Portal Home > Knowledgebase > Industry Announcements > Web Hosting Main Forums > VolumeDrive Sued For Breach...


VolumeDrive Sued For Breach...




Posted by Patrick, 12-07-2013, 08:44 AM
Quote:
Data Sales Co., Inc. v. Volumedrive, Inc.
Filed: October 23, 2013 as 3:2013cv02626
Plaintiff: Data Sales Co., Inc.
Defendant: Volumedrive, Inc.
Cause Of Action: Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Source:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pen...3cv02626/96153

I'll obtain the PDF's shortly from PACER and post them for our amusement. Thank god, it's about time someone stuck it to them!

Posted by gilbert, 12-07-2013, 08:50 AM
Haha I used to live a mile from Data Sales Co., Inc.

Posted by sirius, 12-07-2013, 08:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
Source:

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/pen...3cv02626/96153

I'll obtain the PDF's shortly from PACER and post them for our amusement. Thank god, it's about time someone stuck it to them!
Thanks for posting. Will be interested to see the details of the case.

Posted by davywavy, 12-07-2013, 09:05 AM
So are volumedrive being sued because they rented all the hardware via Finance from Data Sales Co.

And they don't allow Volumedrive to actually rent that hardware so they can make a profit ?

Posted by AcclaimedHost Alan, 12-07-2013, 09:20 AM
Nice find! I hope that the law catches up with these guys and they have a nice big settlement.

Posted by Violent Injection, 12-07-2013, 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcclaimedHost Alan
Nice find! I hope that the law catches up with these guys and they have a nice big settlement.
I hope WHT finally realizes they should ban these kinds of scammers.

Posted by aeris, 12-07-2013, 10:38 AM
So Data Sales Co would be the hardware leasing company BurstNET said was the actual owner of the hardware - and that only leased hardware to VD on condition that the servers were locked to BurstNET's locales.

And really, who didn't see that one coming?

Posted by HackedServer, 12-07-2013, 12:53 PM
Very happy to see this. Thanks for sharing!

Posted by Spirit, 12-07-2013, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Injection
I hope WHT finally realizes they should ban these kinds of scammers.
I hope they don't. It's impossible to get answers from banned people.

Posted by cfgguy, 12-07-2013, 01:45 PM
The case was filed on 23rd Oct 2013, and they still running the business.

Posted by jaypeesmith, 12-07-2013, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfgguy
The case was filed on 23rd Oct 2013, and they still running the business.
Yes...why wouldn't they? I would suspect that they have not had any hearings, much less a ruling, at this point. I would be interested in seeing the documents, though. If they were obligated to keep the servers located at Burstnet as a condition of their contract, I don't see how they avoid penalty on this one. I would suggest that VolumeDrive customers keep good backups, just in case

Posted by rits, 12-07-2013, 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfgguy
The case was filed on 23rd Oct 2013, and they still running the business.
You don't shut down because of a lawsuit. Most will not go anywhere anyway. Google and Microsoft wouldn't be in operation today if that were the case.

Posted by cfgguy, 12-07-2013, 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rits
You don't shut down because of a lawsuit. Most will not go anywhere anyway. Google and Microsoft wouldn't be in operation today if that were the case.
Exactly! We dont know how many web hosting companies are under some kind of lawsuit and still doing business!

Posted by CGotzmann, 12-07-2013, 02:33 PM
They lease all their servers and have not been paying for their rented/leased servers (they haven't been making their payments).
Thus, the company who sold/leased their servers is suing them because they aren't getting paid for the machines you all are using that VD is leasing from them.\
Unless VD makes the payments, its a pretty hard argument to win in court; once Data Sales Co. wins the lawsuit (IF VD even shows up at all, then its by default Data Sales Co. winning), then Data Sales can come get their machines by COURT / POLICE order immediately.

Good luck to everyone who has servers with VD, I hope you have backups, but I bet a lot of you don't... so here's a tip, start making them now.

Posted by volumedrive, 12-07-2013, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
Thank god, it's about time someone stuck it to them!

Patrick, We were starting to miss you! We were worried that you were starting to lose interest in our company.

We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.

Posted by rallias, 12-07-2013, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumedrive
Patrick, We were starting to miss you! We were worried that you were starting to lose interest in our company.

We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.
Oh god... the arrogance... it burns.

Why do you say you're not going to make any comments and then make the next two blocks of text comments on said case?

Posted by VortexNetwork, 12-07-2013, 03:26 PM
Ouch, I can't see it ending well. I guess they got themselves into this mess!

Posted by aeris, 12-07-2013, 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumedrive
We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.
You do realize that after the three week outage you didn't make any public statements about until a week into it, most people were concerned about the services you provide even prior to learning about the lawsuit?

Posted by kaniini, 12-07-2013, 03:37 PM
So, since volumedrive is sitting here being all cheeky, I decided to spend the $5 on PACER to download the PDFs.

http://turtle.dereferenced.org/~kaniini/volumedrive/

In my opinion: they screwed Data Sales pretty hard. That said, who would lease equipment in the hosting industry when you can get business loans at prime+1% from many lenders?

Posted by Patrick, 12-07-2013, 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaniini
So, since volumedrive is sitting here being all cheeky, I decided to spend the $5 on PACER to download the PDFs.

http://turtle.dereferenced.org/~kaniini/volumedrive/

In my opinion: they screwed Data Sales pretty hard. That said, who would lease equipment in the hosting industry when you can get business loans at prime+1% from many lenders?
Thanks for posting! I was waiting on a password reset with PACER and it still hasn't arrived. :/

Posted by aeris, 12-07-2013, 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaniini
In my opinion: they screwed Data Sales pretty hard. That said, who would lease equipment in the hosting industry when you can get business loans at prime+1% from many lenders?
Hmm.

Quote:
14. As of the filing of the underlying lawsuit, VOLUMEDRIVE owes $116,118.48 to DATA SALES for the Leased Equipment
...
16. Additionally, pursuant to the Equipment Schedules and the Lease, VOLUMEDRIVE was not to remove the Leased Equipment from a property located at 422 Prescott Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania

17. The property located at 422 Prescott Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania (hereinafter the "BurstNet Building"), is owned by BurstNet Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter "BurstNet"), which is a company that provides co-location services to webhosting companies such as VOLUMEDRIVE.

18. Upon learning that VOLUMEDRIVE was illegally removing the Leased Equipment from the BurstNet Building, BurstNet changed the locks on the building to prevent further removal

19. With the assistance of BurstNet, DATA SALES has determined that VOLUMEDRIVE has misappropriated or taken 182 pieces of equipment, with a fair market value of $44,678.80
Yup. That fits to a tee with what BurstNet has claimed previously.

Posted by DeltaAnime, 12-07-2013, 04:14 PM
Where are the crap starters now?

All the ones that were sure that BurstNET was full of it?

GG.

Francisco

Posted by Steven, 12-07-2013, 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumedrive
Patrick, We were starting to miss you! We were worried that you were starting to lose interest in our company.

We are not going to make any comments on any ongoing legal matter.

Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.

We are very confident about the outcome of this case, and there isn't any cause for concern on any services that we provide.
You are one cocky man.

Posted by kaniini, 12-07-2013, 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaAnime
Where are the crap starters now?

All the ones that were sure that BurstNET was full of it?

GG.

Francisco
Maybe I will need to invest in some premium BuyVM anti-DDoS until I have my own mitigation finished.

Posted by firefoxinc, 12-07-2013, 04:40 PM
Just reading the documents, seems it got kicked into a federal court and BN/DS is tring to kick it back down. Federal judges have a higher reputation of digging though the cases better and finding out the true story.

Also this line sticks out the most

18. Upon learning that VOLUMEDRIVE was illegally removing the Leased Equipment from the BurstNet Building, BurstNet changed the locks on the building to prevent further removal.

I did not see anywhere in the paperwork that restricted them to keeping there equipment in a specific location.

But still just because someone filed a lawsuit does not mean everything they claim in court is 100% right. Yet still a good read. Maby someone will go to the hearing since they most likely are public?

Posted by tchen, 12-07-2013, 04:44 PM
On the bright side, I think this mean we get another lease funded dedi-sale as they bought themselves a lot of time moving it to federal court.

Posted by firefoxinc, 12-07-2013, 04:51 PM
Now that I recall. That also conflicts the statement that was made that VD was locked out because of not paying there bills.

Little bit of the left hand not talking to the right or storys changing? :|

Posted by aeris, 12-07-2013, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
I did not see anywhere in the paperwork that restricted them to keeping there equipment in a specific location.
http://turtle.dereferenced.org/~kani...edrive/1-1.pdf

From Page 15:

Quote:
13. USE OF EQUIPMENT
The Equipment will be kept by Lessee in its sole possession and control, will at all times be located at the location stated in the Equipment Schedule, and will not be removed therefrom, without prior written consent of Lessor.
Page 20 through 46 contain the Equipment Schedules, and they all specify the location as a variant of:

Quote:
VolumeDrive Inc
John Bohannon
422 Precott Ave
Scranton, PA 18510
So yeah, they are definitely in violation.

Posted by DeltaAnime, 12-07-2013, 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Now that I recall. That also conflicts the statement that was made that VD was locked out because of not paying there bills.

Little bit of the left hand not talking to the right or storys changing? :|
Burstnet isn't suing them in this claim. Burstnet will likely file at some point and that'll cover another small (LARGE) sum of money.

Posted by aeris, 12-07-2013, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Now that I recall. That also conflicts the statement that was made that VD was locked out because of not paying there bills.

Little bit of the left hand not talking to the right or storys changing? :|
That's not what was said. BurstNET claimed VolumeDrive were locked out because they were removing equipment without authorization. They also claimed that they did not have authorization because of outstanding debts, but as the agreements show, they additionally did not have authorization due to the agreement with Data Sales.

Posted by DeltaAnime, 12-07-2013, 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris
That's not what was said. BurstNET claimed VolumeDrive were locked out because they were removing equipment without authorization. They also claimed that they did not have authorization because of outstanding debts, but as the agreements show, they additionally did not have authorization due to the agreement with Data Sales.
I think burst mentioned that they had dealings with Data Sales in the past and that's how VD came into contact with them.

It's likely that Burstnet gave Data Sales a guarantee on the equipment being safe as a way to get VD the equipment signed. It's not uncommon for leasers to require a 'lock down' from the facility to protect themselves.

Francisco

Posted by Steven, 12-07-2013, 05:32 PM
Reading through the documents, there is a long history of default.

Posted by netdude, 12-07-2013, 05:52 PM
naw, but it appears they were not paying their bills... How does someone do that? Run a business and not pay the bills that keep that business running... Like really, how do they do that and expect their mortgages/etc to get paid? Just a handful of really simple rules to follow (like paying business bills; the smart ones prepay expenses they know they're going to have 'til some arbitrary date like any month in 2020 ;]) and everything goes okay: if that can't be done, get a job cuz business ain't for them. I used to prepay things years ahead 'til my birthday date but then started realizing all that did was give me bills for my birthday, lol... Now I just prepay everything 'til 2020 and promise to prepay 'til 2030 by the time 2017 comes around (some things don't let me prepay more than 15 years in advance)... Because companies like Apple, GoDaddy, Google and Telus (our local telephone company) I am pretty sure are going to be around for 10+ years (and I will always need my domains, telecom services, cell phone, etc so why not just get it over with?), and prices are only going up

Oh well, different strokes for different folks...

Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris
http://turtle.dereferenced.org/~kani...edrive/1-1.pdf

From Page 15:



Page 20 through 46 contain the Equipment Schedules, and they all specify the location as a variant of:



So yeah, they are definitely in violation.

Posted by Jay H, 12-07-2013, 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven
Reading through the documents, there is a long history of default.
Yeah, it's pretty ugly. When they are looking at ~$35/mo. per server in lease payments and then turning around and selling that server for $65/mo., it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what could be going wrong.

Posted by tchen, 12-07-2013, 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by netdude
the smart ones prepay expenses they know they're going to have 'til some arbitrary date like any month in 2020 ;])
Before going full bore, I'd learn about future value and present value. It's going to be rare for any utility to outstrip inflation. In which case, you'd be better served investing that money in risk-free treasuries and then just paying when due.

Companies like people prepaying when they can yield better returns on excess cash than the market.

Posted by alucasa, 12-07-2013, 06:36 PM
Damn, I love these threads. It's better than watching brain-dead soap opera.

It's the reason I've been sticking around WHT for so long.

Posted by 123Andrew, 12-07-2013, 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay H
Yeah, it's pretty ugly. When they are looking at ~$35/mo. per server in lease payments and then turning around and selling that server for $65/mo., it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what could be going wrong.
I checked the equipment schedules and it seems that at the price they offer the boxes at, they would not even clear enough to pay for that equipment on a monthly basis.

They price the X3450's on their site for $49.95/month, according to equipment schedule #2 (Which is what lease the X3450's were located on), the total monthly price to be paid on that schedule was: $2,270.85 for a 24 month term.

They had a total of (40) of these according to the equipment schedule, based on their current price of these, that would be a total of $1,998 if they sold them all at that price (Although we all know the huge sales they ran for this box). You then have the bandwidth, power, and day to day operating costs.

Looks like Ed math to me. (A majority of you may not get this).

Posted by Encrypted, 12-08-2013, 12:03 AM
Quote:
14. As of the filing of the underlying lawsuit, VOLUMEDRIVE owes One-Hundred Sixteen Thousand One-Hundred Eighteen Dollars and Forty-Eight Cents ($116,118.48) to DATA SALES for the Leased Equipment.
If they owe that much on the leased hardware I can only imagine how much they owe Burst.

.
.

And..
Quote:
Upon learning that VOLUMEDRIVE was illegally removing the Leased Equipment from the BurstNet Building, BurstNet changed the locks on the building to prevent further removal.
Quote:
With the assistance of BurstNet, DATA SALES has determined that VOLUMEDRIVE has misappropriated or taken 182 pieces of equipment, with a fair market value of Forty-Four Thousand, Six-Hundred and Seventy-Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents ($44,678.80)

Posted by Steve_P, 12-08-2013, 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encrypted
If they owe that much on the leased hardware I can only imagine how much they owe Burst.
Plus whatever they owe those colo customers that have said they've not seen hide nor hair of their hardware since the move from Burst.

Posted by Jay H, 12-08-2013, 02:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 123Andrew
I checked the equipment schedules and it seems that at the price they offer the boxes at, they would not even clear enough to pay for that equipment on a monthly basis.

They price the X3450's on their site for $49.95/month, according to equipment schedule #2 (Which is what lease the X3450's were located on), the total monthly price to be paid on that schedule was: $2,270.85 for a 24 month term.

They had a total of (40) of these according to the equipment schedule, based on their current price of these, that would be a total of $1,998 if they sold them all at that price (Although we all know the huge sales they ran for this box). You then have the bandwidth, power, and day to day operating costs.

Looks like Ed math to me. (A majority of you may not get this).
Yeah, I didn't even bother looking at the other schedules to see how they stacked up. I assumed it was more of the same, but apparently it was worse.

Posted by RSS-Artie, 12-08-2013, 03:13 AM
Quote:
44. DATA SALES has reason to believe VOLUMEDRIVE is likely to move, hide, sell or destory the Collateral if given the opportunity.
Well, then.

Posted by firefoxinc, 12-08-2013, 03:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay H
Yeah, I didn't even bother looking at the other schedules to see how they stacked up. I assumed it was more of the same, but apparently it was worse.
Yet that does not take into consideration the price of ip addresses, extra addons and such. Think you can sell a /22 for 1k with ease anymore.

Plus I do think there prices now are different from when they first had things. Yet just shows how leasing is a bad thing to do :{

Now of BN wanted to play there cards right and sock it to VD, would load up a dumpster with some of these servers and play the "We dont have them!" game.

Posted by cd/home, 12-08-2013, 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Yet just shows how leasing is a bad thing to do :{
When you come to think of it leasing hardware is extremely good value for money many of the bigger providers around here most likely already do it for instance Cisco networking equipment which costs thousands can be had for a decent monthly price on a long term lease the same go's for servers an everything else. Basically you lease the base unit and providing on the terms of the lease you can add additional drives, ram and everything else your self but there is some rules which might not seem fair like provider lock-ins, etc

Posted by gingir, 12-08-2013, 12:49 PM
Their old provider (can't remember the name) + Burst.NET + Data Sales all saying the same thing...


VolumeDrive

Posted by netdude, 12-08-2013, 01:36 PM
Well... a part of my rationale is not just about the cost but also about "if I am spending my time worrying about my bills, I am not spending it building my business" So for things like domains and all the other <$100/mo bills, its easier to prepay by the decade than get something in the mail which I have to give a second's thought to

But I lucked out... Pretty much everything I have is unlimited transfer: from my Fido cell phone's data package (ironically, I'll prepay but I refuse to get a contract) on an iPhone 5 to my fiber feeds at my businesses So it really is worth it for my to prepay because my billing amount is fixed and the only thing I do by prepaying is making a bill disappear Because it is not about the money, it is about the time it takes to even think about the money (and knowing that the only time most of these professional services ever go down is when the bill was accidentally unpaid because of an expired credit card)...

I prepay for me, not the company I prepay so I can have a free mind to think about how to make money, not how I was spending it Oh... and I prepay to only huge names or smaller companies that diligently perform as advertised (like FTPIT.COM who I felt comfortable enough to go 'til 2020, hope I don't regret it; haven't for the last 6 months =]).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tchen
Before going full bore, I'd learn about future value and present value. It's going to be rare for any utility to outstrip inflation. In which case, you'd be better served investing that money in risk-free treasuries and then just paying when due.

Companies like people prepaying when they can yield better returns on excess cash than the market.

Posted by Patrick, 12-08-2013, 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingir
Their old provider (can't remember the name) + Burst.NET + Data Sales all saying the same thing...


VolumeDrive
GoRACK, I think you are thinking of?

Posted by DMEHosting, 12-08-2013, 02:06 PM
Looks like it started last year (Feb 2012) and has been an ongoing issue. I hope their clients make backups, as they can't keep up with payments to Data Sales and BurstNET. It's going to be a tough lesson to learn for those clients who don't know about this.

Posted by hhw, 12-08-2013, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Yet that does not take into consideration the price of ip addresses, extra addons and such. Think you can sell a /22 for 1k with ease anymore.
ARIN membership fees aren't that high, and only paid on an annual basis. For most intents and purposes, the cost of the IP addresses themselves is negligible. It's the work involved in maintaining documentation on all IP's in order to meet ARIN justification that's the real cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Plus I do think there prices now are different from when they first had things. Yet just shows how leasing is a bad thing to do :{
Even SoftLayer used DataSales until they were acquired by GI Partners. Dedicated hosting companies are extremely capital intensive. Being able to pay a monthly lease that's directly covered by revenue generated can be very helpful, and can allow a company to grow much faster than it would be able to from using the profits of existing servers to fund the purchase of new ones. Obviously, the interest component is not insignificant, but considering that hardware rapidly depreciates and this is a high risk industry so far as lenders are concerned, it's not unreasonable. Especially, as the return on that hardware is usually (obviously not in Volumedrive's case) much higher than the interest costs.

Obviously, if you are flush with cash you should just purchase the hardware outright yourselves, which is what we do 90-95% of the time, but once in a while we get a large customer which requires more servers than we have cash immediately available on hand for. We haven't used Data Sales yet, as we currently have a very low interest credit line available to us, but I've met with them before as I think leasing definitely can make sense. It's also important to keep in mind that the terms and interest rates involved will vary from company to company, depending on their financial strength and assessed risk. I imagine VolumeDrive was at the bottom of the barrel, not even qualifying if it weren't for Burstnet vouching for them, hence the restrictive terms and high rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
Now of BN wanted to play there cards right and sock it to VD, would load up a dumpster with some of these servers and play the "We dont have them!" game.
From the sounds of it, that wouldn't be undeserved, and probably the only way they could recover some of their losses. Nevertheless, not only would it be illegal, but it would likely be at DataSales' rather than VD's expense, as VD will most likely be financially insolvent after this.

I doubt there will be any settlement on this case, as it does not appear as though VD can afford to settle or pay out anything at all really. So, even if the case doesn't go entirely in Data Sales' way, VD is likely finished. I hope InfoRelay is paying attention, and does not extend them any allowances on paying on time, as that will very likely end up as money they'll never see.

Posted by DeltaAnime, 12-08-2013, 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Encrypted
If they owe that much on the leased hardware I can only imagine how much they owe Burst.

.
.

And..
The owner of burstnet claims that with what they're due, he could put his kids through some top end colleges without issue. I don't think they ever expected VD to pay back what they owe but if they at least started working at it they'd likely come to a positive conclusion (possibly even burst just buying them out or something).

From the way Burst was wording it, they were due in the 6 figures as well.

Francisco

Posted by Steve_P, 12-08-2013, 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
as VD will most likely be financially insolvent after this.
Given their actions, I think there's a case to be made that they already are and have been for a while. Companies that have money pay their bills and don't abscond with equipment they're contractually obligated to keep in place.

I'm also curious, and maybe someone with more knowledge than me can answer this - as I understand, ARIN requires a multi-homed network (with copies of the carrier contracts as proof) in order to obtain an ASN, right? VD's ASN has been single-homed with Cogent for quite some time now (although they claim "We offer multiple tier 1 carriers" for their colo offerings), so does ARIN have an issue with a previously multi-homed provider dropping to a single connection?

Posted by Steve_P, 12-08-2013, 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
We haven't used Data Sales yet, as we currently have a very low interest credit line available to us, but I've met with them before as I think leasing definitely can make sense.
I would think so as well, if for no other reason that the lease is a straight business expense for tax purposes, eliminates the need to calculate depreciation for each piece of hardware, and gives you a fixed monthly expense to work with when budgeting. Obviously you'll eventually reach a break-even point where it's better to buy your own gear, but it seems that for small companies these could be definite advantages to leasing.

Posted by CD Burnt, 12-08-2013, 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS-Artie
Quote:
44. DATA SALES has reason to believe VOLUMEDRIVE is likely to move, hide, sell or destory the Collateral if given the opportunity.
Well, then.


I thought destory was some legal term I was unfamiliar with. so I searched for a definition. hahaha

Posted by Awmusic12635, 12-08-2013, 06:53 PM
Interesting

Posted by kpmedia, 12-08-2013, 06:59 PM
I remember reading about the owner of VolumeDrive owning multiple fancy cars.
If true, it's not rocket science on where the money has gone.

Sounds like somebody needs to go to federal pound-me-in-the-@ss prison. (Office Space reference)

Posted by Patrick, 12-08-2013, 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpmedia
I remember reading about the owner of VolumeDrive owning multiple fancy cars.
If true, it's not rocket science on where the money has gone.

Sounds like somebody needs to go to federal pound-me-in-the-@ss prison. (Office Space reference)
The owner was arrested a while back for DUI in said fancy car... just saying!

Posted by gingir, 12-08-2013, 07:56 PM
Not to mention his PUI on WHT...

Posted by 123Andrew, 12-08-2013, 08:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
The owner was arrested a while back for DUI in said fancy car... just saying!
It's an ongoing trend, starting in 2007.

Quote:
01/21/07 5:05pm Police spot the white Porsche on Main Street, attempted to stop same but the vehicle fled, Blakely, Throop and Scranton Police assisted, Porsche was apprehended on Throop Street and taken into custody a Joshua Bohanon of 1143 Northern Blvd Clarks Summit was arraigned and charged with, fleeing and attempting to elude police, reckless driving, recklessly endangering another person, disorderly conduct and submitting false reports to police.
Quote:
01/15/2013 - Joshua A. Bohanon, 27, of 353 Orchard St., Old Forge, PA, to six months of probation and a $300 fine for DUI.

Posted by net, 12-08-2013, 09:18 PM
This is no good for those people who still have servers with them.

I just hope they are reading this and start backing up....

Posted by Nick H, Yesterday, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volumedrive
Is it not at all unusual for former business partners / competitors to abuse the legal system for frivolous, unsubstantiated claims. Large companies receive frivolous lawsuits all the time.
I moonlight as a professional process server. I've served hundreds of cases including many from Federal court. I can tell you from my experience in the legal field that a company does not file a lawsuit in Federal court unless they have a leg to stand on. I can also tell you that no lawyer will take a case such as this unless there is substantive proof of wrongdoing. Why? Federal judges do not take kindly to frivolous lawsuits being filed or having their time wasted, and they react very harshly to plaintiffs and their attorneys for doing so.

Everyone is entitled to their day in court, however, based on my experience in the legal industry and reading the complaint - I would also concur with everyone recommending to get backups ready sooner rather than later

Posted by firefoxinc, Yesterday, 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhw
Stuff
I do agree about the ips. Keeping ARIN happy is always a task.

