AfterDawn: Tech news

Court rules in favor of RapidShare over filtered uploads

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 05 May 2010 23:51 User comments (34)

Court rules in favor of RapidShare over filtered uploads RapidShare has announced this week that an appeals court in Germany has ruled in favor of the file sharing site, saying it could not be found liable for distribution of unauthorized files, and that forcing the company to filter all uploads would "produce too many false positives."
The court ruled in their favor because the company does not make uploaded files publicly available, and the uploaders themselves have control of who sees the links.

In 2008, a different court ruled against the sharing site, saying they were currently not doing enough to combat copyright infringement and that the filter system employed was ineffective.

If that decision had stood, RapidShare would have had to log IP addresses, and "proactively check content before publishing it."

Adds Christian Schmid, founder of RapidShare: "We are very happy about the judgment. The court has confirmed that RapidShare is not responsible for the contents of files uploaded by its users. The judgment shows that attempts to denounce our business model as illegal will not be successful in the long run. With its 1-click-filehosting model, RapidShare responds to legitimate interests of its users and will continue to do so in the future."

Previous Next  

34 user comments

16.5.2010 1:07
kubapolak
Inactive

That is great news (for a change)

26.5.2010 1:21

As long as this is ruling stands I'll be happy.

RapidShare never has, and never will, directly encourage piracy so they shouldn't get in trouble if users have chosen their site to upload pirated works as long as RapidShare doesn't encourage them to.

36.5.2010 2:19

The court appears to understand the technology.

46.5.2010 3:16

Ha! Who cares? Rapidshare is crap anyway...

56.5.2010 9:29

Originally posted by ps3lvanub:
Ha! Who cares? Rapidshare is crap anyway...
my thoughts exactly..

66.5.2010 9:42

Originally posted by ps3lvanub:
Ha! Who cares? Rapidshare is crap anyway...
Yes, RapidShare is crap in comparison to other similar businesses, however, that's not the point here. The point is, anyone using sites like RapidShare should care. Their victory/failure creates a precedent for all other sites. If ruled against them, it wouldn't be long before action would be taken against many other similar sites...
If you look at the big picture, you might start caring a bit.

76.5.2010 16:05

Originally posted by ps3lvanub:
Ha! Who cares? Rapidshare is crap anyway...
Yeah, but MegaUpload and Mediafire aren't, and this ruling affects them too. So rejoice.

86.5.2010 16:12

Originally posted by FatalFlow:
Originally posted by ps3lvanub:
Ha! Who cares? Rapidshare is crap anyway...
Yeah, but MegaUpload and Mediafire aren't, and this ruling affects them too. So rejoice.
Indeed!

96.5.2010 17:40

its all still piracy even if the content isnt "publicly available"
im happy though cuz i download a bunch of stuff from these kind of sites :P

106.5.2010 17:51

Originally posted by aj123:
its all still piracy even if the content isnt "publicly available"
im happy though cuz i download a bunch of stuff from these kind of sites :P
I believe the ruling isn't saying that RapidShare's servers don't contain pirated works, it is saying RapidShare isn't liable for content users upload to the site.

I agree with that ruling as long as RapidShare does not directly encourage users to upload pirated works to the site.

116.5.2010 19:19

i dont get this Rapidshare has been blocking some premium download links..and yet nags you into paying up for them..

126.5.2010 19:25

it sends out warning about 'illegal' material ie stuff you couldnt buy in shops anyway..eg rare albums...then says they will be deleted after 7 days..then re directs you to their godawful german shit games section..and yet anytime ive been there it endlessly nags at me to extend or pay up more for premium downloading!!

136.5.2010 19:28

Originally posted by bobchew:
i dont get this Rapidshare has been blocking some premium download links..and yet nags you into paying up for them..

Just because the material is "old, rare", it doesn't mean is not copyrighted...
Just because you pay for "Premium", it doesn't mean you can use copyrighted material...
RapidShare, or any site like that, doesn't individually check every file...blame the idiot up-loaders that put the real,full name in the file description...or the haters that report the links as "illegal"...
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 06 May 2010 @ 19:34

146.5.2010 20:47

maybe so..but lets be honest why do pople use sites like RS..to share home video? not really..not only that this material is akin to suggesting to the public they can view the mona lisa, providing you have 20 lawyers in the room deciding which bit can be viewed and for how long and who gets which percentage of which part..in the mean time such are works get locked away..apart from that you cant quite figure out whose side RS are on..if downloaders all drifted away due to rs blocking they'd lose money and ppl will just find some other site...

156.5.2010 20:50

and anyway i'm still buying tons of music from shops..my bought music bill has shot up..so im putting back money to the music industry...

166.5.2010 22:50

Originally posted by bobchew:
and anyway i'm still buying tons of music from shops..my bought music bill has shot up..so im putting back money to the music industry...
"Don't Download This Song" by Weirld Al.

176.5.2010 23:57

i didnt...although weird al is funny i wouldnt buy his stuff..i think its called consumer choice,,something companies dont want us to have,,,to me the music record industry screwed up..but wont admit it..they never do..just blame the public when they cant charge the earth for items..often sales are based not on items sold to public but the amount of stock taken in shops..after all would you take thousands of items? or a few hundred? so the figures are distorted..ok, on top of that it all went wrong when vinyl was replaced by cd..the companies looked at it as a cheaper option..and overlooked the way people saw their vinyl albums as something precious..in the cd reviews of that format it was considerd that a higher sample rate be used to match vinyl..but it would create bigger files..so it got scaled back to 44.1khz 16bit a fact that even today isnt sufficient..it was used to fit 700mb on a cd.and in doing so chucked away lots of frequencies...so in effect music cds became carriers of 'data' so it wasnt before long that data could be extracted..
from jpeg group came mpeg group and from that the audio part of it went from mp2 to mp3 ie lets scale it all down time, then microsoft and others jumped on the cd ripping bandwagon..along coms the net and bingo! file sharing happens..
and they wanna blame joe publc as always...
dd you know you HAVE to buy stuff on amazon.com to post a comment? ie compulsory purchase...
the music fans are usually on the side of the artist..trouble is the companies arent...they are on their own side..you hear of artist being ripped off..and sent the recording session bill..whilst the record companies make money out of sales..they make their money twice in that way..
ive seen music prices climbing in past months..how ironic?
eg items that cost me 10 now sell for 20 or 30 ..ive seen dvd audio items on sale for 150....thats not a way to attract and keep customers..downloading is here..its not going away..if the companies wanna stop it then they have to uninvent mp3 (yuk) remove all trace of rip software (inc microsoft) or take peoples pcs away..or monitor EVERYONE's activity..you want a police state mentality?

187.5.2010 0:02

i'll translate that into USD for you: 10=$20 so 20=$40 approx..and 150=$300 approx..$300 for an album..think about it..you ok with that?

197.5.2010 1:40

The music industry does not appear to understand why we do not buy music on CD-R.

1. CD-R does not support surround sound.

2. CD-R is not insured by recording industry against physical damage.

3. CD-R is not insured by recording industry against environmental damage.

4. CD-R is not insured by recording industry against obsolescence.

5. CD-R is not insured by recording industry against theft.

6. CD-R ownership is difficult to prove without the physical media.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 07 May 2010 @ 1:41

207.5.2010 2:13

the only surround sound cd's are dts ones. sure ive made few of my own using converter software..of which is official btw! so theres a thought as to why that stuff you can get..but also i HAVE PURCHASED , YES PAID MONEY..for manufactured dts cds..so more dosh going to record/music industry..and YES I have bought SACD titles (funny that, hi res and in surround and established artist, composers AND lets not forget that disc protection thats as secret as a countries defence system)...makes you wonder why the hell sacd wasnt adopted from day one..it has things going for it doesnt it? or do you think its all about doing it on the cheap?
yes this licence thing is confusing..i buy a disc in a pretty box and nice printing..so what do i own.certainly not the music/data..what about the actual plastic disc? is that mine? or the box? what do own if ive paid money to someone? nothing?
i might just as well walk into a shop, throw cash at them and walk out empty handed..and this 'no lending or hiring' so i cant let my mate borrow it?..what about charity shops that sell second hand old cds well out of date..send the police round and close them down?
on top of this mess..is the fact that these companies have got power mad..this has hapened to me of late..on youtube i uploaded
a crap video i did with my phone cam..i dubbed on a bit of classical music from a junk shop cd.
next youtube ar sending me messages stating that warner music has got them to block my audio on the video i did, as they 'own' thhat music..ok go figure this out. i used a bit of vivaldi..
so they haave tp prove thats its THEIR vivaldi ok? eg their recording session, recorded when they said, and have contract to show its their artists and what studio they hired.used etc etc and on and on...it could be any variant as that music has been played, performed and recorded by xxxx artists, labels and formats going back how many years? right..
its got so mad on youtube that even music heard on a radio in background in someones video gets muted..or if restored is blocked in some countries..and they wonder why we piss and moan ?
they dont want us to have choice, except for theirs..it about control to me...

217.5.2010 5:27

I am still waiting for good 5.1 cds...and not those crummy dts ones that sound no better than a dvd and won't work with most amps.

Even the industry does not seem to believe in cds...thus the massive online stores. As long as they are selling music that sounds like a crummy rip, I might as weel just pirate the flacs and get better quality than what I would have to pay 4.

227.5.2010 7:25
Loeesyiongiss
Inactive

When I read your entire comments then I really impress with your site.There are good information you share here . Thanks for sharing information.I have checked out this website
and I would like to show this site to my friends to check them out as well. Thanks and Ill keep an eye of this comments.
<a href="http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/flex-factor-review-does-acai-flexfactor-really-work-2309475.html">Acai Flex Factor</a>


http://www.articlesbase.com/health-artic...rk-2309475.html

237.5.2010 8:58

no worries mate..us poor users like to come to AD and have a moan..sometimes we even solve problms and help each other.

yes, theres the irony..we're willing to buy stuff if the price is fair..but more often than not it isnt..i paid 20 for dts cd santana abraxas..classic album..why? because the dvd audio version is 40 plus...why dvda so costly..eg T Rex electric warrior 150?
thats extortion...is it any wonder people go to sites and pay for sacd to dvda converts?
and this shows how f***ed it all is..i once burnt an audio cd from crummy mp3 files..and on playing back it went onto gracenote and got me track titles and album art..it thought it was genuine original cd!..
i see Linn records are now doing hires downloads..trouble is they charge mor than the disc it came from even in flac format.
so no box or art or disc but you pay more..yep thats clever..

247.5.2010 12:52

Many musicians have day jobs because what they make playing music does not pay the rent. Many musicians spend the money they earn to support the local drug dealer. Some musicians have lost what they had made to ex-wifes/ex-husbands and dishonest managers.

The folks on top of the food chain appear to be the recording studios.

258.5.2010 19:59

rapid share suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuux balls anyway

268.5.2010 20:15

not sure about that i have had one or two interesting items as result of RS..and not all artists are druggies..might have been in early days but have 'grown' up since (he said)

278.5.2010 20:20

btw: talk about shapes of things to come..how about this?
youtube of late..i tried to download yt video. using realplayer download. nope.unable to download.ok tried youtube downloader..cant find flv file..??? tried 5 or 6 versions of video.same thing.ok tried downloading my own video clip.same.???
so once its up on yt you cant download it? not even yer own stuff..is this the WMG owns eveything deal now?

288.5.2010 21:27

I can download everything from youtube, is all on your side mate, your ISP or the setup on your machine...

298.5.2010 22:25

ive done a quick check..i downloaded and updated youtube downloader and all is back to normal there..dont know what the deal was with that..very odd..i can only download from 12:00pm to 4:00pm between 4pm to 12:00pm im blocked and on everything!! inc paid for items..what bugs me is that at some point someone in an office somewhere with a switch is gonna have to decide what is a legit download and what (in their opinion) isnt...and how they do that is in effect by monitoring everyone..and it will become mayhem..

308.5.2010 22:34

there are 'auto updates' to apps we've installed -either freeware or paid for..windows updates..antivirus application updates (important) music downloads Itunes (yuk) that we've paid for, hi res audio downloads (expensive but paid for) amazon mp3 downloads (paid for) hardware driver updates...ips block all that, as ive proved they do..it will become trouble..ive read also that some isp's are unhappy about info gathering on their subscribers (BPI wants this info to prosecute) but some isp's eg virgin are more than happy to assist..ive heard horror stories about virgin of late...cutting people off, selling their phone numbers to others etc..over charging etc etc..the thought police are coming and its not govt....

319.5.2010 11:36

Any business needs a source of income to offset the expenses incurred to provide the service. Someone has to pay the bills.

329.5.2010 23:47

rapid share is torcher with their constant nagging to pay for their faster speeds with no 15 minute wait times ontop of waiting up to 3 minutes plus to start the download.

3310.5.2010 8:34

well i paid for premium service to get the faster service but now i see they've blocked that..and now they tell me my premium account will expire soon

3410.5.2010 8:42

john swan, sure someone has to pay bills..but what gets me is that since ppl arent buying so many cds of late, ppl are looking elsewhere , consumer choice..what i see is p2p sharing of items which are : established artits , inc classical music, in a hires uncompressed format and in surround..that seems to be very popular..but music industry doesnt want us to have that,,so is seeking to stop people obtaining this stuff, now instread of trying to answer this demand in a fair way, they just want to cut it off..leaving joe public with no alternative but to buy their expensive crappy cds..this isnt adjusting to consumer trends , its control,,its like the mafia...

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive