January 6, 2026
Pay twice, site once
Website with a DMCA Takedown
Angry coder yanks site, client pays twice, internet piles on
TLDR: A web project collapsed under a copyright takedown from the original coder during a payment dispute; the client paid again, but the host still killed the site. Commenters blasted the chaos, urging contracts and receipts, mocking the localhost script scare, and debating whether DMCA is fair leverage or misused drama.
A simple website tune‑up turned soap opera when the original coder filed a DMCA takedown—DMCA is a U.S. copyright law that lets people ask hosts to remove content they claim is theirs (learn more). The client swore they’d paid; the dev said otherwise. The site went dark, the contractor briefly revived it by switching the traffic manager, and then—boom—another takedown. Hosting pulled the plug. The client eventually paid the dev again and the takedown was withdrawn, but the host still canceled service. Cue a move to yet another host and a collective internet facepalm.
Commenters are in full drama court mode. Strongest take: pay your devs and get it in writing or expect chaos. Others insist DMCA is not a bill collector, arguing “use contracts, not takedowns,” while a counter‑crowd notes the dev may own the code until final payment—ugly, but legal. The spiciest flame war? The contractor’s suggestion to find “hosts that won’t take DMCA seriously.” Community called that out as reckless and potentially shady. And for comic relief, one user screamed “is this site port scanning me?!” before realizing it was just a script trying to load from “localhost”—cue memes about “Pay Twice speedrun” and “BlueHost choice: bold or baffling.”
Key Points
- •A DMCA takedown against a client’s old PHP site led name.com to disable the nameserver while investigating.
- •The contractor restored availability by moving DNS to Cloudflare’s free tier and pointing it to the hosting IP.
- •The original developer claimed unpaid fees and filed DMCA notices; one was also sent to Cloudflare and forwarded to the host.
- •Despite the client paying the developer and the developer indicating resolution, the host canceled the account and issued a refund.
- •The client decided to migrate hosting and chose BlueHost, acknowledging potential compliance with future takedowns.