📜 ⬆️ ⬇️

From the hoster - about copyrights, links and abuses

Comment of the Russian provider on topics about copyrights, a new wave of which began the post about the claims of the Russian Shield on the link . Information is not only from personal experience of receiving complaints, most providers follow the same rules.

The topic does not contain links to external resources and GMOs.

It is not a secret for anyone that the sites that somehow violate someone’s rights or the law of law. countries abound. Providers are not able to control all the resources placed on their servers, this would require a huge staff of not only technical specialists, but also lawyers, software licensing specialists and even cultural / art historians (to distinguish porn from nude artwork). And all these specialists are required not so much to discover the content, but also to represent the provider in court if necessary - after all, the Client may disagree with the decision of the hoster and go to court. Fortunately, for now the laws of the Russian Federation do not require the content provider to be checked by the provider. Yes, if you find obvious violations or complaints, which will be discussed below, the provider will take preventive measures - but at the same time forced to act prudently.

Letters from the Russian Shield

In the specific situation presented here , emails are just emails from an anonymous author. The hoster will check the source and validity of the claims. Those. will request confirmation of the executed rights to the author's work, agreement or agreement on the basis of which the applicant acts. And not by e-mail - but official certified copies.
These actions eliminate imitation of abuses from competitors and all kinds of trolls. Only if the lawyer assesses that the claims are substantiated and the violation allegedly takes place - the Client will receive a notification about the presence of a complaint about his resource and the site may be blocked (it is the domain, not the full account). Please note that even if you confirm the validity of the claims, the provider has the right to transfer the personal data of the site owner only to authorized government agencies upon official request.
According to the above correspondence, it is difficult to judge the validity of claims, these are just words. But, in case the organization really represents the interests of the copyright holder, the violation takes place - regardless of the fact that only the link is indicated and no direct benefit is obtained (for example, the site earns on advertising or in general non-commercial). In the interests of the site owner - remove the link, because prosecution is quite possible, not so much for the protection of rights, but for the purposes of “demonstrative flogging”. A detailed discussion of the legal aspects was in the source topic and they are not mentioned in the article.
The situation is connected with the imperfection of the Russian (and not only) legislation - instead of fighting with the direct placement of illegal content, there is a struggle with references, which in essence is an imitation of vigorous activity. Actions are also meaningless from the point of view of making a profit: after all, the site owner simply removed the article advertising the book completely, and those who want to download it for free also have access and can find what they need on many resources - Google to help them. But a thoughtful critical article on a popular blog - sales of a book can cause significant harm. It would be better to think about the official distribution of electronic copies via the Internet and efforts are directed to this direction. And the apparent discrepancy between the current state of affairs on the Internet and copyrights is obvious. The ongoing punitive measures (and what is happening in Russia and the United States was actively discussed at Habré) lead to the massive use of tractors - the registration of alternative domain names and the change of the host country of services.

A similar situation may occur not only among Russian hosting providers, in most countries the hoster will listen to the complaint, abroad "defenders" are active. So if the content of the site is “potentially vulnerable” - a direct way to a bulletproof hosting, the benefit of the offer is easy to find. Of course, this will not give absolute guarantees, it is enough to recall the history of 3fn.net , by the way, in general, it is not a specialized bullet-proof hosting. But the sites of Peter the Pig are not as an example harder to block and harder to find their owners for the Russian law enforcement agencies, of course.

The actions of the site owner were correct, in this situation there is no point in resisting the demands. Although it is extremely doubtful that, having received no answer, the Russian Shield began to bring the matter to court.

Is hoster the axis of world evil?

There is an opinion that the provider will immediately block a domain on any issue and provide all information about the Client. This is neither true nor Russian law (see “Law on Communications”, “Rules for the provision of telematic communication services” and other regulatory acts).
Now providers have to maintain lawyers in staff (or contact them, as necessary). Such letters of complaint, claims and outright threats are frequent, the main topics are:

The provider is forced to understand the essence of the complaint and its source and will try to resolve the situation by peaceful means. For example, when a complaint “the site stole an article from me: block and inform the owner’s data”, the only thing that the hoster can do (under current legislation) is to transfer the complaint to the Client, because The applicant most often cannot provide evidence of his rights.

An example of blocking is a complaint “on pron” - the site owner is notified of the need to eliminate the subject of the claims (within a specified period), and if not, the site is blocked. The measure is extremely unpopular. closing the resource (albeit legally) immediately brings a wave of letters, threatening calls and corresponding reviews on forums, etc. Specific situation: the closure of the visited gay portal in the very first days of test access (according to the complaint: not to “orientation”, but to porno-materials) cost the company a pretty penny, not only at the expense of the working time of employees who answered complaints, demands and requests “Watch the TV series Friends on this wonderful site”, but also on the payment of the hotline (which fully corresponded to its name in terms of temperature these days), free for Clients, but not for the company. Now the site is on Ukrainian hosting.

I will give the opposite example. Immediately after the transfer of a service to the hosting - within a few days received dozens of letters and calls complaining about the service and threats. General sense: I was deceived by this service a week / month ago, give me back the money, block me, give the name and address of the owner. The lawyer did not find violations of the law on the service and the requirements were not met. The account owner was notified of the presence of complaints (no response was received), and only a few months after this “flashmob with abuses” the owner himself transferred the site. The service still works for an American provider. Judging by the absence of a law enforcement appeal, there were no official statements from the victims.

When is the site blocked?

According to an anonymous statement - only in the case of obvious violations of the legislation of the Russian Federation and / or the rules of service provision: fakes of well-known services, porn, warez - and not “Vasya Pupkin’s super program with Krakow”, but products whose distribution conditions are known: MS, Adobe, Corel and etc. - study the software license on the Albanian hoster will not. Also, the site made on the “cured” version of a commercial CMS will be blocked if there is a confirmed complaint from the developer.
Blocked spam, spreading malware, creating spurious traffic, etc. Technical services of data centers and hosting providers interact in these matters and take measures to counter. There is a fly in the ointment also in this unofficial cooperation: not all DCs (including Russian ones) react to abuses, and some do not take any action, finishing off with replies.
Is it bad? For Clients whose sites do not violate the law - such a position of the provider is beneficial, to a certain extent guarantees the stability of the services, the "love" of search engines and mail servers.

Upon official written request of authorized state structures, the domain is blocked immediately and / or all information about the owner is provided: name, payment data (for example, WMID), access logs, site content and database, email addresses, access to email boxes, backup copies those. everything except passwords.
But remove the link / article and generally add kl. Changes yourself hoster has no right.

It can also be noted that the “savvy” complainants send an abuse not only to the direct host, but also to the data center, the registrar of the domain, the Coordination Center cctld.ru, perhaps even someone in ICANN writes. And, for completeness, go with the statements to law enforcement. It does not always lead to blocking.

If you are going to complain, rate your chances and start with the site owner. In some cases, have to contact the law enforcement agencies. A hoster is not a court, but an email, even with a signature — just an anonymous letter. To call with complaints is meaningless. Threatening damage to reputation, DDOS-attacks, and even more physical violence - is dangerous, because You can earn a counterclaim. You can write, slander and make things "in the heat of the moment" a lot, but this is not always safe from the point of view of the same legislation of the Russian Federation, even if you are right about the terms.

If they complain about you (or you - the hoster), and there are doubts about the validity of the claims - contact a qualified lawyer who can give an assessment of the situation and recommendations. There is a big difference between “I think so”, “everybody does that”, precedents and current legislation. If the claims are justified, it may be very unprofitable to defend your opinion.

PS: Especially for the relevant authorities and defenders of copyright: the article does not contain tips on how to violate laws, rights and copyrights - this is a statement of the current state of affairs.
PPS: We sincerely apologize to all lovers of platypus! Our team respects noble duck-bills, we didn’t want to belittle anyone. Thanks again! k / f Dogma (Dogma).

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/100277/

All Articles