I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
meeting the following criteria:

a) will register a domain name "anonymously", i.e. through a proxy, so
that customer's details are not present in the whois records, but the
customer still remains the owner of the domain

b) allows customer to change DNS records without charge or asking
permission

c) keeps its servers in the US, and will ONLY take down a customer's
site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
these)

d) does NOT require "automatic debiting" of a customer's bank account
when it is time to renew a contract, i.e. it is up to the customer to
decide to make payment for the renewal

e) provides proper email facilities, i.e. POP

f) is not fly-by-night

Many thanks!

Michael

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk put finger
to keyboard and typed:

>I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
>meeting the following criteria:
>
>a) will register a domain name "anonymously", i.e. through a proxy, so
>that customer's details are not present in the whois records, but the
>customer still remains the owner of the domain
>
>b) allows customer to change DNS records without charge or asking
>permission

Dreamhost will do both of the above. 

>c) keeps its servers in the US, and will ONLY take down a customer's
>site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
>on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
>sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
>spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
>hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
>these)

If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
should read http://abuse.dreamhost.com/ carefully before signing up.

>d) does NOT require "automatic debiting" of a customer's bank account
>when it is time to renew a contract, i.e. it is up to the customer to
>decide to make payment for the renewal
>
>e) provides proper email facilities, i.e. POP
>
>f) is not fly-by-night

Again, Dreamhost meets all three of these requirements.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"And when you play you feel all right"

On Aug 10, 7:36 pm, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk put finger
> to keyboard and typed:

> If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
> the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
> supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
> where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
> AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
> going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
> clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
> copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
> finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
> on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
> consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
> should readhttp://abuse.dreamhost.com/carefully before signing up.

Hi Mark, thanks for your help. Your AUP point is taken.

I'm not planning to post up _any_ stuff written by anyone else, or
allow
others to, or anything like that. What I might do is say some things
about
people that cause them to "try it on" with the webhost. E.g. demanding
that the site be taken down, because they say it defames them.
I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.

I've found some ISPs that are good on this, but they fall down on one
or
more of the other points, usually automatic renewal.

Your info is much appreciated. I like the Dreamhost AUP a lot,
including what they say here:

http://abuse.dreamhost.com/libel

Cheers,

Michael

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers  (Reference: 
)


>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.


Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did take 
it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High Court 
- by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down the 
drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement was 
ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice other 
than take it down in the face of a complaint. I know of one case where 
the customer objected that the ISP was acting as judge and jury. That 
was not fair, it is precisely because they are not the judge that they 
must take the safe route in view of the absence of any comment by a 
judge (juries usually have no say in this).

The provider may be in the right but it could cost them their business 
to try and establish that. However much they might want to keep you 
happy, they will sacrifice you to stay in business. (After all, the 
result of anything else would be you unhappy because the thing was taken 
down when the business collapsed).
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

In message , John 
Underwood  writes
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
>(Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
>Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
>take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High 
>Court - by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down 
>the drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement 
>was ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice 
>other than take it down in the face of a complaint.

The OP clearly stated they are looking for servers in the US so I very 
much doubt that the legal situation in the UK will have any influence on 
the hosting provider...
-- 
Dominic Sexton

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:141RuDCaZBwGFAmY@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down 
>>just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much 
>>prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the 
>>legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
> Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
> take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the 
> High Court
<snip>

The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the 
servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 at 10:32:44, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c026b7$0$97216$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the
>servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

I agree and was aware of that. I would be fascinated to discover an area 
in which the citizens of the USA or their legal system are less prone to 
litigation of this sort.

I agree that the USA has adopted something similar to the Common Carrier 
defence which failed in the Godfrey case (though it had been assumed by 
ISPs to apply). Even so, a threat of litigation on almost any matter 
presented to a US ISP could be the cause of pre-emptive action to avoid 
expensive and lengthy court action.

But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

[Michael]
> I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
> because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory.

Have you looked at nearlyfreespeech.net?  I'm not sure whether they
meet
all your criteria, but they agree with you on the free speech issues.
From
their FAQ:

"Q: A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site is defaming me or otherwise
injuring me civilly.

A: Please forward a copy of your legal finding from a court of
competent
jurisdiction to our contact address."

(Note: I don't have any experience with them.)

--
Richie Hindle
richie@entrian.com

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:1dwB3aEN$VwGFAkZ@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
<snip>

>
> But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>

But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web 
site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content 
on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content
>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court were 
asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had jurisdiction the 
owners of the server hosting the web site would be held responsible.

I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty, but 
expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be unwise.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference:
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>> But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>> site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's
>> site/content on their sever - which is the situation being discussed
>> here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court
> were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be
> held responsible.
> I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty,
> but expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be
> unwise.

And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
-- 
John Briggs

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: 
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>
>>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's 
>>site/content
>>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based 
> web site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK 
> court were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had 
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be 
> held responsible.
<snip>

So are you saying that the court acted against the editor of the Dow 
Jones web site or their host (even if that was still another part of 
the Dow Jones company), the whole article suggested that it was the 
*publisher* who was sued, not the web hosting company (unlike the UK 
Godfrey v Demon case).

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)


>And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?

I have no idea. You choose your level of safety, I'll choose mine. I am 
merely suggesting that the Dow Jones case is not enough to satisfy me 
that the Australian precedent will never be successfully invoked here in 
respect of a web site (however managed) in another country.

Some may believe that they are perfectly safe, I am certainly not among 
them, especially when it comes to predicting the behaviour of an ISP 
when presented with the possibility of court action to penalise them. 
They may be in the right and have good reason to believe so, but their 
lawyers might still recommend caution because the cost of the litigation 
would be exorbitant (and they may not get costs) and they would be even 
more negative if there were a possibility of being proved wrong.

If your were to read what I actually wrote, you should detect that I was 
cautioning against expecting ISPs in the States or anywhere to be very 
ready to ignore their legal advice and withdraw items which could lead 
to trouble. Those who have argued against me, I presume, believe that 
this is an impossibility or have they confused the examples with the 
point?
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)
>
>
>> And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
>
> I have no idea.

Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in 
the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any 
judgement against them?
-- 
John Briggs

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 at 16:11:03, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <rAFwi.22273$ie3.3893@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>)


>Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in
>the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any
>judgement against them?

I don't know why anyone should or how they would do it, I am merely 
offering the suggestion that it is not safe to assume that none would 
ever do so. Why should a US-based ISP with no assets in the UK not 
believe it is in their interests to close a site down for any number of 
other reasons put forward by their lawyers?

Will you please spell it out for me, since you haven't done so, merely 
asked some irrelevant questions? Do you think the risk of this happening 
is 0%, 0.1%, 1% or 10%? And what does that risk mean, the probability 
that the event will occur in the next 25 years, 1 year, 1 week or 1 day? 
I am not attempting to quantify the risk, that is something which will 
depend in part on the OP's own circumstances and it is only he who can 
decide whether to ignore it, taking account of the facts.

The OP asked if he could find a US based ISP who would not respond to 
the advice of his lawyer that a site should be taken down. I am 
suggesting that there is an increasing risk that this will happen.

Personally, I do not think this relevant. Most of the web sites I manage 
hold personal data (behind adequate security provision). USA legislation 
does not afford the same protection to individuals as do (at least in 
principle) the states of the European Union. Unfortunately, it is 
difficult to find a European ISP which does not infringe EU law by 
storing personal data outside the protection of EU law.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Can you recommend any other companies that meet the six criteria?

Richie - many thanks for drawing attention to nearlyfreespeech.net.
Their pay-as-you-go webhosting model is interesting, and certainly
gives them an incentive to minimise down-time, but I'd prefer a flat
price with maximum bandwidth.

John - there are various companies in the US (e.g. ctyme.net)
that, leaving aside their own bans on racist, copyrighted etc.
material, say that a grievance will only lead them to take stuff down
if it's backed up with a US court order with a US judge's signature
on it, but those I'm aware of fall down on other criteria such
automatic debiting for renewal.

Michael

uk.net.web.authoring 
news:1186759648.225256.101990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com fr 10 aug 2007 
17:27:28:

> I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
> meeting the following criteria:

> and will ONLY take down a customer's
> site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
> on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
> sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
> spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
> hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
> these)

Google for "bulletproof spam hosting" or you can just use at&t, cox or any 
other non responsive hosting provider. at&t is bullet proof spam hosting.

