A complaint is forwarded. That is the whole of it.

17 U.S.C. § 512 creates a safe harbour for service providers subject to United States jurisdiction, and conditions that safe harbour on operating a notice-and-takedown procedure. It is domestic legislation, not a treaty, and it contains no mechanism by which a rightsholder can compel a provider outside the United States to remove anything.

VPSOffshore SRL is established in the Republic of Moldova and has no United States establishment, subsidiary, agent or infrastructure. We do not claim the § 512 safe harbour, because we do not need it. The legal position sets out instrument by instrument what does apply.

Copyright in Moldova is governed by Law No. 230/2022 on Copyright and Related Rights. It provides judicial remedies: a rightsholder brings an action before a Moldovan court, and a court may order relief. It creates no private notice-and-takedown procedure against a host, and it sets no removal deadline triggered by correspondence.

Moldova is a party to the Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. These set minimum standards of protection and reciprocity; they do not create a takedown procedure, and they are enforced through the courts named above.

Practical consequence: the instrument that moves a server here is an order from a Moldovan court, served properly. Everything else is correspondence, and correspondence is forwarded.

Every notice, in any format and citing any law, is:

• logged with a timestamp and a reference;
• counted for the quarterly transparency report;
• forwarded to the customer verbatim within 24 hours, including attachments;
• acknowledged to the sender, with a link to this page.

Nothing else happens. No content is removed, no service is suspended, no rate limit is applied and no note is added to an account that would influence a later decision.

There is no form, no portal and no fee. Identify the material precisely enough that one service can be told from another, say what work is allegedly infringed, say who you are and who you act for, and give a reachable address. Notices are read by a person, every day of the year, and counted whether or not they are well formed.

You will receive an acknowledgement with a reference. You will not receive the customer’s identity, and you will not receive a removal — for either you need an order from a Moldovan court, and we will comply with a valid one.

An order from a competent Moldovan court, properly served, is complied with. We verify that it is genuine, that it is served on the right entity, and that it orders something we are actually able to do, and we refuse anything that fails those tests.

Where the order does not forbid it, the affected customer is notified before we act, with enough time to seek their own advice. A foreign judgment is not self-executing here: it must first be recognised through mutual legal assistance and a Moldovan court, which is a public, adversarial and slow route — and it is the only one.

There is no repeat-infringer policy, because § 512 — the statute that requires one — does not apply to us. Volume of notices against an account is not a factor in any decision we take. We do not maintain per-customer notice counts, and the figures we publish are network-wide.

The only content we remove without an order is set out in the acceptable use policy, and copyright is not part of it.

There is nothing to counter. A counter-notice under § 512(g) exists to restore material that was taken down; nothing was taken down. If you want your reply to reach the complainant, send it to them directly — we will pass on their contact details, since they gave them to us.

A sender who submits notices for material they have no rights in, or to unmask a customer rather than to protect a work, is told once and then filtered. We keep those notices in the log and count them, because a transparency report that silently excludes them is a report that flatters itself.