If you are you are providing unmanaged servers, that client misses the warning and doesn't respond, you have to take the next step and suspend that server because many times your contract prohibits you from going in and removing one URL. I wish they had called too but sometimes that isn't possible given the margins on some of these businesses.
Thanks, Ben (CEO at Site5.com)
Gosh, whose fault could that be? I'd say it's the people who set those prices. Given that the first item in their "Why Server Beach?" list is "Superior Service", they should price in some actual service. Including, say, checking to see if you had fixed the DMCA issue before turning off the site.
1. the Edublogs team removed the offending post within the 12 hours, thereby complying with the request.
2. apparently ServerBeach took it upon themselves to double check through presumably automated means and detected the file in a Varnish cache (which would be inaccessible to the public)
3. this led to ServerBeach deciding to shut down Edublog's servers on the grounds of non-compliance.
If my interpretation of the jumbled order of events is correct, it's pretty clear ServerBeach is at fault here - it's not illegal to have a copyrighted file on your server; it's illegal to serve that file without proper rights. Their system is flawed.
Depending on the prior cases for that client (or; is this client a notorious spreader of illegal materials or someone who didn't paid in time on numerous occasions) you send automated warnings for a few days if the content remains in place and THEN you can decide to (manually) switch of the server. Unfortunately bigger companies forget about client support / contact and that client is king; Pearson is not your client, edublogs is; you are supposed to defend them, especially lacking prior cases over a larger period of time.
If edublogs called serverbeach to explain the case, telling them they removed the content (from varnish as well) through the open ssh connection, the support person can immediately check and switch it back on. That's normal practice to me and any host who doesn't do that is not worth paying more than $1.99 for some experimental landing page/site which doesn't mean much to you anyway if closed down.
Sorry to say if this is how Serverbeach or Site5.com treat paying customers, I will never bring my business there and I hope others do not either to show that we expect better from you in this day and age. There are clear ways to treat DMCA's and most can be done automated without actually removing anything yourself on the server; there are plenty of filtering rules to block outside the actual server while keeping the rest of the system up and giving the client ample opportunity to remove the offending content.
Guess I'll never use them. Ever.
Good things sometimes come from shit: maybe ServerBeach will clean up their act.