Isn't that replacing one dubious service with another though? Right now, I'd imagine that something akin to Amazon S3 is the only reliable solution, and even then I bet they have their fair share of infringing material stored.
It's quite the rabbit hole the FBI have gone down with this action.
Removing links isn't the same as removing content.
With most services like MegaUpload/Rapidshare you get paid when people download your files, hence their popularity, its a business for a lot of uploaders.
For $10/month you can easily get a VServer with 20 GB disk space or more. For $50/month you can rent a Dedicated Server with 2000 GB hard disks. (... assuming that someone who works with embedded linux images has no problem with installing a tiny webserver and making regular security upgrades)
Also, if youre just hosting linux images, can you not put them on github, google code or similar?
I seem to remember S3 also makes it easy to turn on an optional .torrent link, to save you some bandwidth charges.
(No personal experience, offer seems valid for nationals only, WebHostingTalk suggests there's little support, OVH apparently change their upstream providers all the time to get the best possible deals - you get a lot of bandwidth but latency varies from day to day. Seems acceptable for a simple file server.)
Why not set up a server at home? If I hadn't turned off my desktop this morning, I could rsync data from home.
(2) the hassle of running a server.
(3) he may not have much upload bandwidth, which translates to slow downloads by other people.
> 5 GB of Amazon S3 standard storage, 20,000 Get Requests, and 2,000 Put Requests*
So they'd terminate purely based on their own 'suspicion'? Seems a little harsh.
Acting on anything short of proof, is acting on suspicion. Now what constitutes proof as far as copyright infringement? I can't think of anything short of a court decision. DMCA takedown notices aren't proof, they're just when the complainant swears they have a good faith belief that the file in question is infringing.
An external request to take something down is different to making that decision entirely on your own suspicions.
Typically, this is covered by the "we can do whatever we want"-type clause in other file providers TOS, bayfiles is just limiting their purview to more specific situations.
My point with my previous point was that any harshness was not on the part of bayfiles.
Bummer.