The dispute (counter-notice) and put-back procedures in the DMCA say that the provider can put the content back online if the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit within 14 days. I don't see anyone in that thread saying they violate this procedure; all I see is talk about some 48 hours limit, which is definitively not in the law.
I have personally never been a customer of Digital Ocean, in large part because, having heard these stories, would prefer that DO at least mention the matter to me before terminating service or locking my account.
Knowing first hand that other providers handle the exact same scenario with ample amounts of equitability informs my decision that there's a better way to go about it.
Effectively, it's the kind of policy that would allow me to jokingly refer competitors to becoming DO customers.
I haven't seen any case law, but just looking at the text it certainly looks like VPS hosting can't be 512(a) in normal cases without an incredibly distorted reading -- the VPS hosts systems don't do "intermediate or transitory storage" of client data, they do relatively permanent hosting at the direction of the client, exactly the kind of relationship addressed in 512(c).
512(a) would apply to, say, an ISP that stood between a system hosting allegedly infringing content and those accessing it, not to the owner of the physical system hosting that content who allowed a third party to control a VM on the physical system on which the content was hosted.
> The DMCA prescribes a dispute policy, that allows the accused to refute the evidence provided by the accusers.
No, it doesn't.
The DMCA provides both a safe harbor for hosts against infringement liability (the take down notice procedure) and a safe harbor for hosts against any liability they might have for taking down content (the counter-notice procedure), but neither of these procedures are strictly mandatory, they just provide a liability shield for certain liabilities that the host may have had without them.
But most hosts have taken pains to assure that they have no liability in the latter case through terms of service, so there is little reason for them to be concerned with the counter-notice procedure.
If a host does not follow the entire OCILLA playbook in every case, unconditionally, across the board, the host no longer qualifies for any safe harbor whatsoever. Then it's open season on copyright violations. Think $400,000 per song style open season.
The real liability threat remains third parties, not customers, and disregarding the prescribed counter procedure is handing them the keys to the bank. If you see a host playing fast and loose with the rules, for example your content not being restored in 10 to 14 days after counter notice with no further action, it's time to go after their registered agent.
> If a host does not follow the entire OCILLA playbook in every case, unconditionally, across the board, the host no longer qualifies for any safe harbor whatsoever.
The 512(c) safe harbor rules are clearly written in a transaction-specific manner rather than the way you describe, and every case I've seen on them has focussed on whether they were followed as relevant to the transaction and not addressed whether the host followed them "unconditionally, across the board". So, I think your conclusion is wrong.
If you see a host playing fast and loose with the rules, for example your content not being restored in 10 to 14 days after counter notice with no further action, it's time to go after their registered agent.
Under what grounds? Taking down your content isn't violating your copyright. If they lose their safe harbor status, some future copyright holder could sue them, but I don't see how you could.
I've seen numerous complaints indicating that Digital Ocean abides no such policies.
http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean...