Comment Re:My usual path (Score 1) 413
These are just tools, the process starts with you. If you rely on a specific tool to be good at your job, you are nothing more than a replaceable ant.
Don't be an ant.
Can't help but notice the
These are just tools, the process starts with you. If you rely on a specific tool to be good at your job, you are nothing more than a replaceable ant.
Don't be an ant.
Can't help but notice the
Sorry, you're wrong, at least one some points. UK2 probably doesn't buy bandwidth from the Planet (though it is possible). When companies host at the Planet, they almost always receive additional services such as tech support and server administration, though they may retain ownership of their servers. UK2 is one of those groups. Chances are they do oversell, as most webhosts do nowadays, but that's probably not the main issue here. My guess is that SimpleCDN is just run by a dumbass with a Slashdot account (See above where users claim SimpleCDN was responsible for submitting the story).
In all likelyhood, the SimpleCDN owner overran his bandwidth limit for the month (it's common practice at the Planet to simply shut down users that overrun their bandwidth, often without notice. Whether this is a good business practice or not is up for debate), and while investigating the incident, people at The Planet found out that SimpleCDN was allowing users to upload copyrighted material to the site. Once they realized that his site just sat around serving up (possibly illegal) files all day, The Planet refused to bring their site back up. The Planet has used similar tactics when dealing with "proxy" sites. In fact, the correspondence posted above was probably just one of dozens of responses the Planet has given him in an ongoing email cockfight, so he probably has more information than he's letting on. There's no chance in hell that this was the only email he's gotten from them, as Planet employees are required to respond to every email they get from a customer.
When the story claims that The Planet is a "hosting giant", what they really mean is that it's a company with under 100 employees attempting to manage technical support for hundgreds of servers. UK2 is probably a bigger company than The Planet, but UK2 is just one of their clients. They can't be bothered to respond to every incident where an end user or reseller gets caught up in a copyright legal battle, so they play it on the safe side and terminate the account to avoid that scenario. Its totally within their rights too, because its probably *already* in their TOS that they can terminate a user on any grounds. If SimpleCDN wants to run their service, then they need to get their own server and fight their own legal battles instead of pulling in an unwitting UK2 and the Planet and expecting safe harbor.
In my opinion, the editors should have never posted this story. It's simply the tale of a dispute between a customer and their webhost over their TOS (which certainly already disallows the hosting of copyrighted material). The title should read "Hosting company disallows CDNs on their network", which would have been cast away by the editors because it wouldn't have surprised anyone. If they were hosted by GoDaddy, people would have given even less of a fuck.
Source - Former Planet employee who probably had root access to their server at one time or another.
Here's another analogy. Leaving your keys in the ignition when you go to the store. It's a stupid thing to do, it's against the law (just as leaving your wifi open is in Germany) but that doesn't mean when someone steals your car the police shouldn't go after the thief.
Excuse me sir, but do you realize which forum you're posting on? You just directly compared intellectual property to physical property as the basis of your argument. Slashdot users generally give the double bird to such arguments.
* UNIX is a Trademark of Bell Laboratories.