MojoHost says NO to Tube sites

[Sexyteaser]

Brad - Just in case you stop by to read this I just wanted to say kudos for doing the right thing.

[TheEnforcer]

Brad's a 100% class act.

[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.

[Hell Puppy]

Yup, Brad is a class act and one of a small handful of places I'd even consider hosting.

Takes a lot of balls to turn down business at all, even more so in a business where alomst everyone is pushing the edge of the envelope between right and wrong. But this isn't the first time I've seen him turn down action simply because it's the right thing to do.

That's something I admire.

[EmporerEJ]

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 don't agree. He's simply choosing not to accept business from a "risky" customer. Who do you think will challenge him?

[gonzo]

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.

Id be interested in seeing what Micheal has to say about this. Because it is my understanding that Alex is on to something here.

[Sexyteaser]

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.

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.

[RawAlex]

If Brad has a valid DMCA notice in his hands, he is obliged to act or become just about as responsible as the person violating the copyright. It isn't unusual for host to take this step, and in fact this is the best way for you to get quick resolution if your material is getting violated - DMCA the host, and they will normally take action (if they are in the US).

Where I think this may fall into a black hole is the idea of "tube sites whose business model relies predominately on revenues generated from the dissemination of obviously stolen content ". This "fact" could only be supported by valid DMCA noticed from the copyright holders, otherwise Mojohost has no way to determine the validity of the content, and have no reason to act without notification. Shutting a site down and then finding out all the content was used with permission would be a huge legal nightmare.

I look forward to a lawyer's opinion on this one!

[Brad Mitchell]

Hi Everyone

Thanks for the kudos.

No, I have not been served any such serious letters from lawyers or received any more than the average of 1-2 DMCAs per month. I have great legal representation but have had no issues with copyright holders more than any host. In fact, I have always assumed based on our size that I see less of them than average.

The DMCA notices we get never rarely go beyond me. We comply quickly and always engage the clients and complaining party so that the right actions are taken.

I've always guided our client acceptance with my personal judgement. The idea here is to make sure that we don't let any serial offenders slip under the radar. I don't want to turn a blind eye and just respond to DMCAs if and when they come in. I believe as an industry pro I can easily communicate with clients and content producers - that I can easily sort out which sites have a preponderance of stolen content and kick them out.

Brad

[SabrinaDeep]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Hi Everyone

Thanks for the kudos.

No, I have not been served any such serious letters from lawyers or received any more than the average of 1-2 DMCAs per month. I have great legal representation but have had no issues with copyright holders more than any host. In fact, I have always assumed based on our size that I see less of them than average.

The DMCA notices we get never rarely go beyond me. We comply quickly and always engage the clients and complaining party so that the right actions are taken.

I've always guided our client acceptance with my personal judgement. The idea here is to make sure that we don't let any serial offenders slip under the radar. I don't want to turn a blind eye and just respond to DMCAs if and when they come in. I believe as an industry pro I can easily communicate with clients and content producers - that I can easily sort out which sites have a preponderance of stolen content and kick them out.

Brad

Amen!

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Brad Mitchell

Hi Everyone

Thanks for the kudos.

No, I have not been served any such serious letters from lawyers or received any more than the average of 1-2 DMCAs per month. I have great legal representation but have had no issues with copyright holders more than any host. In fact, I have always assumed based on our size that I see less of them than average.

The DMCA notices we get never rarely go beyond me. We comply quickly and always engage the clients and complaining party so that the right actions are taken.

I've always guided our client acceptance with my personal judgement. The idea here is to make sure that we don't let any serial offenders slip under the radar. I don't want to turn a blind eye and just respond to DMCAs if and when they come in. I believe as an industry pro I can easily communicate with clients and content producers - that I can easily sort out which sites have a preponderance of stolen content and kick them out.

Brad

WOW!
You mean there are actually people in our industry that believe in doing sensible, and reasonable business, without slapping their dicks on the table?
Who'd a thought?