Where'd Tiff Go?
Many people who read my blog also read my fiancée Tiffany's blog at quibbling.net. Sadly, due to a difference of opinion with the management of qwk.net with regard to the rights of intellectual property owners and creative professionals, Tiffany's blog was taken offline this morning. We have worked out a deal with qwk to retrieve the content of her blog and we're in the process of migrating our 4 domain accounts there to another more friendly host.
The gist of the dispute is thus:
Many people were hotlinking Tiffany's photos that she had stored on her hosted account at qwk.net. Hosting that has a bandwidth cap, with punitive costs if that limit is breached. The problem with hotlinking other people's images is that the person who hosts the image is charged for the bandwidth used in displaying images on other websites that use them without permission. In the buildup to the current actions, several people illegally hotlinked Tiffany's images without her permission, and Tiffany sought recourse to prevent this from happening again. She used an altered version of a shock image, and a line of apache configuration code called mod_rewrite to prevent sites other than ours from hotlinking to her images.
Apparently one of the people who was stealing her images took notice and sought recourse with qwk.net who promptly folded like a cheap suit and turned her account off without warning or notification. In the following communication, qwk.net did not offer Tiffany a chance to change the mod_rewrite code, or the image that was used in that code, and have instructed her to take her business elsewhere.
It is within their rights to do precisely that, but I believe the lack of effective warning communication, the freezing of her account without FTP access to her data, and the behavior of the owner of qwk.net have lead me to begin the search to close my personal account there and take my business elsewhere. I will not do business with someone who will capriciously hold my data hostage when I take measures to preserve my own rights.
Technorati Tags: intellectual property, qwk.net
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca44053ef00e5503bd2c58834
The host with the most (fill in blank here)
Excuse me while I go into convulsions without my daily fix of Tiff, as our webhost has unceremoniously asked her to leave after some moron complained about how she (was ultimately forced to) protect her intellectual property. Tom gives the details here...
Whats a Tera-Barrel?
Recall my post the other day about ink by the barrel? That post was more prescient than my football picks. Tiffs story got picked up by the Consumerist, Instapundit, and Doc Searls. Shes gotten more eyeballs in three day...
Who NOT to do business with.
Nuff said. Sorry, but hotlinking can eat up bandwidth like no tomorrow. I know, Ive had it happen to me. While I may not have gone as far as Tiff did, you can bet your sweet ass that I did redirect all hot-linkers to my Ebay auctions. Mind your ...
Comments:
Um... wait a minute. Let me see if I've got this straight.
A thief steals Tiff's intellectual property. Furthermore, the crook does so in a manner that continues to cost Tiff money.
Tiff takes perfectly reasonable measures to prevent such theft.
And then the thief has the gall to complain about it? And QWK.net sides with the #$%^&% thief?
This is absolutely incredible. As in I honestly can't believe any business would be so utterly inane. Let me know if I'm missing something, but exactly why shouldn't I be denigrating QWK.net as loudly and publicly as I possibly can?
Posted by Bill Coughlan on January 24, 2006 — 12:32 PM
Bill, it's pretty stupid, if you ask me, but if that's how QWK wants to do business, it's their market given right to do so. It's just our market given right to sing their faults to the highest of heavens when we switch. It was a shock image that she used to prevent hotlinking, and one they felt was inappropriate.
Posted by Tom Bridge on January 24, 2006 — 12:34 PM
Oh, I'm not (necessarily) saying QWK.net isn't within its rights to do what it did. I'm just saying that as consumers, we too have the right not only to refuse to do business with those companies whose practices we find asinine, but also to inform other consumers about those practices.
I will concede that the use of the "shock image" may provide a mitigating argument, depending on its actual content (i.e., just how "shocking" it was). If the content of the image itself violates a blanket content agreement, then fine -- we may think it stupid, but QWK.net does have a (qualified) right to disallow certain content on its servers. But Tiff is under absolutely no obligation to make her content "appropriate" to other sites that may be stealing her work. So if the host would allow such content at all, then they don't have a leg to stand on (and may in fact be violating their original hosting contract, though that's a more complex issue).
And the thief sure as hell doesn't have anything to complain about. I don't know if you know exactly who the complainant was (or if you'd be inclined to reveal that information even if so), but I know I'd sure be curious to see the site where the offending image ended up appearing.
Just out of curiosity, you understand.
Posted by Bill Coughlan on January 24, 2006 — 12:46 PM
As you know there are 2 sides to every story. Because of this I believe that you need to here what Tom and Tiffany are not saying about their actions:
First Issue: The picture in question was Hard Core Porn picture containing 3 men doing very inappropriate things.
Second issue: This picture was being served up when people linked from Google after finding Tiffany’s site from the search engine.
Third issue: QWK.net net has a stated written policy about hosting rated “x” (adult) content. We won’t tolerate it. Many of my customers use .htacces rules to protect how their content is viewed. Many will just give them a blank page or force a 404 error. Here was no reason to force feed anyone linking from Google to consume Hard Core Porn.
Tom, you say we “folded” My view on the subject is that we stood tight by the written guidelines of the hosting contract that both You and Tiffany agreed to when choosing QWK.net ~4 years ago.
I value every one of my clients. I know may of them on a first name basis. There are though some things I won’t stand for. Hard Core Porn on our servers is one of them. There is enough filth out there that people can find without the need to force feed it to an unsuspecting internet surfer. Tiffany’s right to freedom of speech stops when she forces what she feels is morally acceptable to unsuspecting viewers without giving them the ability to choose if they wish to view it.
People talk about theft of intellectual property. If you don’t want it shared, put a .htaccess password on it. No password = Open to view to anyone. This is no different than walking down the street and window shopping at various stores. Is that window shopper spending any money? No. Do they consume resources? Yes. If you are unwilling to share the content with the world, then don’t put it on the world platform (the internet) in plane view to anyone that comes to the site or links to the site.
We were in our legal and ethical right to turn off Tiffany’s site. We also did not have to legally give any of her server side content back. I did so because she had been a customer for ~4 years. I also did everything she ask in a timely manor to help her move to a different host.
In this world too many people are not willing to stand by the rules and their standards. Too often people allow the line between black and white to get blurred into grey. Our society suffers because of it. The rules in the constitution are very clear. There is freedom of speech, But even the supreme court has said that free speech stops when it takes the freedom to choose from another.
Tom, I hope that you choose to leave my post intact and not hack it up for your own purpose.
Sincerely
Quinn Whipple
Owner
QWK.net
Posted by QWK.net on January 27, 2006 — 5:19 PM
Quinn,
You're an asshole. I hope that anyone thinking about hosting a site with you finds this blog entry, and sees what scum you are to side with thieves and pirates rather than your own paying customers.
You made a dick move, and got called on it. And now you're trying to defend yourself and make it seem like you were some kind of saint for not stealing 4 years worth of Tiffany's intellectual property because she paid you an outrageous amount to host it on your servers.
Qwk.net (ooh, look, I used it! Gonna' send me a fake lawyer letter, too?) is entirely in the wrong in this case. Instead of acting like an adult or a human, you took uncalled for drastic action and lost two customers, represented yourself as a fool and a petty jerk, and continue to try to defend the indefensible.
Shrivel up and die, seriously, just like Qwk.net will for shitting on their customers more than tubgirl in the shower with goatse guy.
Posted by Ben Stanfield on January 27, 2006 — 5:56 PM
Quinn, I will not delete or alter your post, because that interferes with the debate.
First of all, what the men in the picture are doing is not outlawed by any law of this land, persuant to the result of Lawrence v. Texas as described by the Supreme Court. If three old men want to get together for a good time, it is their right to do so, guaranteed by law. If you're against gay content, then you should say so in your terms of service. If they'd just been kissing, would you have had the same response? I'd bet so.
What I find curious, though, is that you didn't defend your customer, at all, period. You could have asked Tiffany to change the picture, or the redirect, and I guarantee you she would have. But you did not, because you don't support her right to take active countermeasures to people stealing her art. Had the person involved asked for her picture of a steeler's teddy bear, then she would have granted it, but hotlinking that image is theft, and wrong. You're a webhost, you really ought to know better. This is just plain egregious theft.
Now, how about putting a link to your OWN terms of service? They're NOWHERE to be found on your website for consultation. That's fairly odd, don't you think?
Posted by Tom Bridge on January 27, 2006 — 7:35 PM
Quinn - you are just making this situation so much worse for yourself with ever step. You messed up, admit it and move on. Trying to silence people and justify completely bullshit actions isn't going to help your case at all. Especially not in the public eye which as with all business is quite important. It makes little to no difference what your policy is, it's how you handle it and yourself. You aren't winning any friends here and in the future when people consider using your services and google QWK.net and find this thread, it's a safe bet they won't take the chance of dealing with you and just move on to the next option.
Posted by seanbonner on January 27, 2006 — 7:53 PM
Tom: Go to the main web page, click on shared hosting, pick *any* hosting plan, the hosting terms and conditions are on the second page of the signup.
Here is a brief excerpt:
"Prohibition of Publication of Certain Material. Client shall not knowingly or unknowingly submit to Provider for publication any of the following material:
(a) any material which violates or infringes any copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent, statutory, common law or other proprietary rights of others;
(b) any material that is libelous or slanderous;
(c) any material that is otherwise contrary to applicable local, state or federal laws
(d) pornographic or other "adult" material, "warez" related content
Provider's decision regarding what constitutes a violation of this section shall be final and binding.
Due to the public nature of the Internet, all material submitted by Client for publication will be considered publicly accessible. Provider does not screen in advance Client's material submitted to Provider for publication. Provider's publication of material submitted by Client does not create any express or implied approval by Provider of such material, nor does it indicate that such material complies with the terms of this Agreement. "
Posted by QWK.net on January 27, 2006 — 9:45 PM
Thank you Quinn for telling us where the TOS is, hosts like Dreamhost and digital.forest, professional hosts, make their terms and conditions very easy to find (in fact on the bottom of almost *every* page). Yours is nowhere to be seen from a good portion of your site.
That said, you stood up for a stranger instead of someone who has trusted you and paid you promptly for four years. I know that you can be a reasonable guy, Quinn, we've done good business in the past, but you chose not to even ask Tiffany politely, or sternly, to change her redirect. Instead, you shut her account down. There was NO NEED for such a draconian action. You promise as part of the guarantees of your website "absolute integrity". How was this decision rich in integrity? You may have stood up for your personal values, but how about your clients' values? How is immediate termination of an account that has, without fail, served as an advocate for your business and services, at all displaying integrity?
Posted by Tom Bridge on January 27, 2006 — 9:59 PM
Tom,
I turned off the web content of the offending site. I left all other services up and active to the world. This included all of the other domains associated with the account. I agree that my method of termination might have seemed abrupt, but look at it form a hosting providers standpoint. What was achieved by your choice of picture? If the problem was theft of intellectual property, Redirect to a blank page, or a forward that generates a 404 error would achieve the same result without violation of our T&C. The basic issue and problem was that the website forced unsuspecting people that found Tiffany's site from Google to be force feed a visual image that more than 50% of America would find offensive. I would have felt much different if the image was at worst rated "R" but the image chosen was more abrasive.
Anyway, as I told Tiffany in email correspondence, I wish you the best with your new hosting company and I genuinely mean that.
I'll call this issue done, We have both said what needs to be said.
Best wishes,
Quinn
Owner
QWK.net
Posted by QWK.net on January 27, 2006 — 10:24 PM
Quinn,
If you truly wished us well, can I ask why you chose to send an ill-conceived cease and desist to our NEW host impugning our fresh relationship with them? Why did you send them a threatening note asking to have our site pulled due to a (nonexistant) violation of Dreamhost's TOS?
That note reads in part:
"By using the QWK.net trademarked name on your website without express
permission you are in violation of the terms and conditions of
Dreamhost. Dreamhost's rules concerning this can be viewed under the
trademarks and copyrights section of http://dreamhost.net/tos.html"
I believe you owe Tiffany and I both an apology, preferably via email, including a CC to not just your own counsel, who has likely advised you that you have committed an egregious error that places your business at risk, but also to dreamhost's abuse line, and to Jeff?
That would be the right thing, Quinn.
Posted by Tom Bridge on January 27, 2006 — 10:37 PM
Tom / Tiffany
I was in my right to terminate your service. I do wish you the best, Tiffany has multiple emails stating that. I believe my actions in helping you with a speedy move to you new host show that. Tiffany's comments on her website are slanderous. The comments on her website clearly show her state of mind concerning her desire to continue with the abrasive content. I feel that I made the correct choice in termination of service. I do though believe that it could have been handled in a more diplomatic way.
On the Attorney/Trademark issue. My counsel again believes that if we continue we can get judgment against Tiffany. This is because on her website is slanderous and only telling 1/2 of the truth concerning the incident and that she blatantly broke the T&C of QWK.net. Regardless I chose this afternoon to pull the plug on the attorney because I figured this was all winding down anyway and what would getting judgment against You and Tiffany actually accomplish? Nothing. Now that you don't host with my company, It's not my problem any more, so the only people that gain are the attorneys at the cost of over $200.00 per hour. 4hrs of attorney time burns more money that your hosting fee for over 3 years. Just not a proper business decision.
Could I have handled it better? Sure, We *ALL* could have handled it better, And I publicly apologize for the abruptness of the termination of Tiffany's service.
Quinn
Owner
QWK.net
Posted by QWK.net on January 27, 2006 — 11:21 PM
Tiffany has never denied being in violation of the TOS for QWK.net. However, your email to her this afternoon threatening legal action in front of the abuse hotline requires an apology. Any attorney worth his law degree would tell you immediately that using the name of your business in a critique of its services is NOT violation of the trademark.
In fact, I'm betting that you're well exposed to a suit yourself for harassment against Tiffany by trying to get her NEW host to remove her site, contrary to the terms of service for ida.net who say that "attempting, in any way, to interfere with or deny service to any user or any host on the Internet" is against their own terms of service. Your mail server for that attempt at a C&D is located on ida.net, is it not?
I believe you owe dreamhost an apology for attempting to slander us before our new host. Especially when we're "not your problem"
Also, just between men, isn't it poor form to endorse your own service pretending to be a client? "I have been a client of qwk.net for 4 years. In that period of time I have found excelent customer service and a knowledgable technical staff willing to help me enhance my customers web browsing experence. I would recommend qwk.net to anyone from the smallest website to large ecommerce solutions. Sincerely Quinn Whipple Innovative Development, L.L.C. " Dude, that's pretty slimy.
Posted by Tom Bridge on January 27, 2006 — 11:34 PM
At no point did I hide the fact that I violated the TOS. I only pointed out the layers of crap one has to dig through on your site to actually get a copy of it. Why on earth should an existing customer have to start the signup process for new hosting OVER again just to view what ought to be linked on every page? And that's the easiest way to get it...
The C&D you sent me was for a trademark violation. You falsely accused me- in front of others!- of violating trademark law, which is itself a violation of the law (we sent your letter to three lawyers of our own, of course).
So, whatever. I violated your sekrit TOS, you slandered me by falsely accusing me of slandering you, so how about we just call this one over and you go back to running your assorted business ventures instead of spending otherwise billable time on harrassing us?
Posted by Tiffany on January 27, 2006 — 11:36 PM
I am not the original owner of QWK.net At the time of that review, I was a customer. QWK.net was founded by Travis. He got burned out, and sold the company in 2003. At that time I became the owner.
Tiffany's original comments are different than her most recent post. It appears that she has done some additional needed clarification.
My mail servers are not with Ida.net. Office internet connection goes though them so that the tech's can trouble shoot customer problems routing through the world like the customer do.
No further apologies will be made to anyone.
I have spend all the time I am going to on this issue.
Posted by QWK.net on January 27, 2006 — 11:53 PM
FINALLY. All I've wanted all along was for you to just GO AWAY.
Posted by Tiffany on January 28, 2006 — 12:15 AM
No further apologies will be made to anyone.
Funny, the offensive comment was on MY website and I haven't heard an apology. You know, I lost a very good job almost a year and a half ago over something I posted that didn't "tastefully" represent the company that employed me. And I didn't post offending comments about (not to mention, on the website of) a customer that my company was hosting.
Posted by Goddess Dawn on January 29, 2006 — 2:58 PM