Fire at OVH: data center in Strasbourg completely burned down

[Chewy_fox]

A class-action lawsuit filed by musician Maria Schneider and Pirate Monitor against YouTube claims that the video platform restricts access to takedown tools and fails to act against repeat infringers. However, in a case management statement, YouTube points out that the plaintiffs have failed to allege even a single instance of infringement.

Back in 2016, Grammy award-winn

Fire at OVH. In Strasbourg, the data center SGB2 burned down completely last night , another only partially. Countless hosting customers are affected by the failure. A total of four data centers will fail for the time being.

OVH lost a building in the fire

How OVH CEO Octave Klaba last night via Twitter announced , it was possible the fire last night in the building SGB2 to gain sovereignty. It was not possible to get the outbreak under control quickly enough. As a result, the area was isolated to prevent further damage to the adjacent buildings. Klaba recommended that all OVH customers, if available, activate their failure plan.
Photos of the burning building can be found here .

In the early hours of the morning, the CEO announced that it was all over now. Everyone is safe, but the fire brigade could not save the building with the SGB2 data center. The factory building SGB1 is also partially destroyed. Two other buildings were successfully protected from further damage. SGB3 and SGB4 had to be switched off as a precautionary measure. According to the French media , more than 100 firefighters were on duty to fight the fire last night.

No downtime plan, no backup? Bad luck!

Some customers of the cloud provider OVH had no loss plan laid cope and probably a backup, how the rage on Twitter can be found . The pity of the community was very limited.

After all, it was not a problem to carry out nightly backups at regular intervals, it was said in response. How the fire broke out is unclear at this point in time. The OVH status page also does not show which racks are specifically affected in the other building. The data in SGB2 are undoubtedly all lost.

Along with Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud, OVH is one of the largest web hosting providers. They have distributed their 27 data centers all over Europe, North America and Asia. When it comes to Internet piracy, OVH played no really small role in the past due to the favorable conditions . This affected web space for streaming and share hosts, as well as hosting for illegal IPTV providers.

The last known outage occurred on the Strasbourg campus in 2017. A power failure initially brought the entire data center to a standstill. 40 minutes later, an error in the network connection software ensured that the factory halls remained offline longer than planned.
The image board pr0gramm.com also reported that they were also affected by the major fire. There is the status message "Computer center is on fire :("

ing musician Maria Schneider launched a scathing attack on YouTube, accusing the platform of “criminal rackeetering”.

According to Schneider, YouTube has “thoroughly twisted, contorted, and abused the original meaning of the outdated DMCA ‘safe harbor’ to create a massive income redistribution scheme.”

Last summer it became clear that Schneider’s opinions had not changed when her name appeared as a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed against YouTube.

As previously reported, Schneider is joined by a company called Pirate Monitor in the suit and together they accuse YouTube of being massively deficient in its copyright enforcement measures, including by denying smaller artists access to its takedown tools (Content ID), failing to terminate repeat infringers, while profiting from piracy.

YouTube Accuses Plaintiff of Fraud

Last September, YouTube fought back by alleging that agents of Pirate Monitor opened bogus YouTube accounts to upload its own videos and then filed takedown notices against the same content claiming that its rights had been infringed.

According to YouTube, this was a ploy to gain access to Content ID after the company was previously denied access for having no track record of properly using the DMCA takedown process. This new and fraudulent approach only supported its earlier decision to deny access to the Content ID tool, YouTube said.

In November, the plaintiffs fought back, stating that YouTube had failed to provide any evidence to back up its allegations. But a month later, YouTube told the court that the same IP address used to upload allegedly-infringing content was also used to file DMCA notices to take it down.

Plaintiffs and Defendants Are Digging In

A case management statement published this week reveals that little progress has been made in respect of bringing the parties closer together.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, repeat their claims that “millions” of copyright works have been distributed via YouTube in breach of copyright while alleging that they have no “viable means” of enforcing their rights other than via manual searches and takedown notices.

