Does Computinghost Allow Torrent Sites?

[OpaQue 15]

what anwii and buff said is right.

 

I wish OpaQue just said links to illegal stuff is against the rules.

links to illegal stuff is against the rules.

[Zagubadu? 0]

Jesus anwii your so oblivious. Its like you read my post but you actually didn't. I don't care if this is marked as spam your pissing me off. I am not confused AT ALL. I was just trying to get something clarified! I was just wondering if links to illegal stuff was considered against the rules? How is that so hard for you to understand? And then you ask me if I even asked Xisto - Support Wow read my post. I hate people that post a reply to someone when they did not even read what they said. Close this topic. Questions been answered.

[anwiii 17]

did i piss you off? sorry about that. i did read your posts. all of them. i even understood them. in EACH and every one of my posts where you were confused still, i mentioned that you shouldn't do what you were asking. so i just repeated myself with different wordings until maybe one day you would be less confused and understand at least one of the posts from me or someone else. don't blame me for being confused though. i was only trying to help you. you seemed really determined now i hope opaques last post helped you out where me or buffalohelp couldn't because nobody wants to see you confused. you get cranky

now opaque or buffalohelp did say that if you pay for hosting rather than use mycents here on Xisto, there are things that you would be able to host since computinghosts terms would be different that any linked account to traps credit system. porn sites were used as an example but not limited to just those types of sites as long as they don't break any state or federal laws...and even international laws since we are talking about the internet, i think anything would fair game in hosting.

someone actually mentioned that if after you put a disclaimer on your website to illegal stuff, so they wouldn't be held responsible, that somehow that changes the law somehow. i've seen these websites before and have to laugh because those disclaimers are just stupid. it doesn't change a thing. in the united states, it's like a store owner putting up a sign "absolutely no refunds" in plain sight where nobody misses reading the sign. they say when someone purchases from their store, that sign is part of the purchase contract. unfortunately, signs don't change laws either and the sign could become invalid in certain circumstances. anyway, i thought it was funny that someone really thinks putting a disclaimer on their website makes everything ok haha.

Jesus anwii your so oblivious. Its like you read my post but you actually didn't. I don't care if this is marked as spam your pissing me off. I am not confused AT ALL. I was just trying to get something clarified! I was just wondering if links to illegal stuff was considered against the rules? How is that so hard for you to understand? And then you ask me if I even asked Xisto - Support Wow read my post. I hate people that post a reply to someone when they did not even read what they said. Close this topic. Questions been answered.

[Bikerman 2]

I can give you the legal position if you like (for the US).

Hosting warez is illegal no question - but I don't think anybody doubts that.

Linking to warez - grey area now under DMCA and it is possible to construct a legal site that complies and still has links (and even the actual copyright material). Yes, I know it sounds daft, but how do you think youtube and similar sites do it? There are some major loopholes in the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act),

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its corporate parent Google for copyright infringement seeking more than $1 billion in damages. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Viacom claims the popular video-sharing site was engaging in "massive intentional copyright infringement" for making available a contended 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom's entertainment programming. Google lawyers say they are relying on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to shield them from liability.[6] On March 11, 2008 the judge ruled that Viacom cannot seek punitive damages against YouTube. Massive statutory damages, however, remain on the table.[7] On June 23, 2010, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton granted summary judgment in favor of YouTube.[8] The court held that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the DMCA. Viacom has said that it will appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act

 

In reality most small time hosters or linkers are required to take the information down, then that is it - and even then it is not always cut and dried:

Vernor v. Autodesk

 

After numerous stifling DMCA takedown notices on his eBay listings Timothy S. Vernor sued Autodesk in August 2007 for abusing the DMCA and disrupting his right to sell used software he bought at a garage sale.[14] A federal district judge in Washington State dismissed Autodesk's argument that the software's license agreement preempted the seller from his rights under the first-sale doctrine.

(same wiki source)

 

So it is a new situation at the moment and the courts are still establishing what the law actually means.

 

I'd rather not get involved because of the hassle, and then there is the question of what, at the end of the day, are you going to make for such links? Even with aggressive referral and advertising payments it isn't going to be much....

[vhortex 1]

What about google books, it has digitalized all books ever and yet they're not having problems. I guess that if you just put links it is ok..you must not host, or just declare that you're not responsible for links or copyrighted material in your website. I don't why there should be a problem with that.

For the clarification with Google books, Google is supporting the book digitize process for the blind users. Even recaptcha was absorbed by Google to make things possible by providing an image security verification for anti spam and having a look up table solved by real people all at the same time. old books are being converted to digital form from Shakespeare times and a lot more are being digitize like court records and damage document/books.

The part of Google that gets sued was its cache system that takes a snapshot of sites that it have visited and an inherited and still growing problem with youtube/google videos users.

*******************

The part about hosting the torrents, as far as I understand it.. OpaQue said that you can host the torrent as long as you can verify that no illegal files are contained inside them. Now this is double edge since in order to enforce it, someone must check your torrents regularly and all sub folders that you may have but who will? As MyCENT users, we are not paying for people to look after this torrent files for us just to make sure we are not violating them. As a person paying real cash, we do pay for people to make sure we are not including illegal stuff inside the torrents.

That is the reason why Buff and anwiii said don't.

*******************

Base on experience from one of our clients with making customized MMA websites, one user was allowed to host torrents of his videos. A few random checks makes his torrents look legit and clean until we realize that his torrents have some re directors inside them that actually provides active links to ISO downloads for Microsoft installers. Since he was sub-hosted with us, we got a warning from a piracy checking service that we are violating online software usage and we have 2 choice.. take down the torrent links or shutdown our server. We are now then forced to check his torrents regularly or we can kick his account and give him back his $5 a month hosting fee. We have taken the second option since it is cheaper.

This is exactly why anwiii said, don't.