
Pearson takes down 1.5 million teacher/student blogs with a single DMCA notice - machrider
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121013/18332220701/textbook-publisher-pearson-takes-down-15-million-teacher-student-blogs-with-single-dmca-notice.shtml
======
Lazare
The headline seems misleading. Pearson seems to have executed a valid DMCA
claim on a single dis-used blog from 2007. Maybe a little silly, but within
their rights, and certainly not egregious.

And then __ServerBeach __decided to pull the plug on an entire rack of servers
with no real notice, no real justification, and _AFTER_ the customer had
removed the content. Unless ServerBeach has a really amazing explanation (and
frankly I can't imagine what that might be) this is simply horrifying.

If ServerBeach will pull the plug on a customer paying $7k/month without
warning and with essentially no justification, imagine what they'd do to
someone smaller?

My takeaway from this: DMCA still not a serious problem. Pearson no more
assholeish than any other publisher. ServerBeach a bunch of dangerous loons
who need to be kept away from your servers.

~~~
mark_l_watson
And, do you know what? ServerBeach is not even a good hosting service (my
experience).

Good things sometimes come from shit: maybe ServerBeach will clean up their
act.

~~~
bwb
We do a lot of business with ServerBeach / Peer1, they are good and have
gotten a lot better in the last 24 months. I just don't think they deserve
total blame in this situation.

If you are you are providing unmanaged servers, that client misses the warning
and doesn't respond, you have to take the next step and suspend that server
because many times your contract prohibits you from going in and removing one
URL. I wish they had called too but sometimes that isn't possible given the
margins on some of these businesses.

Thanks, Ben (CEO at Site5.com)

~~~
wpietri
You're seriously saying that ServerBeach's margin on $70k in annual hosting is
so low that they can't be expected to pick up the phone before taking down
somebody's site?

Gosh, whose fault could that be? I'd say it's the people who set those prices.
Given that the first item in their "Why Server Beach?" list is "Superior
Service", they should price in some actual service. Including, say, checking
to see if you had fixed the DMCA issue before turning off the site.

------
xb95
As another data point -- I run Dreamwidth Studios (<http://dreamwidth.org>)
and we host on ServerBeach. We received a DMCA notice a few weeks back that
had the same notice, almost, ours said:

    
    
        Dear Mark Smith:
    
        We have received a valid claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,
        codified at 17 U.S.C. 512 (the "DMCA"), that materials on your web server hosted
        at ServerBeach may violate the copyright interests of the party filing the
        complaint.
    
        In accordance with the DMCA, we hereby inform you that your web server has
        been or within the next 24 hours will be, disabled to the extent necessary to
        comply with the DMCA.
    
        Your web site will remain disabled unless we receive a valid
        counter-notification from you.
    

Note that it says that it could have already happened, and it's immediately
hostile. Also, this notice DID NOT CONTAIN THE NOTIFICATION. I was concerned,
as Dreamwidth has a fully functional DMCA policy and we pay people to manage
DMCA complaints. We have a good team, fast turnaround, and obey the law.

I got on the phone with ServerBeach, and they flat out REFUSED to show me the
DMCA notice. They said that it was a privacy issue, they could not show me the
DMCA that was filed against my company. The notification they sent me included
a random URL on my site -- but didn't tell me what content was actually
infringing.

I was told I had no choice but to take down content that was NOT infringing --
overbroadly censoring my user, HOPING that was enough to pacify the
ServerBeach AUP team. I was not about to risk my business (we pay
~$8,000/month to ServerBeach) over one user's content.

But honestly -- that's a terrible position to be in. We're a site that
believes strongly in fair use and transformative works. We have worked hard to
fight for our users -- but if our host is fighting us... there's precious
little we can do about the situation.

So -- be wary of ServerBeach. It seems that lately their AUP team has gone off
the deep end and they're throwing customers under the bus. I wish I knew why.

~~~
wpietri
That is a giant heap of bullshit. The "we have secret orders that you must
obey" bit is incredible. How could privacy possibly be a legitimate excuse?

If I were in your shoes, I'd be looking for better hosting. A company that
doesn't understand that service businesses require good service rarely
restricts that cluelessness to just one facet of the company.

------
thaumaturgy
The DMCA does not require a service provider to take down an entire server
without notice. This is a problem with ServerBeach, not with the DMCA. But, I
guess that would get fewer page views.

(What a strange world I find myself in to be defending the DMCA so many years
after being part of the opposition to it on Slashdot.)

ed: "farms" has posted a link downthread which explains more of what's going
on. It's more complicated than the TechDirt article makes it sound; it's also
still not primarily a DMCA issue, but a ServerBeach customer service issue.

~~~
cft
It appears to be true, until you look at this graph:
<http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/> The number of
DMCA requests is exponentially rising. Many of them are bogus, too broad and
request removal of the entire domain. There are no effective legal penalties
for overly broad requests. If you operate a large hosting or web company, it
is unfortunately becoming economically unfeasible to examine each request to
narrow down its scope and/or to even determine its legitimacy, and the most
cost-efficient route is to comply blindly. This is not to say that ServerBeach
is a good hosting company: I hope it's a good lesson for them: turning off
such a large customer without getting on the phone with them is setting a
precedent that is suicidal for their business.

~~~
chii
I htink a solution might be to have to pay a fee that is proportional to the
scope of the dmca take down request?

~~~
wmf
Unfortunately the DMCA isn't written that way. You can't charge any fees.

~~~
DanBC
Even after the event for DMCA notices that are clearly incorrect or bogus or
malicious?

~~~
saraid216
That's not a fee (which would disincentive filing DMCA notices in the first
place), but rather a compensation for damages (which puts the burden of proof
on the victim).

------
biot
Does Edublogs have a registered agent to deal with copyright notices under the
DMCA? The directory of designated agents is available at:

<http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/e_agents.html>

I don't see one for Edublogs, nor for Incsub which Edublogs is "a project of"
according to the footer of their site. Unless they're listed under a different
name, then they open themselves up to liability such as this story indicates.
Had they been listed, Pearson would have had to deliver their DMCA notice to
Edublogs' agent rather than ServerBeach's. Because they're not, ServerBeach is
the one who must take action in order to be protected by the safe harbor
provision and Edublogs is now the one legally responsible for any infringing
content.

Short story shorter, if you publish any sort of community content you really
need to spend the $105 and protect yourself by availing yourself of the safe
harbor provisions of the DMCA:

<http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/agent.pdf>

See also: [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-
loo...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/dmca-righthaven-loophole/)

~~~
farms
We don't, but we will certainly get one, thanks for the pointer...

~~~
dpe82
Do it yesterday. Send it registered mail. Until the copyright office receives
it, _YOU DO NOT HAVE DMCA SAFE HARBOR PROTECTION!_ It's not the only thing you
have to do, but an important one.

See Viacom v. YouTube:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Yo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc).

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/second-circuit-
ru...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/second-circuit-ruling-in-
viacom-v-youtube-is-a-bummer-for-google-and-the-ugc-community/)

------
farms
It's been a pretty crazy ride, and stupid setup, full story is here:
[http://wpmu.org/serverbeach-takes-1-45-million-edublogs-
offl...](http://wpmu.org/serverbeach-takes-1-45-million-edublogs-offline-
just-12-hours-after-sending-through-a-lame-dmca-notice/)

Happy to do any Q&A here too.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I wish your link had been submitted instead. It looks like a pretty simple
case of miscommunication, except that ServerBeach is blowing it by not working
with you to fix it.

Go find a new host, you don't want to stay there.

------
jspthrowaway
I've been in the hosting industry for some time, and I'm always appalled at
how quickly stories like this, regarding hosting providers, escalate. It's
such a contrast between startups in this community that make a mistake ("I'm
sure they just made a mistake, and they'll get it cleared up"), versus a
hosting company ("they're incompetent, dangerous loons and I'm never giving
them my business"). This attitude prevails beyond Hacker News, and finds
itself into support tickets at hosting providers. I can't tell you how much
support tickets made me resent the customers; the gloves come off when there's
a mistake. I've personally been called much worse than has been shown in this
thread thus far _after I helped people in tickets_.

Honestly, I have to ask this -- why do those in the technical community here
feel like their hosting company is automatically out to get them? Hosting
companies are drowning in policies, and acting upon DMCA complaints is a
particularly dangerous area because _the DMCA is very vague_ , particularly in
the expediency of provider action. Is the hatred for hosting companies rooted
in their ability to take you offline very quickly?

I deleted out of a thread here where I asked a similar question, because this
is obviously a controversial topic, based upon those comments' scores within
minutes. I just wish I understood why it's never okay for a hosting company to
mess up, and why it's okay to attack them personally when they do.

Of course, having been on the other side of this line, I don't actually think
ServerBeach erred here but I'm also hesitant to draw a conclusion without both
sides of the story. It's an unfortunate situation for both sides, and this
sort of thing never makes it better.