So far all of the server I have I own. I am looking to leasing but need to look at everything very carefully. Its not something you walk into without much thought and number crunching.

When it comes to asset destruction.. yes it is illegal. Yet time and time again people will do things if they know the ones they do it to, have little power to do anything about it. It just seems like a very bitter sweet moment to do such a thing, if they they think would not get anything else from VD.

Yes federal judges are no joke. Look up Prenda Law and you will seed a wonderful example of when you get on the wrong side of one with nonsense. However seems VD is kicking it to federal and DS is wanting to push it back to state.

Posted by AdditionHosting, Yesterday, 01:51 AM
VolumeDrive isnt the best host and once again the've got them selfes in another mess

Posted by Steve_P, Yesterday, 01:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
I can tell you from my experience in the legal field that a company does not file a lawsuit in Federal court unless they have a leg to stand on.
Data Sales didn't file in federal court - they filed in the local county court and VolumeDrive had the case removed to the U.S. District Court. At the time Data Sales filed the suit, they also filed a motion for a writ of seizure and were finally able to get VD served on October 14 (the county sheriff's office had tried to serve VD on October 8th and found VD's "business address" was a UPS Store) , and the hearing for that motion was on October 21, when VD appeared without a lawyer. The hearing got rescheduled for October 24, and the day before the hearing VD filed the notice of removal to federal court. DS is moving to have the case remanded back to the state court on the basis that the removal was improper in the first place, and that the only reason DS was not able to timely serve VD with the original notice was because VD was actively avoiding service and is claiming they knew nothing of the suit until they were successfully served with the seizure motion (which had a copy of the original notice attached) almost a week after the initial service of process was attempted.

Quote:
Everyone is entitled to their day in court, however, based on my experience in the legal industry and reading the complaint - I would also concur with everyone recommending to get backups ready sooner rather than later
Agree 100%.

Posted by aeris, Yesterday, 02:40 PM
Apparently the first pre-trial meeting will be on January 3rd 2014. Not sure how significantly the length of the trial period is affected by being in district instead of county court, but I guess we'll have plenty of in the not too distant future.

I am curious why BurstNET hasn't moved ahead with a lawsuit on their own. Maybe they figure there won't be anything left when Data Sales are done with them.

Posted by Techno, Yesterday, 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris
I am curious why BurstNET hasn't moved ahead with a lawsuit on their own. Maybe they figure there won't be anything left when Data Sales are done with them.
Data Sales has the 'easier' task of trying to retrieve their equipment while BurstNet would be trying solely to collect monies owed from a client with no assets. VD's defense so far hasn't been on the merits but has been to delay and invoke technicalities to prolong the process making it more expensive for Data Sales to pursue.

Posted by dzonidev, Yesterday, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris
I am curious why BurstNET hasn't moved ahead with a lawsuit on their own. Maybe they figure there won't be anything left when Data Sales are done with them.
I agree, maybe BurstNET will also join this topic. Anyways, I give them 2 months max. I just feel sorry for those people who have collocation with them.

Posted by Tyler S, Yesterday, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dzonidev
I agree, maybe BurstNET will also join this topic. Anyways, I give them 2 months max. I just feel sorry for those people who have collocation with them.
If BurstNET is also going to take legal action then I do not think it is in their best interest to reply to this thread.

Posted by tchen, Yesterday, 04:33 PM
There was one thing I missed. Do they still have the FL DC or was everything moved to the new DC?

Posted by cd/home, Yesterday, 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMEHosting
Looks like it started last year (Feb 2012) and has been an ongoing issue.
So why didn't they recover the equipment sooner they only left the Burst DC some weeks back. Why was they left to rack up such bills in the first place. Something doesn't seem right with all of it.

Posted by DeltaAnime, Yesterday, 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
So why didn't they recover the equipment sooner they only left the Burst DC some weeks back. Why was they left to rack up such bills in the first place. Something doesn't seem right with all of it.
I think they'd rather the leaser pay things back than them repo gear. They don't want the gear nor would people want to lease used gear.

Francisco

Posted by Violent Injection, Yesterday, 04:53 PM
Maybe Burstnet is holding on to the gear in leiu of payment.

Posted by firefoxinc, Yesterday, 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Injection
Maybe Burstnet is holding on to the gear in leiu of payment.
If BN is holding VD property without a court judgment then that is theft. Least if I recall correctly.

Posted by aeris, Yesterday, 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
If BN is holding VD property without a court judgment then that is theft. Least if I recall correctly.
Nah. The contract would contain a clause about holding equipment if VD fails to pay their bills, which they obviously have.

Besides, most of the equipment belongs to Data Sales, not VD.

Posted by HackedServer, Yesterday, 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefoxinc
If BN is holding VD property without a court judgment then that is theft. Least if I recall correctly.
I remember BurstNET saying that they worked with DS to take over the lease on the servers, based on VD defaulting and/or breaking the contract.

Posted by cd/home, Yesterday, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaAnime
I think they'd rather the leaser pay things back than them repo gear. They don't want the gear nor would people want to lease used gear.

Francisco
Whats stopping VD declaring bankruptcy and never paying a penny to either of them. If someone isn't sticking to a contract yet you let them breach this contract for almost 2 years I think they have some part to blame in the mess?

Posted by DeltaAnime, Yesterday, 05:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
Whats stopping VD declaring bankruptcy and never paying a penny to either of them. If someone isn't sticking to a contract yet you let them breach this contract for almost 2 years I think they have some part to blame in the mess?
For sure.

They could and they very well may. It's also possible they'll try to sell the brand, or worse, try to migrate the gear before anyone is able to get into their space.

Francisco

Posted by Coolraul, Yesterday, 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
Whats stopping VD declaring bankruptcy and never paying a penny to either of them. If someone isn't sticking to a contract yet you let them breach this contract for almost 2 years I think they have some part to blame in the mess?
So by extending them more time to make good on their commitments you think the Datacenter or the Lessor is to blame?

Ya that's a good strategy blame the victims of a shady business.

Should they have cut them that much slack, apparently not now that we can apply hindsight to it.

Posted by cd/home, Yesterday, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolraul
So by extending them more time to make good on their commitments you think the Datacenter or the Lessor is to blame?

Ya that's a good strategy blame the victims of a shady business.

Should they have cut them that much slack, apparently not now that we can apply hindsight to it.
Am not blaming or pointing the finger at anyone but while VD is having the lease ultimately DS are still the rightful owners of said gear. I think once you let a contract go unpaid for a period of 12 months you can be fairly sure they don't intend to pay anytime soon so they let it go on for almost another 12 months now there in this mess of battling which court it'll be dealt with. You would think after letting a contract go unpaid for 6 months the ball would of been rolling to bring proceedings against them for breach of contract or something. Am quite shocked how long it's taken them to actually file against VD considering we're talking a period of almost 24 months.

Posted by firefoxinc, Yesterday, 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris
Nah. The contract would contain a clause about holding equipment if VD fails to pay their bills, which they obviously have.

Besides, most of the equipment belongs to Data Sales, not VD.
Considering we are going from hearsay on alot of this. I would not say much is true unless people are willing to pony up documents.

We see the agreement from DS in the court case, yet there is no true indication of simply how much hardware VD owns (not leased). So far there is nothing in hard writing that shows much of anything besides for that DA has provided.

Since people are pointing out on VD not folding seems to be a key point. Why did VD pay for legal counsel? Why did they not fold up? More importantly why is VD legal counsel tossing this into the federal ball park?

I am more inclined to think that the rabbit hole goes a bit deeper then what we have been hearing. Legal counsel is not cheap, nor is federal courts so there must be a reason. Considering the reputations of both sides (VD/BN) in this community. I would be sticking to what is being said in the court papers.

Knowing the way that is, we should all pitch in and buy a 20 pound bag of raw popcorn and start the poping. Also anyone close to attend the hearings? I am sure people would be biting at the bit for updates.

