Techdirt’s article on my lawsuit mentions a key issue:
…. [Gina's brief] then says that the move away from the second host, DaringHost, was because the site was getting too much traffic, and the owner of DaringHost, supplied a deposition stating that he had explained this to Tuteur.
Gina seems to go to great lengths to make this point. The only problem is, it’s not true. This is the email that Nick Esposito, the owner of Daringhost, sent to me on 1-25-13:
I spoke with the lawyer I’ve used with my businesses earlier today about the situation with your website and it being targeted. He informed me that hosting your website is a liability on a few different levels which is a risk to my business. While I support your cause and understand the situation you are in, I will no longer be able to host your website due to the risk and liability it poses to my business.
I do not want to leave you and your website out in the cold because I can understand that fighting against the people who are targeting you is not an easy task. I have done some research for you and found a couple of different businesses that should be able to host your website better in terms of dealing with it being targeted.
The first host I’ve found is called Alibabahost.com. On their website they state “AlibabaHost provides freedom of content and speech. Regarding the DMCA complains, we forward them to you and you decide how to proceed next.” …
The second host I’ve found is called safeandsoundhost.com. They have servers located in the Ukraine which has been known to host freedom of speech web sites before…
The third host I found is called urpad.net. They offer VPS plans in Iceland. Iceland has recently passed a law that allows for freedom of information, speech, and expression…
I sincerely apologize that I have to turn you away. I value your business however I’d like to keep the risk and liability as low as possible for myself and the business. I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
Daring Host Owner
The email makes it absolutely clear that I was forced to leave Daringhost because of Esposito’s concerns of legal liability related to the DMCA notices.
Yesterday I posted a screenshot of Gina exulting that Bluehost (my original host) had taken down my website for copyright violation. That wasn’t just wishful thinking on her part. That’s what actually happened.
Here’s the email I received from Bluehost on 12-21-13 at the same time as the shutdown:
Your web hosting account for skepticalob.com has been deactivated, as of 12/21/2012. (reason: terms of service violation – copyright violation)
This deactivation was due to a Terms of Service violation associated with your account. At sign-up, all users state that they have read through, understand, and agree to our terms. These terms are legal and binding.
Although your web site has been suspended, your data may still be available for up to 15 days from the date of deactivation; if you do not contact us during that 15 day period, your account and all of its files, databases, and emails may be deleted…
Bluehost Terms of Service Compliance
This email makes it clear that I my website was taken down specifically because of the original DMCA notice filed by Gina.
The Motion Picture Association of America has also entered the case (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27713670/MPAA%20brief.pdf). They have offered support of Gina’s interpretation of the DMCA. This is not a surprise, merely additional confirmation that the issues raised by my lawsuit are of weighty public importance.
In my view it helps everyone understand what is at stake here. Gina’s position is supported by an organization whose members send a lot of DMCA notices and who would find it harder to do so if they had to determine whether copyright had ACTUALLY been violated before they sent the notices.
My position is being supported by two organizations that champion the right of free expression on the internet.
I’m good with that.
Addendum 5-14-13: I’ve filed a motion with a brief attached, responding to Gina’s claims, presenting the actual correspondence with my webhosts.
“Defendant Crosley-Corcoran’s Response to Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law To ShowCause purports to feature a compelling story about how Dr.Tuteur’s webhosts (Bluehost.com and DaringHost) never actually removed or disabled anyaccess to materials on her website (The Skeptical OB) – and “certainly” did not do so “inresponse to Crosley-Corcoran’s DMCA takedown notices . . . .”
Needless to say, all of these allegations – falling, as they do, outside the pleadings – are out of bounds at the motion to dismiss stage, and Defendant knows it. But worse still, like many of the most compelling stories, Defendant’s tale is simply a work of fiction.”
You can read the rest here: