OVH Community, your new community space.

Renter if breach of TOC by their client(s) or server just disconnected ?


RimBlock
19-03-2010, 06:57
Quote Originally Posted by IainK
I'm sure that Andy will see this post RimBlock and possibly update the sticky
I'll point him in this direction when I next see him online too.
Cheers Iain...

Err, nothing more to see here..... move along please .

RB

IainK
18-03-2010, 14:03
I'm sure that Andy will see this post RimBlock and possibly update the sticky
I'll point him in this direction when I next see him online too.

I agree that it would be good to have a sticky in regards to OVH's official policies of various things like this though especially as a lot of the time we call support we are directed here. Would be nice to see something official.

RimBlock
15-03-2010, 02:41
Hi Fozle,

Yes I was suggesting updating Andy's sticky as the information seems a little out of date.

I.e. the link regarding OVH and torrenting goes to a thread which was requested closed due to inaccurate information and itself links to a more accurate post with the then clarified guidelines. Maybe just linking to the second thread would make things clearer for new customers.

This second thread was last updated in 2008 and makes no mention of VPS's, resellers rights / liabilities in OVH's eyes and resellers clients having root access in a lot / most cases giving them much more power now. Maybe it would be a good idea to include the information in this thread, either linked or quoted, to help clarify the stance on VPS.

Alternatively, an official OVH sticky outlining OVHs' stance on these matters as opposed to, and no disrespect intended to Andy, Andys' interpretation of OVHs' stance, including actions resulting from breach of them at either reseller or resellers client level.

Cheers
RB

gregoryfenton
13-03-2010, 16:38
Quote Originally Posted by yatesco
I can only read English and the Discworld is very appealing. I am sure my mother-in-law is already there under the name 'Granny Weathermax'.



Not belittling your comments - I absolutely agree.
Ah good old Granny Weatherwax - if only life was like that..

Every decision the lawmakers made must pass Granny Weatherwax's nod before it becomes part of law.

Pity that the system on Earth is more patrician.. "One man, one vote"

"I'm the man and the vote is mine".

Now where is my tin foil hat? The New World Order is already here.

yatesco
13-03-2010, 14:35
Quote Originally Posted by Razakel
Getting this angry on such a regular basis is probably going to kill me before I'm thirty. Does anyone know of a (preferably English-speaking) country with a government that doesn't constantly **** everything up?
I can only read English and the Discworld is very appealing. I am sure my mother-in-law is already there under the name 'Granny Weathermax'.



Not belittling your comments - I absolutely agree.

Razakel
13-03-2010, 14:25
Quote Originally Posted by Myatu
One really should pay attention to the Digital Economy Bill that's been put in front of the House.

It's a draconian bill and goes a lot further than just punishing the individual who, perhaps mistakenly, downloaded a copyrighted work without permission. If it's one person in your household, your entire household looses Internet connection - based on a mere accusation (guilty until proven innocent). Same goes if it's someone in a pub, a hotel, a college, a library - they'll all stand to loose their connection. That could well be the end of public wifi and cybercafes.

In an apparent attempt to address some of those issues surrounding the disconnection, a new amendment to the Digital Economy Bill (120a) will also give DMCA-like powers to UK businesses/gov't to shut down websites (also merely by accusation). It'll stifle the UK economy, something that isn't in its best shape to begin with...

Even big service providers like TalkTalk, Virgin Media, eBay, Google and Yahoo oppose it (http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/...tter-to-the-ft), so there's something seriously wrong with that bill.

See www.dontdisconnect.us and www.openrightsgroup.org (there's a demonstration on March 24th actually, I'm thinking of going...).
I wrote a lot of letters to my MP about this when it was first in the pipeline. He replied, then forwarded it to BERR, who sent a "we received your letter and expect to have a reply by April 12th". They never replied.

It's just not worth your time. Even if your MP is one of the good ones, they won't understand the issues and if they try and raise it, they'll be ignored by the other *******s.

Peter Mandelson is a **** of the highest order. A man who was forced to resign not once but twice as an MP after being caught doing favours for his wealthy mates, then nearly had to do the same whilst in Europe. He now holds a key position in government, despite not being elected, and being clearly corrupt. It just beggars belief.

I'm starting to be of the opinion that the actions of this government can't be put down to sheer ineptitude anymore. It's almost as if they're deliberately wrecking everything. The list of things they've ****ed up keeps growing and growing, and frankly, I can think of one, maybe two things they've done since 1997 that I actually agree with.

All someone needs to do is write to the Palace of Westminster's ISP and send a few fake complaints that copyrighted material has been downloaded from there.

Getting this angry on such a regular basis is probably going to kill me before I'm thirty. Does anyone know of a (preferably English-speaking) country with a government that doesn't constantly **** everything up?

Myatu
13-03-2010, 13:57
One really should pay attention to the Digital Economy Bill that's been put in front of the House.

It's a draconian bill and goes a lot further than just punishing the individual who, perhaps mistakenly, downloaded a copyrighted work without permission. If it's one person in your household, your entire household looses Internet connection - based on a mere accusation (guilty until proven innocent). Same goes if it's someone in a pub, a hotel, a college, a library - they'll all stand to loose their connection. That could well be the end of public wifi and cybercafes.

In an apparent attempt to address some of those issues surrounding the disconnection, a new amendment to the Digital Economy Bill (120a) will also give DMCA-like powers to UK businesses/gov't to shut down websites (also merely by accusation). It'll stifle the UK economy, something that isn't in its best shape to begin with...

Even big service providers like TalkTalk, Virgin Media, eBay, Google and Yahoo oppose it (http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/...tter-to-the-ft), so there's something seriously wrong with that bill.

See www.dontdisconnect.us and www.openrightsgroup.org (there's a demonstration on March 24th actually, I'm thinking of going...).

tim2718281
13-03-2010, 11:40
Seriously, there are people out there writing viruses, DDoS atacks, and so on, aimed at preventing people from carrying out their legitimate activities.

To my mind, it seems likely that some of those people would also make false accusations of copyright infringement. Or even - in the case of a site which allows users to post material - deliberately post infringing material under a false name, then complain the material is there.

In the USA, if the accused person denies there is an infringement, then the supplier must restore the service, and let the accused and accuser battle it out in court. This seems reasonable to me ... the supplier will act on a complaint, but not if it is disputed.

gregoryfenton
13-03-2010, 10:51
Google has made a detailed submission to the Telecommunications Carriers Forum that heavily criticises the draft code of practice for ISPs in relation to section 92A of the Copyright Act.

In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

As such, Google says "Section 92A puts users’ procedural and fundamental rights at risk, by threatening to terminate users’ internet access based on mere allegations and reverse the burden of proof onto a user to establish there was no infringement."

It goes on to say, "Section 92A undermines the incredible social and economic benefits of the open and universally accessible internet, by providing for a remedy of account termination or disconnection that is disproportionate to the harm of copyright infringement online."

The submission also takes issue with the claim that user education is stated as a “primary purpose” of the draft code, "but there is little reference to education about users’ rights, including limitations and exceptions enabling lawful use of copyright protected works, in addition to their obligations."

In line with other submissions, Google also calls for an independent adjudicator to evaluate evidence and determine if infringement has taken place. And, its says, acknowledgement should be made of the possible defences and exceptions to copyright infringement.

Finally, Google is not happy with the notion of "processing fees" being applied to infringement notices. It wants to know details of these fees and what basis they would be charged on.

In a shot across the bows of those driving Section 92A, Google also firmly stakes out its ground as regards copyright in the online world.

"While inadequate copyright protection can reduce incentives to create, excessive copyright
protection can stifle creativity, choke innovation, impoverish culture and block free and fair
competition. As both an intermediary and an innovator in online technologies, Google supports a
flexible and adaptable legal framework that provides those who create and invest in new
technologies the freedom to innovate without fear that their efforts will be hindered by an overly
restrictive approach to copyright. Copyright must have sufficient flexibility so that new,
legitimate and socially desirable uses, enabled by new technologies, can flourish."

ITEXPERTS
12-03-2010, 21:46
Thing is that OVH will act whether or not the Owner of Material in question reported it.

If am not mistaken a copyright or DMCA can only be sent by the owner of the material in question.

Good to know that OVH acts on them but sometimes people mess around. So what the next step is - this is more important?

tim2718281
12-03-2010, 19:57
Quote Originally Posted by fozle
Actually what should happen now is the IP of the VM in question would be blocked, and the server owner informed.
That's a reasonable first step..

What happens next if the person running the VPS says there is no copyright infringement?

_Lemon_
12-03-2010, 18:32
Just going to throw in my two cents.

I have had this happen once before. The user was renting a Kimsufi C-05G through me and had a "hate" website on it. I received an e-mail from OVH requesting that I take it down which I complied within an hour two by disabling Apache on the server. I then informed the user about it who was quite amicable and did not kick up a fuss. He quietly moved along.

OVH appeared to be happy with this and recognised that I was a reseller so it went down quite well. (I got to sell the server on to someone else so I didn't lose out).

fozl
12-03-2010, 16:57
Um... are you talking about Andy's sticky thread?

RimBlock
12-03-2010, 12:52
Thanks Fozle,

Thanks is great news to hear.

Any chance of the sticky being updated so people can find out by themselves .

Thanks for the quick reply.

RB

darkfyre
12-03-2010, 12:31
haha

this made me lol.

Myatu
12-03-2010, 12:09
Lol!

fozl
12-03-2010, 11:59
Quote Originally Posted by Myatu
I think that needs rephrasing to something more definite, fozle. One cannot rely on a "maybe, or maybe not".
echo "Actually what should happen now is the IP of the VM in question would be blocked, and the server owner informed." | sed s/sh/w/


Myatu
12-03-2010, 11:23
Quote Originally Posted by fozle
... what should happen ...
I think that needs rephrasing to something more definite, fozle. One cannot rely on a "maybe, or maybe not".

fozl
12-03-2010, 10:32
Actually what should happen now is the IP of the VM in question would be blocked, and the server owner informed.

RimBlock
12-03-2010, 10:14
Hi,

In looking around the sticky threads I have obviously come across the concerns expressed by people reselling space on dedi servers. The argument at the time was that there would be no root access for the clients unless they were offered SSH and even then thier SSH should be jailed.

As the stickies have not been updated since 2008 and new options are now available, I am after a bit of clarification regarding the following situation and how it would be handled by OVH. Maybe updating the Sitcky to take in to account reseller VPS clients activities would also be good.

A dedi server is rented, sliced in to VPS's and resold. Each VPS has it's own IP address. Someone sends a C&D note to OVH concerning a torrent client sharing what is believed to be copywrited material. The ip address is not of the main server but of one of the VPS's running on it.

Would OVH
1. Disable the server
2. Inform the person renting the Dedi and give them a window to sort out their client.
3. Something else (what would that be ?)

Option 2 would of course be fine.

The thread linked in the thread which is linked in the sticky indicates option 2 but newer threads pulled up in the search function indicate option 1 is still happening.

Many thanks for any clarification.

RB