Quote:
Originally Posted by RawAlex
While I have much respect for Brad on this issue, I have to ask:
Will he ask all of his other non-tube accounts to provide needed documentation for their content?
Does he understand that by 'controlling' what he hosts, he may be throwing away his protections under DCMA and other common carrier laws?
Those two things alone should be enough to make everyone pause and think.
|
I have to believe that Mojo was served a copyright infringement letter that had very harsh words and threats in it and his legal rerpresentation encouraged compliance. Because of how the message is written by Brad I think that he would still have protections under DCMA but that would be determined by a legal ruling.
Quote:
It is my personal belief, and now the official position of MojoHost, that
tube sites whose business model relies predominately on revenues generated
from the dissemination of obviously stolen content are unacceptable and we
will not host them. Any sites discovered on our network that fall into this
category of publishing a preponderance of unlicensed videos will be given 60
days to bring their business model into compliance or may have our
assistance in choosing and moving to another suitable host.
|
I know that two other hosting companies that focus on mainstream but had some adult clients received (I believe federal) warrants on the same issue and had to turn those servers over.