The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  
 

  *  

  MS forces Neowin.net offline?
Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Todd Richardson

It seems Microsoft has taken steps to force Neowin.net offline. After Neowin posted a P2P SDK, Microsoft apparently retaliated by having them taken offline through means which remain unclear. It is not known how long their website will be unavailable. We will stay with the story and bring you more when it is available.

Update - Neowin has added this message from to their front page:

"Yesterday at 12am GMT Neowin was taken offline when our provider received a "Demand for Immediate Takedown" order from a Microsoft contracted company that investigates illegal activity on the Internet for Microsoft. The email was sent to the provider and not to the Server admins that lease the server, IPS or Neowin -its fair to say this went 3 levels above our heads and 2 above IPS.

Neowin and IPS did not have the chance to remove the said content before the provider deleted (access to) the contents of the server without contacting Neowin or IPS. Charles received a copy of the email that Microsoft sent and we can confirm it was a standard "remove content" email that did not warrant a total shutdown.

At the moment we are awaiting a response from the Server provider who at this moment does not seem to understand the extent of this action. We are confident that Microsoft are happy with the removal of the reported post and we have spoken to Microsoft UK who have been willing to investigate the nature of this report. Several sites including ZDNet and Activewin have shown some support and we thank them for informing our userbase of this problem that is as of yet unresolved."

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 177
Last | Next
  The time now is 4:54:45 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 125 (216.232.67.238) at 3/6/2003 8:50:59 PM
Maybe there just upgrading/updating their site...

#5 - I agree, its always appeared to me as though it was run by a bunch of 14 year old script kiddies given the attitudes in their forums.

#2 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/6/2003 8:55:37 PM
This was confirmed by one of my friends at Neowin.net. It is not impossible they were lying to my, however they have not let me down yet. They also wouldn't have told me this story if they were just updating :)

I'm sure we will learn more in time.

#3 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/6/2003 9:05:26 PM
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

#4 By 1868 (141.133.155.214) at 3/6/2003 9:30:20 PM
Well, I have to say this much. BTW, its all my opinon, not fact, opinion.
Neowin did present some interesting articles, I liked the mention about Macromedia's site change. However I do have to agree that Neowin had become a haven for script kiddies and general 14 yr olds in their basements. I never commented on their stories because they comments being made were general useless.

I would like to point out one passing thought, the stories they had were generally more interesting by nature of the broad area of focus, or atleast they focused on several areas that our currently outside of the activewin scope of stories. I mean activewin gets really indepth and detailed on articles but it lacks brevity.

Now, I hope that this is the end of Neowin because I don't want to hear any more whining from that crowd. They can go over to www.ibelite.com

This post was edited by Zeo01 on Thursday, March 06, 2003 at 21:34.

#5 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/6/2003 9:39:21 PM
The people who ran Neowin put a lot of work into it. I think they did a good job. They were always viewed as our competition but our news was always so different.

I think it is important to remember they worked hard and to try to be nice. There is no point in making ill feelings. I'm not saying you have to love them or anything, just let's show how mature we are.

I wouldn't count on them being offline too long, but I don't have any specific information to support that.

#6 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/6/2003 9:52:03 PM
macro,

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. It's an expression I picked up when studying tax law. If you don't push too hard (e.g. you are a pig) you get what you want (e.g. fat). If you keep pushing the envelope and push your deductions and the grey areas to the extreme (e.g. you're a hog) you get auditted (e.g. slaughtered).

#7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/6/2003 9:53:52 PM
Todd, you're a nice guy. Good use of diplomacy.

#8 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/6/2003 10:47:23 PM
C0ld, we had a different source and ours wasn't as confident as Neobond is, I guess. We hadn't even read your report when we posted our own.

#9 By 94 (66.127.184.203) at 3/6/2003 11:10:32 PM
There's always http://neowin.stolemy.com :)

#10 By 18 (64.126.91.172) at 3/6/2003 11:57:07 PM
#31, what did you clear up, exactly? You seem like the only one confused...

#11 By 3339 (67.121.114.19) at 3/7/2003 12:04:55 AM
Call me a sceptic.

(if you're some new guy from winbeta, or neowin, or iexbeta, or whatever, maybe you don't see the humor in that. Ha-ha.)

But so far, I don't buy it. Each of these sites has had some run in with MS, right? How'd it go down? It's much easier and just as effective to call, fax, send a cease-and-desist letter from your legal dept. To ignore a CandD letter and continue to provide a company's IP that you clearly shouldn't be posting is legal suicide. For more effective to get them scared and then wipe them out in Court financially. That is, a CandD should have been just as effective.

MS taking Neowin out goes further than what the RIAA has been doing...

It might produce the same results, but this should blow up in their face. Why test new legal waters when you can go abut it the safe way?

Anyway, if it did or did not happen:

How do people feel about their favorite company blanking out a site?
How do you think they did it? DoS?
Do you think MS has been talking with legal and maybe even the DOJ about whether or not they could do this?
If they did and you agree with their actions, should Neowin go back up as soon as the material is down or does MS have the "right" to keep them blanked?

As I said, for now, I'm not a buyer. Sorry, Todd.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, March 07, 2003 at 00:06.

#12 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/7/2003 12:39:41 AM
No need to apologize to me. Read the article. I tried to make it clear that this was the firmest evidence that had been given to us. I made sure I did not present it as fact. I don't think my source would intentionally mislead me, but I am not going to put AW's name on the line without more than one side of the story.

I'm sure many more details of this story will become clear in the near future.


This post was edited by ToddAW on Friday, March 07, 2003 at 00:41.

#13 By 3339 (67.121.114.19) at 3/7/2003 12:51:59 AM
Ehh, I thought you deserved it because I find you a lot more credible than these jokers lurking around and because I was aware that you were hedging your bets but trying to provide the scoop.

So, in the past, have you guys been approached by MS--I know the whole domain story, but have you ever been hit with a C&D?


#14 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/7/2003 1:42:33 AM
bink got C&D'ed. I highly doubt Microsoft would attack neowin.net. It isn't their style.

#15 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 3/7/2003 1:43:22 AM
Sodajerk, MS taking the site down probably goes to the site host's terms of service. Most have rules against unauthorized posting and/or linking to other people's IP.

All MS may have done is notify the host, and the host removed Neowin based on TOS violations.

#16 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 3/7/2003 2:04:41 AM
#40 - it probably is their style.

As for the rest, please lets not have a load of slagging matches on here

#17 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 3/7/2003 2:10:56 AM
Byron, I meant "attack" as in vigil ante attack (DoS, etc.). It is my experience that Microsoft uses legal tactics to resolve issues, rather than resorting to guerilla web warfare.

#18 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 3/7/2003 2:11:24 AM
#39 - Yes we did for something I can't remember what. The difference is that in the end if you are posting downloads etc then you are at some point going to get one and if you keep doing it and doing it then something will get done.

As far as I can see they will be back very soon which is a good thing, the difference is that it may get worse in the future if Microsoft really want to bother downing a site, they have in the past.

#19 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 3/7/2003 2:15:29 AM
#44 - Oh right, yeah then that is extremly unlikely, although it would be good to see them try it sometime so we can cover the story lol

#20 By 135 (213.61.245.251) at 3/7/2003 8:26:20 AM
Flight - It's called the DMCA. You inform the provider of a potential copyright violation. Said provider looks into it, and yanks the plug.

The reason why the DMCA provides this provision is because "due process" or otherwise known as tie things up in the courts for months allows for signifigant damage to be done in the interim. Think of it as a preemptive injunction.

I don't know what happened with Neowin, nor do I care. Given what I've seen in the past this is likely one more publicity stunt.

#21 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 3/7/2003 10:09:33 AM
To add to Sodablue's comments:

Even before the DMCA, there were Terms of Service agreements. If it is proven that a site/user is in violation of those agreements, the host/ISP can shut down (or instruct the user to shut down) the offending service until the user does what is necessary to restore compliance with the service agreement. The provider can also choose to terminate all services. No court action is needed. You agree to the terms when you sign on with a provider/host/etc. It's basically the user breaking the terms of a contract.

#22 By 3 (81.96.65.154) at 3/7/2003 12:02:31 PM
Neobond this isn't a dig at neowin or anything, I just wanted to get that out of the way first.

But if you had 3/4 coplaints from Microsoft they usually go for the server company next.

Don't think I am defending Microsoft, I don't like their legal department and I think the MS Windows Beta team are "asses" (No need to TOS this anyone, its not a TOS!)

This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Friday, March 07, 2003 at 15:29.

#23 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 3/7/2003 3:52:23 PM
#64, The DMCA has nothing to do with this. The problem is copyright infringement. That is illegal most everywhere.

#24 By 2890948 (180.136.204.193) at 10/21/2014 10:02:07 PM
http://www.nb420fr.com/
http://www.nb420fr.com/new-balance-420-c-15/
http://www.jordanflight45.fr/
http://www.newbalance996homm.fr/
http://www.newbalance996homm.fr/new-balance-373-c-3_20/
http://www.newbalance996homm.fr/new-balance-670-c-3_17/
http://www.adstockes.co.uk/
http://www.adstockes.co.uk/adidas-zx-flux.html
http://www.adstockes.co.uk/adidas-stan-smith.html
http://www.ukshopnb.co.uk/
http://www.ukshopnb.co.uk/new-balance-574-c-1/
http://www.ukshopnb.co.uk/new-balance-996-c-20/
http://www.maxhyp.co.uk/
http://www.maxhyp.co.uk/nike-air-max-90-hyperfuse-c-8/
http://www.jdshop.org.uk/
http://www.nkmid.co.uk/
http://www.nkmid.co.uk/converse-womens-c-7/
http://www.sapato.es/
http://www.ftrox.es/
http://www.ftrox.es/nike-free-run-3-c-21/
http://www.comhm.es/
http://www.comhm.es/new-balance-574-mujer-c-5/
http://www.dskyhi.es/
http://www.nbprice.co.uk/
http://www.nbprice.co.uk/new-balance-c-5/
http://www.skretro.co.uk/
http://www.wmsneak.co.uk/
http://www.wmsneak.co.uk/converse-all-star-c-4/
http://www.wmsneak.co.uk/new-balance-c-1/
http://www.rbrille.de/
http://www.airspoon.de/
http://www.vakaufen.de/

#25 By 3892370 (212.92.104.55) at 6/24/2020 6:01:07 AM
https://bjdkgfsfhidhgvudbfjeguehfwhsfug.com
Mkfdkfjwsldjeifgheifnkehgjr
vndkfhsjfodkfc;sjgjdgokrpgkrp
bndljgoedghoekfpegorig
fihfowhfiehfoejogtjrir
Yndkfvhdjkfhke nkfnslkfn klfnklf
Oljgvkdfkndjvbgdjffsjdnkjdhf






Nkfhofjeojfoegoero ogeoegfeougeihigoohge igjeigheiogheiogheih giehdgoiehifoehgioheighe hfioeehfieohgeiodgnei hioehgioehfdkhgioehgi eodghioedhgieghiehgeuo
Nihdigheifjojfieui iihfishfiwsfhiwhfowhfh hfsdfhkdcndjkfhe klchsiofhwifhdvjdnj hkfhsfhifheuhguegheflkhe
Yfhsfheifhei hfhdfiehfiejfk fjeogjeogj ojgoedjodjvsclksfhszghLhekjb; ;dh jdjvndkjdfjsofjsofjosjfi fojsjdoskfsjfodgjdsghoi sdjfpfgspegjsodjvdhvgisd
Mfjefjojgidhvshg ihidhgiodhgirhgir hioihgdioghrigrigh ihgiogherihgirodvdks jsdjfsopejfovgjdksjosj joesjfoesjfsj;ifsjg
Ndjsfhjifekfhekdghior highdiofhidogheioghei gijhgoiehgiehgieh jfiheigheihgioe

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 177
Last | Next
  The time now is 4:54:45 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:

 

  *  
  *   *