Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Rapidshare Divulges Uploader Information 281

Posted by kdawson
from the thanks-for-sharing dept.
Gorgonzolanoid notes a post on TorrentFreak reporting that the German Rapidshare is divulging uploader information to rights holders. Record labels are apparently making creative use of "paragraph 101" of German copyright law, which gives them a streamlined process to ask a court to order disclosure of information such as an IP address. "In Germany, the file-hosting service Rapidshare has handed over the personal details of alleged copyright infringers to several major record labels. The information is used to pursue legal action against the Rapidshare users and at least one alleged uploader saw his house raided."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rapidshare Divulges Uploader Information

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26, 2009 @05:32PM (#27724341)

    RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by derrida (918536)
      Yes, but what about downloaders?
      • Re:Truth in naming (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Teun (17872) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:04PM (#27724929) Homepage
        In most places I know it's only the making available, the uploading, that's a legal problem.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There is some relatively new order in place that the prosecution doesn't get active for minor incidents anymore. ( There were just too many cases over the last years that it meant too much work for the courts, like a few hundred thousand open cases ... )
        Well, downloading a few songs alone might look like a minor issue to the prosection, so they refuse to get active there. But p2p traffic also usually means that you are also uploading. And uploading means that you are spreading that copyrighted material. So

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bluesatin (1350681)

          But p2p traffic also usually means that you are also uploading.

          I'm not sure if you're referencing Rapidshare as as P2P, but it's pretty much the polar opposite.

          People generally only download when using rapidshare, as 'leeching' has significantly less negative affects on the community than it does in a bit-torrent community.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Damn, what a day to not use my neighbor's wifi.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26, 2009 @08:24PM (#27725397)

      RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

      Flanders, is that you?

    • Shouldn't that be the people they are hurting?

      The right to privacy is a basic one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26, 2009 @05:37PM (#27724395)
    There are far better hosts that don't require you to purchase a "premium" account. Why even bother with RapidShare?
  • by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @05:38PM (#27724405) Journal
    ...when you don't take adequate measures to protect yourself and rely on third parties to do the protection for you.
    • by BlueKitties (1541613) <bluekitties616@gmail.com> on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:42PM (#27724777)
      ... when you're not a computer expert and didn't realize they were logging your IP.
    • by Brian Gordon (987471) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:42PM (#27724783)
      What other options do you really have? If you're running through a proxy then you have less bandwidth available and you're still relying on them not divulging their logs. You can try a service like tor if you want to be a bad netizen and also put up with 1kbps download speeds. Centralized P2P like gnutella is by far the worst file sharing option and torrents aren't much better, even on a private tracker. In all cases (except Tor) you're trusting at least one third party and in gnutella and bittorrent you're trusting a lot of third parties. Trusting a single third party with an excellent reputation has been protecting yourself. Unless you mean that people should use darknets..
      • by ogl_codemonkey (706920) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:07PM (#27724941)

        If I didn't want people to use tOR for whatever they thought should be anonymous; I'd currently be adjusting my exit policy to not allow everything (but SMTP).

        In my mind, that is the point of a free, neutral network. YMMV.

      • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:32PM (#27725095)

        IMO hiding in a crowd of thousands is much better than trusting anybody, sure they can sue one person but they can't sue all of us. i take my chances of being the one in 1.3 billion sued, even thier own site [riaa.com] puts the chance of getting caught at >0.4%, that number is only going to get smaller as more people use torrents.

      • by digitalchinky (650880) <dtchky@gmail.com> on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:37PM (#27725129)

        If you just want limited distribution you can always upload a web based file manager to your host. I use AjaXplorer (there are hundreds of others) It was the only one I could find with a 3 minute google search that allowed a largely unlimited number of file uploads in one go. (Drag and drop)

        I guess you are talking about stuff for which you don't hold a license or copyright though, in which case you place your trust along side the masses and hope you don't get singled out of the herd.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ydrol (626558)
        Ive been with a few ISPs where, having a DHCP account, I was able to change my IP to another public IP on the same subnet. I assumed it was not currently in use because I still had internet connectivity.
      • Use dark nets when available, and when it isn't get a service you can pay for in cash (throw-away cell phones, etc.) and invest in some hardware to utilize those products that are essentially untraceable -- or are so hard to trace that other, easier targets can take the heat from the MAFIAA or whatever part of the system you are rebelling against. There are many other options similar to this one -- the proliferation of free dialup means that if you can make an anonymous phone call, you can use the net anon
    • It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.
    • Support alternatives to infringing activities. I don't like the music industry any more than most people here, and I like to support independent artists in any way I can. I use Linux on all my desktops and servers because I (a) it works well for me, and (2) I don't enjoy feeding Microsoft more money.
    • Use strong crypto whenever possible. This shouldn't be limited to cases where you're doing something naughty. It's just a good habit to be in.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GF678 (1453005)

      * It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.

      How? By writing a letter to your local politician? Protesting? These actions do jack shit with regards to changing laws these days.

      Corporations are winning the war against our rights. What else are we suppose to do about unjust laws?

      The only alternative is to defy the laws. If enough people do so, then either the laws will be repealed, or there will be too many people breaking the law it'll be untenable to prosecute everyone.

      Discl

      • by Microlith (54737) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:01PM (#27724585)

        I'm a coward who only breaks laws I can get away with (eg. downloading stuff I shouldn't on torrent sites). I do it because the risk is low, at least for now. If the police actually went full-bore with dealing with downloaders, I'd stop immediately. I'm just talking about the ideal way to fight an unjust law.

        Why not just post next time with "My opinion is worthless, please ignore me>" since it's obvious that your "stance" is about as strong as a peice of wet paper.

        • Hey mods, the parent didn't just make up that quote to illicit a response; it was actually in the GP's post. Perhaps an "insightful" is more warranted than a "troll".

        • by Mistshadow2k4 (748958) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @09:20PM (#27725731) Journal

          Why not just post next time with "My opinion is worthless, please ignore me>" since it's obvious that your "stance" is about as strong as a peice of wet paper.

          And your alternative? Oh yeah, we're back to protesting and working to change laws which has done absolutely no good whatsoever since the 60s. So what's your point? You don't seem to have one to have one.

          • Dumbass. The first half of his reply was great....just what I would have said.

            It was his "Disclaimer" that showed him to be nothing but a weakling. If something cannot be changed by the people due to the government, and it is generally disliked by a large group of people, then breaking the law on purpose despite hardships should be his calling.

            After all, they don't call people Pirates for nothing. It isn't just a fancy word comparing us to those ship lords. Its how the real people behind this struggle feel.

        • by Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @10:13PM (#27725979)

          Why not just post next time with "My opinion is worthless, please ignore me>" since it's obvious that your "stance" is about as strong as a peice of wet paper.

          I imagine he's like most of us who download illegal stuff. It's a law that is socially and to some extent morally acceptable to break with very little risk. Hence we do it, to get free stuff. The sad state of the record and movie industry leaves any 'guilt' long gone.

          But if consequences and risk increases, of course people are gonna stop. I think people who try to pretty up downloading illegal stuff as a politically 'stance' against it are really just trying to validate to themselves a nobler reason when really, we just want free shit.

          ~Jarik

      • by mrvan (973822) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:28PM (#27724711)

        You hear this argument on slashdot a lot:
        Post A) I disagree with copyright and therefore I download; not out of personal profit but as an act of protest
        Post B) You should not break the law: obey it and meanwhile try to change it through political process

        A essentially calls for civil disobedience, which is a relatively ethical way to change laws and society when poltical process is exhausted or futile. A burglar stealing my TV, however, is not a political protester trying to change property law, he is just a criminal stealing my shit. The essential difference between a crime and an act of civil disobedience is not breaking the law, however, but the manner in which this is done.

        The Dutch sociologist Kees Schuyt formulated a number of rules for something to classify as ethical disobedience (rather than eg anarchist revolt or petty crime). Gandhi formulated a similar set of rules for his non-violent protest.

        Let's have a look at Schuyt's rules:

        1) The act is illegal;
        2) The act is conscionable; it appeals to your conscience and that of your fellow citizens;
        3) There is a link between the criticized law and the chosen illegal act;
        4) The act is thought out and not impulsive;
        5) The act occurs in public;
        6) You co-operate with arrest and prosecution;
        7) You accept that you might be punished;
        8) You used legal means of protest before;
        9) You are non-violent and remain non-violent;
        10) The rights of your fellow citizens are respected as well as possible;

        Especially important is 5-7, and possibly 7 and 10. The idea behind these rules is that civil disobedience means breaking a law in order to show other people that the law is bad, and accepting possible consequences. You sacrifice yourself for the higher cause.

        Downloading songs from behind tor or other means of hiding yourself disqualifies your action from civil disobedience. If you want to make a political statement, buy a CD which you strongly believe should be out of copyright, upload it to your personal homepage, and write an open letter to the RIAA stating what you did and why. Get all the people who agree with you to do the same. If RIAA sues you, don't settle and escalate to the highest court you can afford. If enough people do this, your fellow citizens will react, and so will politicians.

        If you are not prepared to do that: by all means download everyhing you want (information wants to be free, right?!), but please don't act all ethical. If you stand behind your actions, do them in public. If you just want to get free music, raid the pirate bay while they're there but don't brag about it.

        • by Threni (635302) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:43PM (#27724787)

          So, to take 2 examples from more or less opposite ends of the spectrum, smoking weed at home or hiding Jews from the Nazis don't count as ethical disobedience? You can not agree with a law but not want to die/go to prison for it. Perhaps he has another term? Moral disobedience? Who cares what he calls it?

          • by mrvan (973822) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:23PM (#27725049)

            Good job for Godwinning the discussion! :-)

            Resistance during war-time occupation is a different ball game from civil disobedience (although see Gandhi). The purpose of resistance (including hiding jews and other persons) is not to force the Nazi regime to change, it is to kick them out and limit their effectiveness.

            [although, *IF* a lot of people (esp. Germans) would have stood up and openly challenged the Nazi regime, for example by refusing to serve in the army and by refusing to co-operate in the Jew laws, things might have ended differently...]

            • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Sunday April 26, 2009 @09:38PM (#27725817) Homepage Journal

              Resistance during war-time occupation is a different ball game from civil disobedience

              How is it different? In the United States, the drug czar has declared a war on some drugs [wikipedia.org], and now the copyright czar is about to declare a war on sharing.

            • by zogger (617870) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @09:57PM (#27725921) Homepage Journal

              This is interesting in a political and an historical context. Gandhi worked with non violent means as a choice, but not as the only choice except by circumstance. Although he was a pacifist, he recognized that the "gun control" laws that prohibited the Indian people from ownership (mostly) were designed to quell any insurgency against the British colonial powers. The Indian people had been disarmed by the British, on purpose and "by law", (privately and even for the most part they had no armed governmental workers either) and as such they had no means to use force against their "masters". Non violent resistance then became their only option, and they suffered a lot for it. And in Germany, one of the very first acts the fascists managed was the almost total disarming of the civilian populations, making it quite easy for them to implement their "solutions". There's a pattern...

              People seem to forget, civilization doesn't necessarily equal freedom or peace. Civilizations can be quite organized and have a great amount of civil governmental infrastructure, but still be violent with state sponsored terrorism and oppression of all the people or selected subgroups of the people there. Civil does not equal free. A full oppressive police state can be quite "civilized". Or like they are wont to say, "pacified".

              I'll also add this as a personal anecdotal. As a civil rights worker back in the day (belts..onions..), there was some success, but it was one step back for every two forward and it was scary and it sucked mostly. It wasn't until the scene changed as more and more vets came back from viet nam who were either black and returned to still oppressive society or poor whites, who had gotten drafted while their richer peers got off with basket weaving majors in college with the 2s deferments, and those dudes weren't all necessarily into being non violent, quite the opposite actually, they had just returned from where being very violent was the expected norm. Whoops....

              These folks and a growing sense of direct action combined with some other factors led to the major riots in the mid to late 60s. The powers that be (here comes my opinion) finally got scared enough to actually DO something about the situation rather than just talk about it. They didn't want to, they were *forced* to make some concessions.

              The 64 civil rights act didn't do much of anything until the fatcats realized they could wake up one day with one or several major cities no longer under their control, important big cities. They would have been seized and occupied by outright rebels with a cause and several legitimate and rather large beefs, or burnt to the ground, either way, lost to their control. They capitulated, although they won't admit it, that is exactly what happened and it went beyond non violent protest or threat and promise of same to get there.

              And everyone knew it.

              Then stuff changed, for real this time. They *really* starting enforcing the civil rights laws, in a lot more places. They changed the draft to a lottery system so no more fatcats kids getting out of it. That backfired on them though, because that in turn lead to the war finally ending (started to become obvious it would end, put it that way), because the protests then quintupled/more in size from all these new kids suddenly realizing it wasn't going to be just the blacks from the ghettoes and rural farmers kids going, but THEM too, so they joined in the protests. It went from thousands to hundreds of thousands at protests, and rather quickly. And the situation was clearly not going in wallstreet's/government puppets favor, they had to keep backing down or they were eventually going to face the "heads on pikes" stage of social readjustment.

              Now they did have a goonish reactionary success that they weaseled through, the passage of the 68 gun control act. That was a huge disappointment for true second amendment rights, and was clearly a racist and reactionary bill (you had to really be there to ca

          • So, to take 2 examples from more or less opposite ends of the spectrum, smoking weed at home or hiding Jews from the Nazis don't count as ethical disobedience?