~~~
aero142
I would love to hear even a theoretical version of this story where pulling
the plug so quickly is not a error on ServerBreach's part. Since you bothered
to create a throwaway just to post this, you might as well offer some
specifics. As it stands, it just sounds like you are trolling.

~~~
jspthrowaway
> Since you bothered to create a throwaway just to post this

It's one click to deduce that is certainly not the case.

~~~
aero142
Ok, sorry, 9 days. You're name was green. My question still stands. I still
can't imagine a situation where this would be the correct action.

------
farms
BTW, just got off the phone with their GM, really nice guy, sounds like they
are definitely going to be fixing this up for us and more generally... mucho
relieved.

Will post more details on <http://wpmu.org> when we have it, at the end it
just sounds like a stupid fail of policy (we've all been there) - but it's a
shame it had to get to this point to change it.

We've been happy customers of their for years, hopefully now we can continue
to be.

~~~
tsycho
>>We've been happy customers of their for years, hopefully now we can continue
to be.

ServerBeach should be the one concerned about retaining you as a customer,
their $75k/yr is at stake. While painful in the short run, you have the option
of moving to a more empathetic provider. In any case, I hope this gets
resolved quickly for you.

------
grecy
Every time I see these articles I keep thinking there needs to be a penalty
for every site taken down due to a DMCA take down that was not part of the
original request.

The penalty should be financial, and restrict future take down notices from
the issuer. i.e. you can't make another request for 12 months, because your
last request took down 10,000 sites.

The fines should grow exponentially with the number of sites taken down.

~~~
rlpb
I'm going to defend the copyright holder today. It's not what I usually end up
doing, but I think it is only fair in this case.

It seems to me that the original takedown notice was legally justified. It
doesn't matter that it was a little harsh; that isn't enough to make it DMCA
abuse.

The only thing that went wrong here was the hosting company's harsh response,
by going far beyond what the DMCA required of them. The DMCA didn't cause the
problem; the problem was caused by the hosting company's decision to shut down
the site when it was not required by law and not demanded in the takedown
request. And that's simple to resolve: switch hosting provider to a more
reasonable one.

~~~
toyg
There are three parties involved in a DMCA request: presumpted rightholders,
hosting organizations, and website owners. The law, as currently written,
basically allows the first group to pressure the second into screwing the
third.

There is indeed a (rarely exercised) chance for site owners to get back at
"malicious rightsholders"; however, there is no real accountability for
hosting companies, which are then free to "err on the side of caution" (i.e.
quickly pull as many plugs as possible to avoid a costly lawsuit). This should
probably be rectified: hosting providers should be held accountable for
unwarranted terminations as much as they are held accountable for hosting
illegal content.

One could say that "the market will hold them accountable", but looking at the
increasing frequency of this sort of takedown shenanigans, I'd say that's a
naive view.

~~~
jspthrowaway
> This should probably be rectified: hosting providers should be held
> accountable for unwarranted terminations as much as they are held
> accountable for hosting illegal content.

A: Hosting companies are not held accountable for hosting illegal content if
they cooperate with authorities. There are specific procedures for the gamut,
including child pornography. The FBI is very active in working with
established hosting providers to investigate and take down illicit and illegal
content.