Furthermore, since YouTube only implements its repeat infringer policies for non-Content ID identifications, the plaintiffs argue that the video platform cannot claim safe harbor protection under the DMCA. For its part, Youtube says this is an attempt to relitigate its earlier copyright battle with Viacom, which found that YouTube is entitled to safe harbor protections.

“No law supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that denying them access to [Content ID] somehow makes YouTube liable for copyright infringement,” the video platform adds, noting that Schneider already has access anyway.

“Plaintiff Schneider already has access to Content ID through her publishing agent, who has used Content ID for years on Schneider’s behalf,” YouTube adds.

But there are more fundamental issues too.

Zero Copyright Infringement Alleged in Complaint

According to YouTube, Schneider has named just three copyrighted “works in suit” and Pirate Monitor has identified three too. However, neither has identified any infringement.

“[T]he Complaint failed to allege a single instance of infringement for even one of the six copyrighted works. That alone renders the claims deficient. Beyond that, Pirate Monitor recently admitted — five months into the case — that it does not have standing to assert infringement of one of the three works it asserted in the Complaint.”

YouTube says that Schneider did list around 50 new works that weren’t mentioned in the complaint during interrogatory responses but failed to allege ownership or registration. But there are other problems too.

“Schneider has failed to identify a single alleged infringement for approximately half of the new works, and the instances of alleged infringement she did identify all fall outside the three-year statute of limitations. Further, it now appears clear that Schneider’s publishing agent licensed YouTube to use all of Schneider’s musical works, which would independently defeat any infringement claim,” YouTube adds.

Class Action Unsuited to Copyright Disputes

Given the complexity of copyright infringement cases, YouTube says that the plaintiff’s suit will not be maintainable as a class action. Referencing an earlier failed attempt by the Premier League, YouTube describes the current litigation as a “Frankenstein monster posing as a class action.”

Evidence Preservation

According to Schneider and Pirate Monitor, YouTube isn’t taking its evidence preservation responsibilities seriously having rejected some of their demands. The plaintiffs say that YouTube is refusing to preserve videos that are deleted by users, even if they infringe their rights, demanding that the plaintiffs need to identify each one first.

“Defendants have also repeatedly taken the position that they will not preserve any evidence relating to the putative class in this case,” they add, a reference to entities that are not yet part of the class action – which could be almost any rightsholder.

Somewhat predictably given the scope of the plaintiffs’ demands, YouTube insists that it is preserving evidence but can only do so when the plaintiffs identify those works, noting that it does not have to guess at what that content should be. Also, when considering that almost any copyright holder could join the class action at a later point, effectively asking YouTube not to delete anything is a step too far.

“[P]laintiffs have made the extraordinary and unreasonable demand that YouTube preserve all ‘material and content’ uploaded to YouTube, notwithstanding users’ ordinary rights to delete their own data, simply because Plaintiffs have brought this case as a putative class action,” YouTube writes.

“They have cited no authority requiring anything like that, which would inflict huge costs and burdens on YouTube — essentially redesigning YouTube’s entire data retention system in violation of user privacy rights and at a cost of hundreds of hours of engineering time and millions of dollars — that are disproportionate to the legitimate needs of a case in which there are only two named plaintiffs asserting, at most, a small number of copyrighted works, and who have very low prospects of ever certifying a class.”

The case has been scheduled for trial starting November 28, 2022, but whether it will ever get there remains a question. The only certainty at the moment is that the parties couldn’t be any further apart in their positions and neither is showing any signs of giving an inch.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Chewy_fox

[Silent Watcher]

Avoid unnecessary posts such as 'Thank you', 'Welcome', etc. Such posts will be deleted and user will be warned if it happens again. If caught spamming, the following actions are applicable -

• First time - Warning
• Second time - 5000 Points will be deducted
• Third time - Ban for 7 days
• Fourth time - Permanent Ban

If the post helped you, reward the user by reacting to the post like this -