If an IP continuously receives abuse complaints it is blacklisted by various services which can then lead to mail undeliverability issues or other problems which is why we are very pro-active on any abuse complaints that we receive and forward them to customers.

In regards to embarrassment it's about the intention of the statement which is to not use the service for a malicious nature. But we're more than happy to open up a dialogue about this and see if there are any amendments to the terms that are a good idea.

We'll push on getting more of our public content into github so that customers can provide feedback and provide rewrites of the terms that they feel capture the sentiment but perhaps clarify those terms better.

celebrity photos are huge, huge business. sites pop up all the time trying to monetize papparazzi shots and hosting providers have to deal with all sorts of fallout from anyone with a vested interested in the intellectual property or famous name.

these people do not give a shit about the streisand effect. they are going after their money.

So in that case DO receives a DMCA takedown, they comply, and let the customer deal with it? Or you're saying they file malicious lawsuits against the hosting provider and courts happily allow these suits to proceed and don't award fees to a neutral hosting provider?

We forward any abuse complaints that we receive to the owner of the account and ask that they handle them.

We try not to interpret the law as that is not our specialty of course, we are simply saying that we would like that customers use the service for a non-malicious purpose. But we're more than happy to open up a dialogue about this and make amendments if necessary.

Thanks!