website:
http://www.msgstuff.com/news/post/432/

Last night my website was taken offline until I removed the content and I was issued with a formal DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice regarding allegedly infringing content.

If Microsoft sent me an email asking me to remove the comments I would of complied. I'm really annoyed about it, I feel like I have been bullied by Microsoft .

What do you guys think?

lolowned

Well, the internet is full of websites having a download for WLM 9.0 With a little search in Google, you could find too many. Microsoft should close them too if they wanted to be fair.

maybe microsoft should shut google down until they remove all the links to WLM 9

quote:

---

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

---

That's highly unlike the team we used to know, I'd've expected them to have asked you first hand from the contact section, really lost some more respect for the messenger live team now

nice news post about it though

Sucks to be hosted in the USA. I got a DMCA complaint once, and my Dutch hoster just forwarded it to me and asked what's going on, without taking any other action .

Microsoft is PMS'ing...

I am pretty made over the situation, it was totally uncalled for. I really want an apology for not taking more co-operative measures. Microsoft should know not to insult those who promote their products, because it will just lead to criticism .

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
Microsoft should know not to insult those who promote their products

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nathan
hmm I wonder who would win though lol

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerK
Interesting -- I think Microsoft should win(Smilie)

---

google all the way.

who wants to second me for the hell of it?

* MeEtc seconds the motion

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerK
Interesting -- I think Microsoft should win

---

BLASPHEMY!

I too believe a formal explanation/apology wouldn't go a miss though

---

No one closes my sites. ;-;  Nobody hates me.

To be fair, you knew the content shouldn't have been on the site in the first place..

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
So it turns out Microsoft contacted Dreamhost about links to WLM 9 links in some comments on the website:
http://www.msgstuff.com/news/post/432/

Last night my website was taken offline until I removed the content and I was issued with a formal DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) notice regarding allegedly infringing content.

If Microsoft sent me an email asking me to remove the comments I would of complied. I'm really annoyed about it, I feel like I have been bullied by Microsoft .

What do you guys think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
That's highly unlike the team we used to know, I'd've expected them to have asked you first hand from the contact section, really lost some more respect for the messenger live team now

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oxy
To be fair, you knew the content shouldn't have been on the site in the first place..

---

I made sure I didn't provide links to WLM 9, someone posted a comment in a very old post (Jan 2007) around 2 weeks ago. Secondly to contact Dreamhost they would have had to look up my WHOIS information, which states my email address. It was an unnecessary step and provided a lot of hassle to get my site running again.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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 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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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).

---

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

---

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

---

Well we kinda have a copyright notice I guess which the guy who posted the comment falls under, but I don't think anyone would pay any notice at all too

Content belongs to the respective owners and you may not redistribute material without full permission from the owner.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
Well we kinda have a copyright notice I guess which the guy who posted the comment falls under, but I don't think anyone would pay any notice at all too

Content belongs to the respective owners and you may not redistribute material without full permission from the owner.

---

I don't have a disclaimer for what's posted in comments, I do for custom content however. I should add something along the lines that I cannot control what users add, but people should have common sense to realize that I don't add all the comments myself.

In the past I have found people using my work, and I give them an email which works really way and maintain a good relationship with the person. I do feel victimized in all this and I now have a poor opinion of Microsoft. Ironically the person who issued the DMCA I believe works in the customer relation and marketing area at Microsoft .

quote:

---

Originally posted by absorbation
I do feel victimized in all this and I now have a poor opinion of Microsoft.

---

If it were me, I would add a 'Report' button next to each comment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nitro

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
Well we kinda have a copyright notice I guess which the guy who posted the comment falls under, but I don't think anyone would pay any notice at all too

Content belongs to the respective owners and you may not redistribute material without full permission from the owner.

---

Sorry, but that's not even remotely close to be labeled as a disclaimer.

That single line is just saying that all content belongs to their respective owners. Now, I'm no lawyer. No lawyer at all, but in terms of owner, the comments belong to the site, as the site both hosts and display the comments, unless otherwise is stated.

That's where the disclaimer comes in handy, you state that the data that you host and display is not content that you are responsible of, and to view the site / use it you agree to be bound by that fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please do. But the Wikipedia article may help you a bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chancer

quote:

---

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

---

Maybe they should shut Live.com Search...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GiantSpider

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nitro

quote:

---

Originally posted by aNILEator
Well we kinda have a copyright notice I guess which the guy who posted the comment falls under, but I don't think anyone would pay any notice at all too

Content belongs to the respective owners and you may not redistribute material without full permission from the owner.

---

Sorry, but that's not even remotely close to be labeled as a disclaimer.

That single line is just saying that all content belongs to their respective owners. Now, I'm no lawyer. No lawyer at all, but in terms of owner, the comments belong to the site, as the site both hosts and display the comments, unless otherwise is stated.

That's where the disclaimer comes in handy, you state that the data that you host and display is not content that you are responsible of, and to view the site / use it you agree to be bound by that fact.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Please do. But the Wikipedia article may help you a bit.

---

It really depends on which country you are in. Each will have their own definitions of property, belonging to another etc. I doubt you can write a legally binding universal disclaimer.

---

You could force all comments that include a link to go into a moderation queue, to help stop similar problems happening again in the future.

I don't believe Microsoft has done anything wrong, and you don't know that they haven't contacted all the other sites with links to WLM9 too.

Everyone is talking about WLM 9, is it Windows Live Messenger 9? I thought there was only an 8th version.

quote:

---

Originally posted by androo123
Everyone is talking about WLM 9, is it Windows Live Messenger 9? I thought there was only an 8th version.

---

thats just bs. i think you should also have a disclaimer saying that basicly nothing on the website can relate to you and its all for educational purposes only and crap.

A disclaimer doesn't help if you have illegal stuff on your site (put there by yourself or not doesn't matter). If you do not take that illegal content off, then your host has every right todo so, by any means they seem fit and with or without any warning.

Most terms of service have a clause that states if there is illegal content in your hosting then they have the right to remove you completely.  Though as it was only a link and not the actually program then i don't think there is anything wrong with that (this is one of the points that the pirate bay is making in their pending court case).  Microsoft should have targeted the site that was hosting it rather than the one that was linking to it imho.

imho (and many others that I know too) linking to something illegal is just as bad as hosting it, and should be dealt with too.