DMCA-ignored hosting — Iceland, Switzerland, crypto

Copyright-only takedown mail gets filed and closed at these 40 racks; local law governs. Crypto invoices, no KYC, Iceland and Zurich included.

Published 2026-08-30 · Updated 2026-10-07 · FYRHost Editorial · 7 min read

40 locations · 19 coins · SLA 99.95% · no KYC · public canary

Why copyright templates get filed, not actioned

The stance is written, not implied: copyright-only takedown mail is received, filed and closed with no action, because a US notice template has no legal force where these racks stand. Not as a marketing posture — as a legal reality. The DMCA's notice-and-takedown machinery (17 U.S.C. §512) is American law speaking to American service providers; a rack in Reykjavik or Zurich answers to Icelandic and Swiss process instead, and neither statute delegates enforcement to a rights holder's mail merge.

The long version lives in Guides and on the DMCA policy page. What does move things is narrow — a court order from the facility's own jurisdiction, or an abuse report carrying evidence. Paying in Bitcoin changes none of that analysis; what it deletes is the merchant account that panics first.

Worth saying plainly: most competing “DMCA-ignored” marketing is a mood, not a position. A stance you can sue on has to name what it ignores, what it honours and where the line sits — which is exactly what the rest of this page does.

What happens to each kind of notice

Handling rules as of 2026-09.

Read the middle rows again, because they are the actual policy: the dividing line is not sympathy with uploaders or with rights holders — it is who issued the document. Process from the facility's own courts moves; a template mailed from anywhere moves nothing. That single rule handles every row in the table without exceptions to remember — and it is the rule the table's honest column exists to prove.

What we DO honour — due process, not letters

The ignored half of the name would be dishonest without the honoured half. Three channels always work. A court order issued where the rack stands gets counsel review and, if valid, compliance — a Reykjavik injunction is as live on a Reykjavik box as it would be on any Icelandic server. A criminal report carrying evidence — CSAM, active attacks, phishing infrastructure — is acted on under the AUP, in every jurisdiction, at every tier. And a customer ticket asking “what did you do with that notice about my box” gets a straight answer from the abuse desk: filed, closed, no action, no counter-notice theatre.

The posture is therefore symmetric: no private party gets to switch off a server by mailing a PDF, and no public process gets ignored for being inconvenient. Copyright complainants who follow the facility's actual procedure get their day in that facility's court — which is more due process than a takedown form ever offered anyone.

Jurisdictions for DMCA-ignored hosting

List prices 2026-09. Base list at thirty-four locations; six premium flags (IS/NO +20%, CH +35%, LU/CY/PA +15%) publish theirs.

How the four differ under a copyright complaint, in one breath each. Iceland: an IMMI-tradition statute book with no retention mandate — the farthest from US-style takedown logic on the map. Switzerland: civil-law process in German or French through local counsel, with FADP privacy rules alongside. The Netherlands: the peering and latency choice, where provider policy rather than statute does most of the work — and ours is published on this page. Romania: EU process at East-EU prices, the value pick when the statute matters less than the bill. The jurisdiction hub compares all forty flags on retention, process and premiums.

Where the racks sit

Company paper in Saint Kitts and Nevis; hardware in forty facilities. Reykjavik and Zurich lead the speech-law shortlist, Amsterdam and Frankfurt carry the peering, Ashburn, Dallas, Mexico City and Sao Paulo span the Americas, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Tokyo cover Asia, and Riga alongside Bucharest rounds out eastern Europe. Flag choice happens at checkout as a latency-and-law decision — never a surcharge beyond the published premiums.

Pairing the two inputs in practice: publish from Reykjavik or Zurich when the complaint risk is copyright-shaped; peer from Amsterdam or Frankfurt when the requirement is round-trips; bill from neither, because the invoice is a coin transfer. The jurisdiction hub compares all forty flags on retention law, process posture and premium before the picker asks for one.

The honest section: what DMCA-ignored does NOT mean

The name ignores one category of mail. It ignores no laws, and a host that implies otherwise is writing a check its racks cannot cash. Specifically:

• Not crime hosting, by position and by name. Criminal process that lands where the facility stands gets complied with; CSAM, phishing, spam and paid attacks are acted on with evidence at every tier; and no coin choice — Monero included — alters that.
• Not a shield for your own jurisdiction. If the operator, not the box, is the target — defamation claims against a publisher, licensing disputes against a business — the attacker's route is the operator's home courts, and a foreign rack changes venue, not liability.
• Not instant, permanent or guaranteed. Statutes move, treaties get exercised, and a facility's own courts can order anything a local court can. What holds is the policy: template mail filed, due process answered.
• Not legal advice. Whether your content is lawful where you publish from is a question for your counsel, not your hosting provider. The hard lines that do exist are published in the AUP before you order.
• Not a proxy for your upstream. A CDN, registrar or ad network in front of the rack applies its own takedown rules independently; the quietest origin still answers to its own stack.

What the stance sells is simple: a copyright letter is not a kill switch here, and the hard lines are printed in advance. Both halves of that sentence are on this page on purpose — the second half is what makes the first half credible, and neither half moves by jurisdiction, tier or coin. That invariance is the point: the policy is a property of the operator, printed once and applied at every flag, every tier and every coin alike.

What DMCA-ignored metal costs elsewhere

Bare-metal tier of the same market:

Rival figures verified 2026-09-21 on each provider’s own page.

Metal alternative: DMCA-ignored dedicated server from $30.80/mo annual with IPMI.

Product pairing

The catalog behind the stance: no-KYC VPS from $5.49/mo list, storage tiers for archives and mirrors, metal when the workload wants whole cores. The dedicated variant of this page — DMCA-ignored dedicated servers — opens at $30.80/mo annual-eff with IPMI on the invoice, and the storage line carries archive-heavy use from $24/mo annual-eff.

Mirror-heavy projects usually mix the three: metal for the origin, slices for the edges, terabytes for the archive — one account, one coin menu, one stance at every flag. Budget builders start on the cheap VPS ladder and inherit the same policy on day one. A rights holder reading this page gets the symmetric picture: the quiet origin is also the one that answers its own courts.

Court orders get an answer; template mail gets a file number

Forty flags, VPS from $5.49 list, metal from $30.80 annual-eff, one crypto invoice, no KYC anywhere on the path. The policy is published before the order, the hard lines are in the AUP, and the one thing filed without action is the thing nobody has to pretend is law.

Open the deploy form and pick the flag whose courts you can reason about.