John Underwood uk.net.web.authoring 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk on 15 aug 2007 
00:37:59:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)

> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content.

http://groups.google.se/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=r&hl=sv&as_epq=e360&as
_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=news.admin*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&a
s_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2007

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:17:58 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
>to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
>problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
>problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
>Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
>apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Well I use Dreamhost and I certainly never had any problems about
signing up. Used plastic - and within the control panel you have to
click "renew" to keep it alive - else it dies. Not sure where you got
that info from - but its not as I found it from personal experience.

Why would you use google checkout anyway?

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk put finger
to keyboard and typed:

>I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
>meeting the following criteria:
>
>a) will register a domain name "anonymously", i.e. through a proxy, so
>that customer's details are not present in the whois records, but the
>customer still remains the owner of the domain
>
>b) allows customer to change DNS records without charge or asking
>permission

Dreamhost will do both of the above. 

>c) keeps its servers in the US, and will ONLY take down a customer's
>site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
>on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
>sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
>spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
>hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
>these)

If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
should read http://abuse.dreamhost.com/ carefully before signing up.

>d) does NOT require "automatic debiting" of a customer's bank account
>when it is time to renew a contract, i.e. it is up to the customer to
>decide to make payment for the renewal
>
>e) provides proper email facilities, i.e. POP
>
>f) is not fly-by-night

Again, Dreamhost meets all three of these requirements.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"And when you play you feel all right"

On Aug 10, 7:36 pm, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk put finger
> to keyboard and typed:

> If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
> the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
> supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
> where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
> AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
> going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
> clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
> copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
> finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
> on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
> consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
> should readhttp://abuse.dreamhost.com/carefully before signing up.

Hi Mark, thanks for your help. Your AUP point is taken.

I'm not planning to post up _any_ stuff written by anyone else, or
allow
others to, or anything like that. What I might do is say some things
about
people that cause them to "try it on" with the webhost. E.g. demanding
that the site be taken down, because they say it defames them.
I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.

I've found some ISPs that are good on this, but they fall down on one
or
more of the other points, usually automatic renewal.

Your info is much appreciated. I like the Dreamhost AUP a lot,
including what they say here:

http://abuse.dreamhost.com/libel

Cheers,

Michael

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers  (Reference: 
)


>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.


Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did take 
it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High Court 
- by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down the 
drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement was 
ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice other 
than take it down in the face of a complaint. I know of one case where 
the customer objected that the ISP was acting as judge and jury. That 
was not fair, it is precisely because they are not the judge that they 
must take the safe route in view of the absence of any comment by a 
judge (juries usually have no say in this).

The provider may be in the right but it could cost them their business 
to try and establish that. However much they might want to keep you 
happy, they will sacrifice you to stay in business. (After all, the 
result of anything else would be you unhappy because the thing was taken 
down when the business collapsed).
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

In message , John 
Underwood  writes
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
>(Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
>Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
>take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High 
>Court - by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down 
>the drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement 
>was ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice 
>other than take it down in the face of a complaint.

The OP clearly stated they are looking for servers in the US so I very 
much doubt that the legal situation in the UK will have any influence on 
the hosting provider...
-- 
Dominic Sexton

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:141RuDCaZBwGFAmY@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down 
>>just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much 
>>prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the 
>>legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
> Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
> take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the 
> High Court
<snip>

The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the 
servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 at 10:32:44, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c026b7$0$97216$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the
>servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

I agree and was aware of that. I would be fascinated to discover an area 
in which the citizens of the USA or their legal system are less prone to 
litigation of this sort.

I agree that the USA has adopted something similar to the Common Carrier 
defence which failed in the Godfrey case (though it had been assumed by 
ISPs to apply). Even so, a threat of litigation on almost any matter 
presented to a US ISP could be the cause of pre-emptive action to avoid 
expensive and lengthy court action.

But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

[Michael]
> I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
> because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory.