Posted by tchen, Yesterday, 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
Am not blaming or pointing the finger at anyone but while VD is having the lease ultimately DS are still the rightful owners of said gear. I think once you let a contract go unpaid for a period of 12 months you can be fairly sure they don't intend to pay anytime soon so they let it go on for almost another 12 months now there in this mess of battling which court it'll be dealt with. You would think after letting a contract go unpaid for 6 months the ball would of been rolling to bring proceedings against them for breach of contract or something. Am quite shocked how long it's taken them to actually file against VD considering we're talking a period of almost 24 months.
Well, that's the thing. They were playing catchup since 2012 Feb with each amount going to past-due invoices. It only broke down sometime mid 2013 when the payments started to dwindle and DS finally realized the gap wasn't closing. I think them moving DCs was the OMG moment. Probably up til then, some hope was in the air - which isn't unusual for a lender.

Posted by cd/home, Yesterday, 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tchen
Well, that's the thing. They were playing catchup since 2012 Feb with each amount going to past-due invoices. It only broke down sometime mid 2013 when the payments started to dwindle and DS finally realized the gap wasn't closing. I think them moving DCs was the OMG moment. Probably up til then, some hope was in the air - which isn't unusual for a lender.
With the gap being around $100,000
We're not talking pocket money here or a matter of a few weeks am shocked how long it's gone on and how much is owed really maybe it's time DS toughened up.

Posted by tchen, Yesterday, 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
With the gap being around $100,000
We're not talking pocket money here or a matter of a few weeks am shocked how long it's gone on and how much is owed really maybe it's time DS toughened up.
Easy to say in hindsight. Gap of $100k on effectively $100k FMV 2yr old equipment. Potential income $145k+ per year - collateral backed. Honestly, even I'd have to think hard about taking the writedown.

Posted by WII-Aaron, Yesterday, 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
Whats stopping VD declaring bankruptcy and never paying a penny to either of them. If someone isn't sticking to a contract yet you let them breach this contract for almost 2 years I think they have some part to blame in the mess?
Bankruptcy wouldn't stop Datasales. Datasales owns the equipment, not VD. It would be like if you borrowed my car and then claimed bankruptcy. I'd still just come get my car back since I have the title to it.

Posted by cd/home, Yesterday, 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
Bankruptcy wouldn't stop Datasales. Datasales owns the equipment, not VD. It would be like if you borrowed my car and then claimed bankruptcy. I'd still just come get my car back since I have the title to it.
But you need to factor in deprecation value also the hardware is used and some of it a few years old at least. They'll be hard pressed to lease the equipment out again or at least re-coup the costs. Either way I personally think they have left the bill to rack up way too long.

Posted by gordonrp, Yesterday, 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cd/home
But you need to factor in deprecation value also the hardware is used and some of it a few years old at least. They'll be hard pressed to lease the equipment out again or at least re-coup the costs. Either way I personally think they have left the bill to rack up way too long.
I think WHT has let them promote their goods here for sale for far too long. It's one thing being an open community and allowing providers here to be able to respond to their problems etc, that's fine. But allowing them to promote their wares when they're very obviously up to no good (screwing over multiple providers on this forum with unpaid bills). WHT has a duty to it's visitors to not let reckless companies post in their ad forums.

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 12:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordonrp
I think WHT has let them promote their goods here for sale for far too long. It's one thing being an open community and allowing providers here to be able to respond to their problems etc, that's fine. But allowing them to promote their wares when they're very obviously up to no good (screwing over multiple providers on this forum with unpaid bills). WHT has a duty to it's visitors to not let reckless companies post in their ad forums.
Who's going to police that and decide who is up to no good? There is a company that advertises here (or did for a long time) that was and maybe still is on Spamhaus' ROKSO list of known criminal spammers. If they can do business here, why not Volumedrive?

On another, semi related note, I once posted an ad titled "Going out of business sale" because I thought it was hilarious to think that a hosting provider would have a sale where you knew you wouldn't get to use the service very long. It got a ton of responses. Maybe Volumedrive can have a real Going out of business sale.

Posted by HackedServer, Today, 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
Who's going to police that and decide who is up to no good? There is a company that advertises here (or did for a long time) that was and maybe still is on Spamhaus' ROKSO list of known criminal spammers. If they can do business here, why not Volumedrive?

On another, semi related note, I once posted an ad titled "Going out of business sale" because I thought it was hilarious to think that a hosting provider would have a sale where you knew you wouldn't get to use the service very long. It got a ton of responses. Maybe Volumedrive can have a real Going out of business sale.
I would figure it would be the job of the staff to moderate the forums, as that's what they do.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/faq.ph...whtstafftitles
VolumeDrive has a pretty extreme history of fraud, against both customers and businesses that use WHT. I think that's quite a step away from being listed on spamhaus. Though that isn't for me to decide, that's for the staff, who I really feel should take some sort of action either banning VD or explaining why they aren't since there are always new posts of people getting screwed by VD.

As for your funny but sad example, it is always going to work that way. As someone who has many servers just for hobbyist fun, I often choose cheap hosts, and sometimes it sucks but I go in with lower expectations when I'm paying less. I really wouldn't be surprised if VD tried something like a firesale right at the end, no reason not to unless they wanted to continue elsewhere.

Posted by Violent Injection, Today, 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
I would figure it would be the job of the staff to moderate the forums, as that's what they do.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/faq.ph...whtstafftitles
VolumeDrive has a pretty extreme history of fraud, against both customers and businesses that use WHT. I think that's quite a step away from being listed on spamhaus. Though that isn't for me to decide, that's for the staff, who I really feel should take some sort of action either banning VD or explaining why they aren't since there are always new posts of people getting screwed by VD.

As for your funny but sad example, it is always going to work that way. As someone who has many servers just for hobbyist fun, I often choose cheap hosts, and sometimes it sucks but I go in with lower expectations when I'm paying less. I really wouldn't be surprised if VD tried something like a firesale right at the end, no reason not to unless they wanted to continue elsewhere.
It must be a Michigan thing because I 100% agree with you and also think at some point WHT should be held liable "not literally" for allowing a known scammer to post advertisments on their forums. I have seen them banned other users for the samethings that volume drive has done. VD even admitted they lost this guys ssd and refused to replace it. It really makes you start looking for a replacement for WHT.

Posted by HackedServer, Today, 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Violent Injection
It must be a Michigan thing because I 100% agree with you and also think at some point WHT should be held liable "not literally" for allowing a known scammer to post advertisments on their forums. I have seen them banned other users for the samethings that volume drive has done. VD even admitted they lost this guys ssd and refused to replace it. It really makes you start looking for a replacement for WHT.
Although I'm not as extreme as you in my reactions (I wouldn't dream of looking for a replacement currently), I really do feel like *something* should be done. I don't know what would be best for the community though, and I have to trust the admins in that area. Something simple like not allowing them to post advertisements would make me feel a lot better, then they could defend themselves if they are indeed in the right. This way they aren't given the privilege of advertising here which shouldn't destroy their business, but they aren't outright banned so they can defend themselves.

Posted by Violent Injection, Today, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
Although I'm not as extreme as you in my reactions (I wouldn't dream of looking for a replacement currently), I really do feel like *something* should be done. I don't know what would be best for the community though, and I have to trust the admins in that area. Something simple like not allowing them to post advertisements would make me feel a lot better, then they could defend themselves if they are indeed in the right. This way they aren't given the privilege of advertising here which shouldn't destroy their business, but they aren't outright banned so they can defend themselves.
That is a livable middle groud as long as they can't advertise in their signature aswell. I am just tired of all the posts from new people saying how they got screwed by them. While I agree that you should do your research alot of these people have no clue what they are getting into until they get in it. I remember when I first started renting server boxes I use to use the cheapest around and never looked into them. I learned a thing or 2 but it is nicer to know that where you go to look they atleast have your back by not allowing companies who are known for scamming people to post advertisements on their forums.

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 01:40 PM
Quote:
VolumeDrive has a pretty extreme history of fraud, against both customers and businesses that use WHT. I think that's quite a step away from being listed on spamhaus.
There's a big difference between outright fraud and just plain incompetence. I haven't seen anything with VD that would suggest an intent to defraud their customers. Bring an idiot isn't illegal.

Now if there is a "going out of business" sale or an attempt to market the servers that, obviously at this pint, are going to be repossessed then that's a different story.

And someone may come and bail them out. I've offered to but haven't gotten a response. I'm sure there are others knocking on their door with offers as well.

Quote:
Though that isn't for me to decide, that's for the staff, who I really feel should take some sort of action either banning VD or explaining why they aren't since there are always new posts of people getting screwed by VD.
That's the nature of WHT. I don't know of a single company that gets any order volume from here that doesn't have a thread about how someone got screwed. When you're dealing with so many different cultures and languages and people who want the world for $5 that's what you get. Welcome to WHT.

Posted by Violent Injection, Today, 02:06 PM
Your right not a single thread.

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1174943
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1309421
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1314232

Also being an idiot can be illegal.

Posted by kpmedia, Today, 02:16 PM
I'm always amused when site mods/admins say "who are we to decide?" Well, duh! You're the ones running the site. Like the host, you reserve the right to refuses business to anyone. I think refusing VD would be beneficial to the site, and a courtesy to other members.

Posted by 48-14, Today, 02:29 PM
Late for this party but early enough to wait for the first proceedings.

I haven't read all the details, but it doesn't sound too different from similar cases, so my take;

1. I've questioned many times why WHT allows known scammers.
2. A stronger registration system for new hosts
3. even stronger rules to advertise (if you have X amount of public complaints, suspension from advertising)

Within the last 3 years, I think each year I've seen a host suddenly shut down and run. End result in all cases, customers lost everything, and the "pretend host" was owing tens of thousands in server fees. How does a DC allow a host to rack up such fees????


Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
There's a big difference between outright fraud and just plain incompetence. I haven't seen anything with VD that would suggest an intent to defraud their customers. Bring an idiot isn't illegal.

Now if there is a "going out of business" sale or an attempt to market the servers that, obviously at this pint, are going to be repossessed then that's a different story.

And someone may come and bail them out. I've offered to but haven't gotten a response. I'm sure there are others knocking on their door with offers as well.

Some days I wish being an idiot was illegal. I got stories

But to your point of a failing host looking for a bail out....technically they already bailed.

Sadly in this business, a wolf can wear a very very nice sheep outfit and fool everyone until that last moment when the sky falls apart. Look at SpecHosting. Even with the other host about 2 years ago that owed about 25 or 35 thousand in server fees...no warning. One day he contacts customers telling them a lie that the DC was asking for more fees, so he requested such fees from the customers...and they paid it. So now;

1. this dude collected fees from customers
2. didn't pay his DC
3. asked for more fees from customers
4. and then ran while telling people it's a minor issue, giving them hope their sites would be online

I would call that an Ultimate Fraud Finishing Move. Someone who's incompetent could not pull that off. Most con-artists are cold and calculating. One I knew of, ran his scams and left the country. Not sure how he sleeps at night.

Posted by Nick H, Today, 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpmedia
I'm always amused when site mods/admins say "who are we to decide?" Well, duh! You're the ones running the site. Like the host, you reserve the right to refuses business to anyone. I think refusing VD would be beneficial to the site, and a courtesy to other members.
I'm in no way defending this company if they did what is alleged, however, if WHT banned every company that ever got a bad review, made a mistake, or was involved in a lawsuit, they would have no web hosting company members left except those with under 100 clients...

Posted by HackedServer, Today, 03:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
I'm in no way defending this company if they did what is alleged, however, if WHT banned every company that ever got a bad review, made a mistake, or was involved in a lawsuit, they would have no web hosting company members left except those with under 100 clients...
I agree, I don't think WHT should police that heavily, it would be far too difficult and unneeded. Consumers should be able to take some precautions on their own, a host that's been around for 4 days and has "amazing deals" shouldn't be used for your company because its a risk.

But, I think VD have gone way beyond that. They continue to scam people and to such a degree that I believe WHT needs to step in. $100k+ lawsuits, multiple reputable businesses being conned, many customers being scammed. The evidence is greatly against them, it should be their job to convince WHT that they are legit if they are. WHT should take action to remove them, and let VD work up a case to get reinstated if they deserve it.

Posted by Chris-WS, Today, 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
I'm in no way defending this company if they did what is alleged, however, if WHT banned every company that ever got a bad review, made a mistake, or was involved in a lawsuit, they would have no web hosting company members left except those with under 100 clients...
Well maybe not standardized, but in special cases like these, were they are clearly unable to provide a service and are still offering them, it would be very unfair for a potential customer not to be warned about that company in the forum where he saw the ad, at least something: This company is on an active discussion you can follow at:...

Although I believe the best thing for WHT to do (and us its members of course!) would be more campaigns like "more research, are they new? are they on an ongoing and active thread regarding their services?" maybe things like that, encouraging visitors to do more research on their potential purchases this thread along with the other ones are very popular here and finding them isn't that hard anyway ...

Good day everyone,

Posted by Nick H, Today, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
$100k+ lawsuits, multiple reputable businesses being conned, many customers being scammed.
All of which, at this point, are allegations. I could go to a court house right now and file a lawsuit against you (as could anyone do so against any other person). I could include lots of incriminating looking papers, documents, so forth. Would the lawsuit be valid? We both know it wouldn't. But does that mean you should be banned from WHT because an action was filed against you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
The evidence is greatly against them
And this is not a court of law. Like I said above, anyone has the ability to file a lawsuit, and to include incriminating looking documents. Until this case is settled in a court of law, rather than a court of public opinion, this company is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Posted by aeris, Today, 03:31 PM
I don't think VolumeDrive should be banned, but it would probably be prudent to not allow them to advertise their services in any way until the case has been settled. The case against them is fairly well documented, and chances are they won't be around for too much longer - at least not in their current guise, considering their history of running away from their hosting bills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
And this is not a court of law. Like I said above, anyone has the ability to file a lawsuit, and to include incriminating looking documents. Until this case is settled in a court of law, rather than a court of public opinion, this company is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
While you cannot legally consider them guilty, there seems to be sufficient evidence that a private entity like WHT could credibly refuse to have any affiliation with them or provide them with a channel of advertisement, at least until they have been cleared of said accusations.

Posted by 48-14, Today, 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
I'm in no way defending this company if they did what is alleged, however, if WHT banned every company that ever got a bad review, made a mistake, or was involved in a lawsuit, they would have no web hosting company members left except those with under 100 clients...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
I agree, I don't think WHT should police that heavily, it would be far too difficult and unneeded. Consumers should be able to take some precautions on their own, a host that's been around for 4 days and has "amazing deals" shouldn't be used for your company because its a risk.

But, I think VD have gone way beyond that. They continue to scam people and to such a degree that I believe WHT needs to step in. $100k+ lawsuits, multiple reputable businesses being conned, many customers being scammed. The evidence is greatly against them, it should be their job to convince WHT that they are legit if they are. WHT should take action to remove them, and let VD work up a case to get reinstated if they deserve it.

There is a simple way around this...if I host has a number of bad reviews per month or every 6 months, suspend them from advertising.

There's a hosts on here, out of 100 reviews, 98 of them are negative. At what point does that host get banned from advertising. Maybe after 499 bad reviews???? Maybe after they jump ship and 4999 are complaining?

Posted by kpmedia, Today, 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick H
I'm in no way defending this company if they did what is alleged, however, if WHT banned every company that ever got a bad review, made a mistake, or was involved in a lawsuit, they would have no web hosting company members left except those with under 100 clients...
I think we're way past "alleged" given the mountain of bad feedback here, corroborating info from vendors (BurstNET), and other misc info founds in the MANY negative threads regarding this "host".

Odds are they don't even show up for court, and have the courts rule in favor of the plaintiff, who still have to seek out the awarded damages. I've seen that so many times. VD may try to run again when this happens.

In the meantime, WHT and LEB are still allowing them to scam others by advertising. Why?

..

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 03:52 PM
WHT banning people for being "scammers" opens up WHT, the mods and iNet to a s**t storm of liability. In most cases there would probably not be any push back since the true scammer hosts tend to be small and will just run away but all it would take is a WHT mod banning someone of means and the lawyers would have a field day.

Posted by AdamD, Today, 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
WHT banning people for being "scammers" opens up WHT, the mods and iNet to a s**t storm of liability. In most cases there would probably not be any push back since the true scammer hosts tend to be small and will just run away but all it would take is a WHT mod banning someone of means and the lawyers would have a field day.
For the community's sake as a whole, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise here.
WHT doesn't have to explain why a company/person is banned, they can use any verbiage they wish, such as "Detrimental behavior to the community" or "Poor business practices" as the reason for the ban. heh
Been a while since I read the TOS, of course, but isn't there should be a clause in it which says we can ban for whatever reason, or if a member/company's behavior is deemed inappropriate, in my opinion.

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
There is a simple way around this...if I host has a number of bad reviews per month or every 6 months, suspend them from advertising.
What if Host A has 10 customers and they have 10 bad reviews and and Host B has 1000 customers and has 10 bad reviews?

Which one is the worst host? Should they both be banned? How can I tell that host A has 10 customers when they tell me they have 1000?

Posted by HackedServer, Today, 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
What if Host A has 10 customers and they have 10 bad reviews and and Host B has 1000 customers and has 10 bad reviews?

Which one is the worst host? Should they both be banned? How can I tell that host A has 10 customers when they tell me they have 1000?
I'm not really interested in some sort of policing policy being started, nor do I agree with the idea that some number or percentage of bad reviews should necessarily trigger action. What I am interested in is whether or not VolumeDrive's actions have been bad enough to trigger some type of investigation/reaction from the WHT moderators/admins.

Is your stance that all hosts should be allowed to advertise always? If not, then it should be investigated if VD falls into that "not allowed" category. I strongly feel that they should.

It isn't like its WHT's job to be a place for people to advertise, they are well within their right to deny the right to a user. If there are so many allegations and questionable acts, then suspend their advertising rights and let them clear themselves. Or, have them proactively demonstrate to the admins that they should be allowed to continue advertising.

Posted by sam9000, Today, 04:23 PM
I think the discussion of webhostingtalk and their policies on moderation should be reserved for a thread of its own; not sure about others but I'd be quite interested in following this thread and its development without having to sift through loads of posts on a different topic

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
I'm not really interested in some sort of policing policy being started, nor do I agree with the idea that some number or percentage of bad reviews should necessarily trigger action. What I am interested in is whether or not VolumeDrive's actions have been bad enough to trigger some type of investigation/reaction from the WHT moderators/admins.

Is your stance that all hosts should be allowed to advertise always? If not, then it should be investigated if VD falls into that "not allowed" category. I strongly feel that they should.

It isn't like its WHT's job to be a place for people to advertise, they are well within their right to deny the right to a user. If there are so many allegations and questionable acts, then suspend their advertising rights and let them clear themselves. Or, have them proactively demonstrate to the admins that they should be allowed to continue advertising.
I have no stance. I'm simply trying to point out that the issue is not simply a black and white, you're bad - you're good, type of issue. In addition, hosts drop in and out of favor here all the time. If you want to talk about VD specifically, they were down for over a week with no communication. A week later I see people recommending them in threads.

As far as here, today, I am neutral on the subject. I am not a mod. If the mods decide that action against VD by WHT is appropriate then, as always, I respect and support their decision. I just know there are a lot of variables in play.

Posted by Violent Injection, Today, 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
If you want to talk about VD specifically, they were down for over a week with no communication. A week later I see people recommending them in threads.
Link to these posts please.

Posted by 48-14, Today, 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam9000
I think the discussion of webhostingtalk and their policies on moderation should be reserved for a thread of its own; not sure about others but I'd be quite interested in following this thread and its development without having to sift through loads of posts on a different topic


That's been done before...and here we are today.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
I'm not really interested in some sort of policing policy being started, nor do I agree with the idea that some number or percentage of bad reviews should necessarily trigger action. What I am interested in is whether or not VolumeDrive's actions have been bad enough to trigger some type of investigation/reaction from the WHT moderators/admins.

Is your stance that all hosts should be allowed to advertise always? If not, then it should be investigated if VD falls into that "not allowed" category. I strongly feel that they should.

It isn't like its WHT's job to be a place for people to advertise, they are well within their right to deny the right to a user. If there are so many allegations and questionable acts, then suspend their advertising rights and let them clear themselves. Or, have them proactively demonstrate to the admins that they should be allowed to continue advertising.

You can't be for and against in the same argument. Are you for or against? The fact that a maybe comes into play pretty meas as long as a bad host doesn't effect you, then who cares.

The problem here....a host can buy a $15 reseller account, get a $20 site template, and then claim they host 1,000,000 of satisfied customers...since last week. As long as they have 10 posts, they are now a valid host.

In the music industry this type of madness is not allowed. There are resources for artists and they MUST fulfill criteria before anyone will do business with them;

1. proof of actual performances
2. proof of cd sales
3. proof of distribution

Without any of those, the door is closed. Some resources will only deal with music labels and not artists directly. Trust me it cuts out a lot of the fly-by-nights. But not here, one valid credit card with at least $200 and you are now a valid host like HG or GD. Are we for real? It's an open door to scams and scams alike. WHT is SUPPOSE to be a trusted source...trusted to potentially come across that one bad host.




Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
What if Host A has 10 customers and they have 10 bad reviews and and Host B has 1000 customers and has 10 bad reviews?

Which one is the worst host? Should they both be banned? How can I tell that host A has 10 customers when they tell me they have 1000?

I've heard this before...and now that I think about it....it's not a good argument. When I started, if 10 out of 10 gave me bad reviews, I would be out of business. I'm doing something wrong. I would need to quit.

Now 10 bad out of 1000. Is it 10 in one day? Maybe a server was down that those 10 people were on. It's a small fraction. If it were one a month, again not so bad. If it's one a week.....possible question marks. But there is one host that I have mentioned on here before. If I said their name and we search for them....bad review after bad review after bad review. WHY are they still here???? Are they not able to generate one good review....and the reason why I know the reviews are not fake...similar complaints and I dealt with them once. It was for a small project and they couldn't get that right. Then I compare them to another host, same caliber, same prices....positive after postie after positive after positive. I've seen 2 bad review on them...EVERYONE jumped on and supported the host...and in the end it turned out the customer was wrong. It's beyond Sherlock to sift out a bad host.

Posted by HackedServer, Today, 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
You can't be for and against in the same argument. Are you for or against? The fact that a maybe comes into play pretty meas as long as a bad host doesn't effect you, then who cares.

In the music industry this type of madness is not allowed. There are resources for artists and they MUST fulfill criteria before anyone will do business with them;
What I am is someone who attempts to understand both sides of the argument. VolumeDrive never effected me, I never trusted their services.

I don't feel its WHT's duty to regulate the hosting industry. I do however feel that, as before, extreme cases should be investigated and reacted to.

WHT isn't going to fact check every advertisement, and its ridiculous to expect them to. They are here as a commercial venture to earn money, no as a regulatory body for the hosting world. Looking VD would be more than they are required to do, its just something I really hope they do for the community due to the extreme circumstances.



I understand that isn't isn't black and white Aaron, that's why I'm not preaching Ban VolumeDrive(though I believe I have said that), I'm simply hoping that WHT will investigate for the sake of the community.

Posted by 48-14, Today, 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HackedServer
What I am is someone who attempts to understand both sides of the argument. VolumeDrive never effected me, I never trusted their services.

I don't feel its WHT's duty to regulate the hosting industry. I do however feel that, as before, extreme cases should be investigated and reacted to.

WHT isn't going to fact check every advertisement, and its ridiculous to expect them to. They are here as a commercial venture to earn money, no as a regulatory body for the hosting world. Looking VD would be more than they are required to do, its just something I really hope they do for the community due to the extreme circumstances.



I understand that isn't isn't black and white Aaron, that's why I'm not preaching Ban VolumeDrive(though I believe I have said that), I'm simply hoping that WHT will investigate for the sake of the community.


OK, I understand what your saying, but here's an irony....say something wrong or argue with someone in a thread and your suspended or banned. An argument did not result in anyone losing their site or being ripped off. Also with a suspension, there's a record of it. Why can't the same be done for bad reviews. Hit report for a bad review. If the review is valid, it stay on your record, if not, host and customer can try to resolve the issue.


It would also eliminate the need for checking advertisement because the host wouldn't have been able to advertise. Not any different than the premium section....don't pay for premium, no access to that section. Have a series of reported bad reviews, no access to advertise.


Another example....I host WordPress sites. Done my homework, give advice, take advice, always learning. Almost 7 years. One host a year ago came on here claiming to be a WP host...dodging every question related to WP. Then in other threads basically asking for help about EVERYTHING. So after 10 posts asking what a server is, what billing they should use, what to name their company, what cereal to eat to get customers, they are now a VALID competitor. Really?? Shouldn't there be a time frame rule as well like after 6 months of running a business you can then advertise. It's just certain common sense things I see in other industry's that do not seem to be in place here. Sure enough with the host I mentioned....hack multiple times...blame the host each time, bad mouthing them when they did nothing wrong....and then yelled at the WHT mods. Someone who's been in business for at least a year would have the maturity to not do this and realize that being an idiot leads to no income.


Also because you never used them or never trusted them, it's the same as out of sight out of mind....it happens at their house not mine. I'm frustrated when I see someone scammed or lost their site because one of US just let it go. That person had no idea what to expect. Even with reviews, some hosts can actually get positive reviews and use that as a way to still scam in the long run....and then classically come back with a different name as is nothing happened.

Sorry if this rant seems towards you...it's not. Just my own personal rant to things I see terribly wrong.

Posted by firefoxinc, Today, 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
O
Sorry if this rant seems towards you...it's not. Just my own personal rant to things I see terribly wrong.
I agree as well with your points.

It seems that people just want to run around in circles, grasping as strings with he said she said information. With how strongly people seem to be going at the subject, it just makes me go back to where I was pointing out ulterior motives for there reasoning to post.

Posted by Microlinux, Today, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
WHT banning people for being "scammers" opens up WHT, the mods and iNet to a s**t storm of liability.
What legal framework allows people to bring lawsuits for being banned from an Internet forum?

If you're referring to slander, the solution to this would seem to be to ban them and not present a diatribe to the community as to why?

Posted by RobM, Today, 06:36 PM
I think from a business side (30+ years)

WHT should just stay out of it as it open's more legal problems if they have nothing written in the TOS/AUP.

Lawsuits happen everyday, people see them and just start hammering a companies.

Remember this is the USA, innocent until proven guilty.


Now i don't like what VD did, but it's not my call to tell them how to run there business. Maybe this is what they wanted and will settle out of court and save money...

I have seen this a million times and even had this happen to my other company before, we take client to court, then settle out of court, this saves my lawyer fees and I still get something out of it.

Posted by 48-14, Today, 06:45 PM
Either I'm confused or a true Canadian.

Why would lawyers be involved for banning someone for scamming? As a host, if we have a customer that we believe is scamming people or has had evidence as such, were allowed to ban/suspend/terminate an account.

Ok, aside from the back and forth and dodging statements, can a mod or another long standing member answer this;

If host A only has bad reviews over and over again, why are they allowed to advertise???

Now to add this to the question....I think everyone is looking at the issue from the scope of the situation with the numbers being $100,000. If a host scammed someone by 50 cents, is is not still a legal issue? If a host has scammed 2 people a week for $5.99, that's $622.96 a year....because it's not $100,000 then it's ok???

Posted by RobM, Today, 06:51 PM
ok, here a question...

Who did they scam?

Posted by 48-14, Today, 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
ok, here a question...

Who did they scam?

Customers.

Posted by WII-Aaron, Today, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
Why would lawyers be involved for banning someone for scamming? As a host, if we have a customer that we believe is scamming people or has had evidence as such, were allowed to ban/suspend/terminate an account.
If you're a customer and you're spamming, scamming, whatever and I terminate you, then that's between you and me.

If I operate a website visited by thousands of people and post on that site "I terminated this customer" now it's between you, me and those thousands of people. I'd better be damned sure I didn't make a mistake.

Posted by RobM, Today, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
Customers.
Ok, you say customers....

Do you have any proof of this.

Like I said Many people don't like the way the business was run, but people still ordered from them. that now falls on them not WHT.

Posted by Violent Injection, Today, 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Ok, you say customers....

Do you have any proof of this.

Like I said Many people don't like the way the business was run, but people still ordered from them. that now falls on them not WHT.


http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1174943
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1309421
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1314232



Also Aaron did you find those links yet?

Posted by 48-14, Today, 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Ok, you say customers....

Do you have any proof of this.
I have proof because I've dealt with this host. All the complaints about this host have all been the same. If I were to post all the links regarding this host, I would be up until 5AM EST.

In this industry, unless we own a DC, were ALL customers in some way or form.

I have customers...I'm a customer of a DC. It doesn't break down any more than that unless you throw resellers in the mix.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Like I said Many people don't like the way the business was run, but people still ordered from them. that now falls on them not WHT.
I only knew of this host because of WHT. Other's probably the same. In essence, there two ways to look at it;

1. The host is using WHT to contribute to their bad behavior
2. WHT is actively allowing this host to scam money

Some bad hosts apologize and correct the issue, but not this one. I'm still not mentioning their name even though I have before.

Let's throw in another scenario. Office Christmas party. Employees go to the party, get drunk, end up in a accident, incident, or dead on the way home. That's been happening for years. In Ontario, a law was passed that if a person leaves a party drunk and is involved in an accident, the venue where the party was can automatically be charged.

So using that reference;

Host A advertises on WHT. Customer is new to hosting and finds Host A and signs up with them. Things go terribly wrong with Host A and their site is lost. Using the office party scenario, WHT is now liable because they were the "venue" of the party. I know TOS and AUP's prevents WHT and the host from any losses...but you see what I'm saying.

Another common sense example..referring a couple friends to your job and your friends are idiots. You might be great, but the friends get fired and the boss will not accept anymore recommendations from you since they had terrible results.

There's no other way to break this down in a simpler form.

Posted by bawhbb, Today, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Microlinux
What legal framework allows people to bring lawsuits for being banned from an Internet forum?

If you're referring to slander, the solution to this would seem to be to ban them and not present a diatribe to the community as to why?
IANAL

If WHT creates a policy banning certain companies, then users would infer (even despite any posted disclaimers) that all of the other companies are good. Users would complain that "I trusted company X because WHT never banned them, but company X scammed me.", and while that might not hold up in court, that doesn't mean people won't try.

WHT should be fair to all companies, so, by banning one company, WHT would be forced to take on the responsibility to police and ban any and all other disreputable companies. Plus, they'd have to create a set of rules and procedures to prevent abuse of the system. (Company Z might create a dozen shill accounts to ruin the reputation of a competitor in hopes of getting them banned.)

Posted by wswd, Today, 09:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
I haven't seen anything with VD that would suggest an intent to defraud their customers.
How about putting cPanel trial licenses on the servers so they can save a few bucks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by WII-Aaron
WHT banning people for being "scammers" opens up WHT, the mods and iNet to a s**t storm of liability.
You can ban people from a private forum for absolutely any reason you want. Hell, they can ban VD because they don't like the color shirt their CEO wore one day. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Posted by bear, Today, 09:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawhbb
(Company Z might create a dozen shill accounts to ruin the reputation of a competitor in hopes of getting them banned.)
And some might send workers here to defend them as if they're not connected.

Posted by CW Mike, Today, 10:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 48-14
Let's throw in another scenario. Office Christmas party. Employees go to the party, get drunk, end up in a accident, incident, or dead on the way home. That's been happening for years. In Ontario, a law was passed that if a person leaves a party drunk and is involved in an accident, the venue where the party was can automatically be charged.
That's true here in the UK too mate, if you left a bar drunk and had a accident, it's the bar's fault and can be charged for letting you leave the bar without being in a taxi. It's the bar's responsibility until you are out of the bar's area. That's why they have to watch all customers closely.

I don't see why VD got away without paying, look at other big companies, if they don't pay their invoice(s) they suspend licenses, etc. why didn't the provider go "right we're not getting paid, time to phone BurstNET up and take the items belonging to us".

Posted by kpmedia, Today, 10:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawhbb
IANAL
If WHT creates a policy banning certain companies, then users would infer (even despite any posted disclaimers) that all of the other companies are good. Users would complain that "I trusted company X because WHT never banned them, but company X scammed me.", and while that might not hold up in court, that doesn't mean people won't try.
Clearly YANAL, because everything you just wrote is ridiculous.

Quote:
WHT ... they'd have
They don't have to do crap.

- They can ban obvious scammers (like most members here want)
- They can heavily police hosts, which nobody is asking for anyway
- They can let all manner of riffraff post ads here, which nobody wants.

WHT will either lose credibility with members/readers, or gain respect. Remember, this is the internet. Sites fail all the time because of decision (or indecisions) that are made, and others that are more in line with community wants take their place. Google wasn't first first search engine, and it may not be the last. WHT wasn't the first hosting-topic site, and it can either thrive or shrivel due to decisions like this. Whatever its owners do, they need to choose wisely based on people, not based on $$$ alone.

This VD issue is one of those make/break decisions they face.



Was this answer helpful?

Add to Favourites Add to Favourites    Print this Article Print this Article

Also Read
Mysql Cluster (Views: 1171)

Language: