From the ToS: "We have a policy of terminating, without notice and without recourse, accounts of subscribers or account holders who are repeat infringers of copyright, and you agree that we may apply that policy to your account or subscription in our sole judgment based upon a suspicion on our part or a notification we receive regardless of proof of infringement."

So they'd terminate purely based on their own 'suspicion'? Seems a little harsh.

edit: A bit of context that I wasn't clear on in this post: Taking down files you are aware of, but before they've been found by a court to be infringing is the only way to maintain safe harbor protection.

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.

My point isn't about the burden of proof but that the ToS says "...based upon a suspicion on our part".

An external request to take something down is different to making that decision entirely on your own suspicions.

If they're taking that material down to stay legal, as far as the DMCA is concerned, when they become aware of information that makes it apparent the material is infringing they will lose safe harbor protections if they do not take it down.

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.