Have you looked at nearlyfreespeech.net?  I'm not sure whether they
meet
all your criteria, but they agree with you on the free speech issues.
From
their FAQ:

"Q: A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site is defaming me or otherwise
injuring me civilly.

A: Please forward a copy of your legal finding from a court of
competent
jurisdiction to our contact address."

(Note: I don't have any experience with them.)

--
Richie Hindle
richie@entrian.com

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:1dwB3aEN$VwGFAkZ@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
<snip>

>
> But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>

But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web 
site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content 
on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content
>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court were 
asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had jurisdiction the 
owners of the server hosting the web site would be held responsible.

I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty, but 
expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be unwise.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference:
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>> But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>> site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's
>> site/content on their sever - which is the situation being discussed
>> here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court
> were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be
> held responsible.
> I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty,
> but expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be
> unwise.

And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
-- 
John Briggs

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: 
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>
>>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's 
>>site/content
>>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based 
> web site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK 
> court were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had 
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be 
> held responsible.
<snip>

So are you saying that the court acted against the editor of the Dow 
Jones web site or their host (even if that was still another part of 
the Dow Jones company), the whole article suggested that it was the 
*publisher* who was sued, not the web hosting company (unlike the UK 
Godfrey v Demon case).

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)


>And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?

I have no idea. You choose your level of safety, I'll choose mine. I am 
merely suggesting that the Dow Jones case is not enough to satisfy me 
that the Australian precedent will never be successfully invoked here in 
respect of a web site (however managed) in another country.

Some may believe that they are perfectly safe, I am certainly not among 
them, especially when it comes to predicting the behaviour of an ISP 
when presented with the possibility of court action to penalise them. 
They may be in the right and have good reason to believe so, but their 
lawyers might still recommend caution because the cost of the litigation 
would be exorbitant (and they may not get costs) and they would be even 
more negative if there were a possibility of being proved wrong.

If your were to read what I actually wrote, you should detect that I was 
cautioning against expecting ISPs in the States or anywhere to be very 
ready to ignore their legal advice and withdraw items which could lead 
to trouble. Those who have argued against me, I presume, believe that 
this is an impossibility or have they confused the examples with the 
point?
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)
>
>
>> And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
>
> I have no idea.

Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in 
the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any 
judgement against them?
-- 
John Briggs

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 at 16:11:03, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <rAFwi.22273$ie3.3893@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>)


>Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in
>the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any
>judgement against them?

I don't know why anyone should or how they would do it, I am merely 
offering the suggestion that it is not safe to assume that none would 
ever do so. Why should a US-based ISP with no assets in the UK not 
believe it is in their interests to close a site down for any number of 
other reasons put forward by their lawyers?

Will you please spell it out for me, since you haven't done so, merely 
asked some irrelevant questions? Do you think the risk of this happening 
is 0%, 0.1%, 1% or 10%? And what does that risk mean, the probability 
that the event will occur in the next 25 years, 1 year, 1 week or 1 day? 
I am not attempting to quantify the risk, that is something which will 
depend in part on the OP's own circumstances and it is only he who can 
decide whether to ignore it, taking account of the facts.

The OP asked if he could find a US based ISP who would not respond to 
the advice of his lawyer that a site should be taken down. I am 
suggesting that there is an increasing risk that this will happen.

Personally, I do not think this relevant. Most of the web sites I manage 
hold personal data (behind adequate security provision). USA legislation 
does not afford the same protection to individuals as do (at least in 
principle) the states of the European Union. Unfortunately, it is 
difficult to find a European ISP which does not infringe EU law by 
storing personal data outside the protection of EU law.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Can you recommend any other companies that meet the six criteria?

Richie - many thanks for drawing attention to nearlyfreespeech.net.
Their pay-as-you-go webhosting model is interesting, and certainly
gives them an incentive to minimise down-time, but I'd prefer a flat
price with maximum bandwidth.

John - there are various companies in the US (e.g. ctyme.net)
that, leaving aside their own bans on racist, copyrighted etc.
material, say that a grievance will only lead them to take stuff down
if it's backed up with a US court order with a US judge's signature
on it, but those I'm aware of fall down on other criteria such
automatic debiting for renewal.

Michael

uk.net.web.authoring 
news:1186759648.225256.101990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com fr 10 aug 2007 
17:27:28:

> I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
> meeting the following criteria:

> and will ONLY take down a customer's
> site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
> on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
> sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
> spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
> hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
> these)

Google for "bulletproof spam hosting" or you can just use at&t, cox or any 
other non responsive hosting provider. at&t is bullet proof spam hosting.

John Underwood uk.net.web.authoring 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk on 15 aug 2007 
00:37:59:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)

> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content.

http://groups.google.se/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=r&hl=sv&as_epq=e360&as
_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=news.admin*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&a
s_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2007

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:17:58 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
>to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
>problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
>problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
>Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
>apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Well I use Dreamhost and I certainly never had any problems about
signing up. Used plastic - and within the control panel you have to
click "renew" to keep it alive - else it dies. Not sure where you got
that info from - but its not as I found it from personal experience.

Why would you use google checkout anyway?

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk put finger
to keyboard and typed:

>I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
>meeting the following criteria:
>
>a) will register a domain name "anonymously", i.e. through a proxy, so
>that customer's details are not present in the whois records, but the
>customer still remains the owner of the domain
>
>b) allows customer to change DNS records without charge or asking
>permission

Dreamhost will do both of the above. 

>c) keeps its servers in the US, and will ONLY take down a customer's
>site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
>on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
>sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
>spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
>hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
>these)

If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
should read http://abuse.dreamhost.com/ carefully before signing up.

>d) does NOT require "automatic debiting" of a customer's bank account
>when it is time to renew a contract, i.e. it is up to the customer to
>decide to make payment for the renewal
>
>e) provides proper email facilities, i.e. POP
>
>f) is not fly-by-night

Again, Dreamhost meets all three of these requirements.

Mark
-- 
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"And when you play you feel all right"

On Aug 10, 7:36 pm, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:27:28 -0700, hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk put finger
> to keyboard and typed:

> If you are expecting a webhost to not enforce it's own AUP except on
> the basis of a court order, then you're unlikely to find any reputable
> supplier which will meet your requirements. So you need to find a host
> where your proposed use of the site is not a potential breach of their
> AUP, even if you think it's acceptable (ie, just because you're not
> going to spam doesn't mean that it will not fall foul of some other
> clause in the AUP). In particular, if you intend to distribute
> copyright material that belongs to someone else, then your chance of
> finding a reputable web host based in the US that will not take action
> on the basis of a legitimate DMCA complaint is pretty slim. If you do
> consider Dreamhost on the basis of my reccomendation, therefore, you
> should readhttp://abuse.dreamhost.com/carefully before signing up.

Hi Mark, thanks for your help. Your AUP point is taken.

I'm not planning to post up _any_ stuff written by anyone else, or
allow
others to, or anything like that. What I might do is say some things
about
people that cause them to "try it on" with the webhost. E.g. demanding
that the site be taken down, because they say it defames them.
I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.

I've found some ISPs that are good on this, but they fall down on one
or
more of the other points, usually automatic renewal.

Your info is much appreciated. I like the Dreamhost AUP a lot,
including what they say here:

http://abuse.dreamhost.com/libel

Cheers,

Michael

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers  (Reference: 
)


>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.


Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did take 
it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High Court 
- by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down the 
drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement was 
ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice other 
than take it down in the face of a complaint. I know of one case where 
the customer objected that the ISP was acting as judge and jury. That 
was not fair, it is precisely because they are not the judge that they 
must take the safe route in view of the absence of any comment by a 
judge (juries usually have no say in this).

The provider may be in the right but it could cost them their business 
to try and establish that. However much they might want to keep you 
happy, they will sacrifice you to stay in business. (After all, the 
result of anything else would be you unhappy because the thing was taken 
down when the business collapsed).
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

In message , John 
Underwood  writes
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
>(Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
>Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
>take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the High 
>Court - by which time they were hundreds of thousands of pounds down 
>the drain. The result is an indeterminate situation, since no judgement 
>was ever issued. As a result, no lawyer could responsibly give advice 
>other than take it down in the face of a complaint.

The OP clearly stated they are looking for servers in the US so I very 
much doubt that the legal situation in the UK will have any influence on 
the hosting provider...
-- 
Dominic Sexton

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:141RuDCaZBwGFAmY@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 at 06:55:16,  wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: )
>
>
>>I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down 
>>just
>>because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory. I much 
>>prefer
>>the idea that if someone has a real grievance, let them use the 
>>legal
>>process and everyone can abide by any resultant judicial orders.
>
>
> Look at Godfrey v Demon to see how futile is that hope. Godfrey did 
> take it to law, Demon fought and could not afford to go beyond the 
> High Court
<snip>

The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the 
servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 at 10:32:44, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c026b7$0$97216$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>The above relates to the UK, the OP expressly asked for hosts were the
>servers are sited in and subject to USA laws...

I agree and was aware of that. I would be fascinated to discover an area 
in which the citizens of the USA or their legal system are less prone to 
litigation of this sort.

I agree that the USA has adopted something similar to the Common Carrier 
defence which failed in the Godfrey case (though it had been assumed by 
ISPs to apply). Even so, a threat of litigation on almost any matter 
presented to a US ISP could be the cause of pre-emptive action to avoid 
expensive and lengthy court action.

But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

[Michael]
> I therefore want to avoid ISPs/webhosts that will take stuff down just
> because someone (or their lawyer!) says it's defamatory.

Have you looked at nearlyfreespeech.net?  I'm not sure whether they
meet
all your criteria, but they agree with you on the free speech issues.
From
their FAQ:

"Q: A NearlyFreeSpeech.NET member site is defaming me or otherwise
injuring me civilly.

A: Please forward a copy of your legal finding from a court of
competent
jurisdiction to our contact address."

(Note: I don't have any experience with them.)

--
Richie Hindle
richie@entrian.com

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:1dwB3aEN$VwGFAkZ@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
<snip>

>
> But what has the location of the ISP to do with the issue:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2560683.stm>

But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web 
site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content 
on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)


>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's site/content
>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.

The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court were 
asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had jurisdiction the 
owners of the server hosting the web site would be held responsible.

I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty, but 
expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be unwise.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference:
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>> But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>> site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's
>> site/content on their sever - which is the situation being discussed
>> here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK court
> were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be
> held responsible.
> I am not suggesting that this will happen as a matter of certainty,
> but expecting that it will certainly not happen is likely to be
> unwise.

And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
-- 
John Briggs

"John Underwood"  
wrote in message 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: 
> <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)
>
>
>>But the above was *published* by the Dow Jones on *their own* web
>>site, they were not being sued for hosting someone else's 
>>site/content
>>on their sever - which is the situation being discussed here.
>
> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based 
> web site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content. If a UK 
> court were asked to rule on a similar issue and decided they had 
> jurisdiction the owners of the server hosting the web site would be 
> held responsible.
<snip>

So are you saying that the court acted against the editor of the Dow 
Jones web site or their host (even if that was still another part of 
the Dow Jones company), the whole article suggested that it was the 
*publisher* who was sued, not the web hosting company (unlike the UK 
Godfrey v Demon case).

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)


>And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?

I have no idea. You choose your level of safety, I'll choose mine. I am 
merely suggesting that the Dow Jones case is not enough to satisfy me 
that the Australian precedent will never be successfully invoked here in 
respect of a web site (however managed) in another country.

Some may believe that they are perfectly safe, I am certainly not among 
them, especially when it comes to predicting the behaviour of an ISP 
when presented with the possibility of court action to penalise them. 
They may be in the right and have good reason to believe so, but their 
lawyers might still recommend caution because the cost of the litigation 
would be exorbitant (and they may not get costs) and they would be even 
more negative if there were a possibility of being proved wrong.

If your were to read what I actually wrote, you should detect that I was 
cautioning against expecting ISPs in the States or anywhere to be very 
ready to ignore their legal advice and withdraw items which could lead 
to trouble. Those who have argued against me, I presume, believe that 
this is an impossibility or have they confused the examples with the 
point?
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

John Underwood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 23:43:07, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers
> (Reference: <f6rwi.15066$mo.6792@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>)
>
>
>> And if the US-based website held no assets in the UK?
>
> I have no idea.

Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in 
the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any 
judgement against them?
-- 
John Briggs

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 at 16:11:03, John Briggs wrote in uk.net.providers 
(Reference: <rAFwi.22273$ie3.3893@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>)


>Then I'll spell it out for you: why should a US-based ISP, with no assets in
>the UK, worry about being sued in the UK?  How would anyone enforce any
>judgement against them?

I don't know why anyone should or how they would do it, I am merely 
offering the suggestion that it is not safe to assume that none would 
ever do so. Why should a US-based ISP with no assets in the UK not 
believe it is in their interests to close a site down for any number of 
other reasons put forward by their lawyers?

Will you please spell it out for me, since you haven't done so, merely 
asked some irrelevant questions? Do you think the risk of this happening 
is 0%, 0.1%, 1% or 10%? And what does that risk mean, the probability 
that the event will occur in the next 25 years, 1 year, 1 week or 1 day? 
I am not attempting to quantify the risk, that is something which will 
depend in part on the OP's own circumstances and it is only he who can 
decide whether to ignore it, taking account of the facts.

The OP asked if he could find a US based ISP who would not respond to 
the advice of his lawyer that a site should be taken down. I am 
suggesting that there is an increasing risk that this will happen.

Personally, I do not think this relevant. Most of the web sites I manage 
hold personal data (behind adequate security provision). USA legislation 
does not afford the same protection to individuals as do (at least in 
principle) the states of the European Union. Unfortunately, it is 
difficult to find a European ISP which does not infringe EU law by 
storing personal data outside the protection of EU law.
-- 
John Underwood
Do not change the Reply-To: address - it will work for at least 30 days.
After that visit <http://theunderwoods.org.uk/contact.html> for a
current contact address. Do not write to the From: address.

Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Can you recommend any other companies that meet the six criteria?

Richie - many thanks for drawing attention to nearlyfreespeech.net.
Their pay-as-you-go webhosting model is interesting, and certainly
gives them an incentive to minimise down-time, but I'd prefer a flat
price with maximum bandwidth.

John - there are various companies in the US (e.g. ctyme.net)
that, leaving aside their own bans on racist, copyrighted etc.
material, say that a grievance will only lead them to take stuff down
if it's backed up with a US court order with a US judge's signature
on it, but those I'm aware of fall down on other criteria such
automatic debiting for renewal.

Michael

uk.net.web.authoring 
news:1186759648.225256.101990@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com fr 10 aug 2007 
17:27:28:

> I'd be grateful if someone could recommend a web hosting company
> meeting the following criteria:

> and will ONLY take down a customer's
> site on receipt of a US court order, signed by a judge, and NOT just
> on a complainant's say-so, however important the complainant may
> sound. (The website and domain will not be used for spamming,
> spreading racist hate material, publishing sexually explicit stuff,
> hacking, etc., so I will have no problem if a host's policy is to ban
> these)

Google for "bulletproof spam hosting" or you can just use at&t, cox or any 
other non responsive hosting provider. at&t is bullet proof spam hosting.

John Underwood uk.net.web.authoring 
news:LLSuSyDH7iwGFATq@dontspam.theunderwoods.org.uk on 15 aug 2007 
00:37:59:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 at 09:42:39, :Jerry: wrote in uk.net.providers 
> (Reference: <46c17e2f$0$97244$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>)

> The point at issue is that a court in Australia held the US based web 
> site to be liable, in Australian Law for its content.

http://groups.google.se/groups?as_q=&num=100&scoring=r&hl=sv&as_epq=e360&as
_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=news.admin*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&a
s_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=16&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=2007

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:17:58 -0700, hanrahan398@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>Mark - Dreamhost meet all the criteria, but unfortunately they seem
>to mess many people about at sign-up (which suggests similar
>problems may arise during renewal). I've read too much about
>problems caused for intending Dreamhost customers by Google
>Checkout and there's no other way to pay Dreamhost using plastic
>apparently. If there were, I'd sign up right away.

Well I use Dreamhost and I certainly never had any problems about
signing up. Used plastic - and within the control panel you have to
click "renew" to keep it alive - else it dies. Not sure where you got
that info from - but its not as I found it from personal experience.

Why would you use google checkout anyway?