B: Your suggestion would shutter smaller startup hosting companies, raise
prices at others, and cripple the startup community that Hacker News loves so
much. The fallout from your suggestion would be so colossal that the harm to
innovation from software parents would look minuscule in comparison. Should we
punish the telephone company for every bomb threat that traverses the line?
Dreadful.

~~~
toyg
A: what you say complements what I said, but does not deny it. ISPs _are_
accountable if they don't play along, which is what I said, and that's fine.

B: you're misinterpreting what I said, which was rather: "Should we punish the
telephone company for unilaterally disconnecting the line of people accused to
send bomb threats, regardless of whether they actually _did_ use it that way?"
And my answer is hell yes. At the moment, ISPs pay no penalty for screwing the
innocent, unlike the other two parties in the law. I don't think that's
reasonable.

------
robomartin
My takeaway: Don't do business with ServerBeach.

They get a standard (my standard) one week benefit-of-the-doubt treatment
awaiting the other side of the story. You just never know. Although, as
someone said, it's hard to imagine a reason for taking down 1.5 million blogs.
You'd think and hope that your hosting provider might have people who do a
little thinking before taking such action. If it is the case that nobody from
ServerBeach picked-up the phone to try to contact the customer there's
something seriously wrong with that company.

------
alanctgardner2
What I find astonishing about this is the material that's covered, the Beck
Hopelessness Scale. This is a diagnostic test of 20 questions to help assess
depression. To get a copy, it costs $120!

[http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-
us/Prod...](http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-
us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8133-609&Mode=summary)

Thankfully, they include 25 questionnaires, and you can buy more (in English
or Spanish) for only $52. $2 per patient isn't a huge cost, but psychological
care is already dangerously out of reach for those who need it.

I'd be interested if anyone in the field (a practicing psychologist, maybe
psychiatrist) could provide an idea of:

a) How many copies do you buy for an office? One per psychologist, or would it
be shared?

b) How many tests like this does a psychologist typically employ? I haven't
anecdotally heard of any being administered, but I also live in Canada, and
maybe socialized medicine takes a tougher view on $2 pieces of paper from the
70's.

------
mmanfrin
Publisher knocks out 1. _451_ mil blogs.

edit: People are missing the emphasis. This wasn't me being pedantic, it was
pointing out a neat allusion.

~~~
saraid216
Numerology is not a neat allusion.

~~~
chris_wot
Forgive me - I'm not in any way into numerology: what exactly is being pointed
out here?

~~~
saraid216
Fahrenheit 451.

Numerology is the reading of meaning into the odd coincidence of numbers with
events. GGP's "neat allusion" is that some of the digits on the number of
blogs taken down coincides with the Fahrenheit temperature at which books burn
which was the inspiration for the title of a book about censorship.

------
mikecane
How weird. I submitted this story this morning but it was instantly marked
DEAD due to the source. _shrugs_

~~~
farms
As did we, last week when we published it... I think HN reckons we're spam for
some reason, it'd be great to have that erroneous judgement fixed up too if
anyone's listening!

------
iProject
I take Pearson's subtext to be: The eTextbook, eLearning field _craves_ to be
disrupted.

------
hayksaakian
Are other providers, say heroku, known for handling these cases any better?

~~~
farms
The sad thing is that we've been super happy customers of ServerBeach for ages
now, they do a great job, but they really shafted us here.

So, as long as they agreed no to do this to ya, I'd heartily recommend them...
I'm hoping that we hear that from them shortly too.

~~~
earless1
Do you guys plan on staying with ServerBeach? Was their hosting cheaper than
rolling your own infrastructure on EC2?

~~~
farms
Good question, and one we've already looked into a fair bit as we already host
all of our uploads on Amazon.

Back in the day we figured that it would probably be cheaper and more
extensible to use Amazon... however given that things weren't broken, and the
amount of time and effort we'd put into our SB setup we decide that it wasn't
worth switching.

We're lucky enough to have one of the best SysAdmins in the business, I
wouldn't trade him for his weight in gold, but even with him and his
assistants working flat out at that the cost and time of moving to another
setup would far outweigh the other cost benefit... after all we're _pretty
freaking big_ :

<http://www.quantcast.com/edublogs.org>

So previously that's how we've figured it out... if SB agree that they won't
do something like this to us again without first at least making sure they
call and speak to us, then we'll probably continue... it just makes sense.

With a bit of luck all this publicity will make them realise how important it
is.

------
rorrr
Serverbeach is the idiot in this situation. So incompetent.

------
js951534
f^&ck publishers, get millions of ebooks for free at <http://legalreads.com>