            Those may be ethical, and they certainly would qualify as disobedience, but don't rise to the standard of "civil disobedience". The goal of civil disobedience is to precipitate a change to the law by drawing popular attention to its unconscionability.

            Smoking weed at home, if done properly, will have no legal consequences and does nothing to point a spotlight on drug laws, hence it cannot change popular opinion.

            Now, if you stood in front of city hall, lit up a joint, waited for the police to come out and arr

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Mikkeles (698461)

          The Dutch sociologist Kees Schuyt formulated a number of rules for something to classify as ethical disobedience (rather than eg anarchist revolt or petty crime). Gandhi formulated a similar set of rules for his non-violent protest.

          My hairdresser can come up with a set of rules with just as much validity, as I don't see the sun shining out of Schuyt's or Gandhi's arses. As there is no objective standard, their opinions are just that: opinions. Mine, for what it's worth, is to just disobey the law, assumin

          • by SpazmodeusG (1334705) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @08:16PM (#27725351)
            I agree, i don't get this arbitrary definition of what is and isn't civil disobedience.

            Standing in front of a tank as was done in Tiananmen Square doesn't count as civil disobedience because the guy had to be dragged away kicking and screaming? (point 6). That's obviously not true. You can have civil disobedience and still fight when caught. Point 6 can be ruled straight out.

            As for point 5. Simply the support or the act of civil disobedience should be public, not the individuals themselves. A million people wearing masks at a rally for an illegal political party is still in public and is still civil disobedience. Likewise a million people downloading a torrent is still public, the seeders/leachers recorded is still increased despite the individuals remaining anonymous. So point 5 doesn't apply to using torrents with Tor. The act of civil disobedience is still made public, the individuals are all that is anonymous.

            As for points 7 and 10. Yes, i think everyone accepts they may be punished and you really should respect your fellow citizens rights as well as possible. I can't argue with that but is downloading something owned by a billionaire really breaking point 10?
        • by Kalriath (849904) *

          The problem is that downloading modern songs at all disqualifies the action from being considered civil disobedience based on rule 10 (rights of fellow citizens) - you're violating someone else's right to creative ownership (note that I used the word modern here - pirating a song more than 70 years old absolutely could be considered civil disobedience. In contrast, pirating Peter Pan might disqualify you under rule 2 - since you'd be depriving a children's hospital of the royalties, not Disney Corporation)

          • "you're violating someone else's right to creative ownership"

            To my knowledge there's nobody stating that creative ownership should be banned. In fact, your "creative ownership" is the only true right around this issue: the only way to violate it is lying since the only way I can imagine to violate "creative ownership" is telling something somebody did was in fact done by someone else.

            What some people has a point with is not "creative ownership" but with government-granted monopoly on usage of publicly diss

        • Personally, if one were to try to deprive the "beast" in anyway possible, I would suggest depriving the ??AAs of income and any possible moral standing by not having anything to do with their products, either by purchase or by copyright infringement. Non-??AA media does exist, and if you're of the notion that copyright infringement serves as advertising, then why would you try advertising ??AA products?

        • by HiThere (15173)

          That is, indeed, a classic list. Anyone who follows those rules is being ethical. This doesn't make anyone who doesn't follow them unethical.

          My objection to illegal downloading is that it doesn't damage the villainous parties. As such it is at best an ineffective means of protest.

          OTOH, when one party purchases a set of laws I see no ethical grounds for requiring others to accept them. Practical, yes, but not ethical. As such, when the Ballentine edition of Tolkien's work came out, I bought it despite h

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by stephanruby (542433)
          I guess the people who translated/copied the bible, at great personal peril to themselves and to their family, were not *ethically* disobedient. The same goes for the people who published and distributed anti-nazi leaflets in the dead of night in Nazi Germany.
        • by russotto (537200) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @10:27PM (#27726047) Journal

          The Dutch sociologist Kees Schuyt formulated a number of rules for something to classify as ethical disobedience (rather than eg anarchist revolt or petty crime). Gandhi formulated a similar set of rules for his non-violent protest.

          Let's have a look at Schuyt's rules:

          1) The act is illegal;
          2) The act is conscionable; it appeals to your conscience and that of your fellow citizens;
          3) There is a link between the criticized law and the chosen illegal act;
          4) The act is thought out and not impulsive;
          5) The act occurs in public;
          6) You co-operate with arrest and prosecution;
          7) You accept that you might be punished;
          8) You used legal means of protest before;
          9) You are non-violent and remain non-violent;
          10) The rights of your fellow citizens are respected as well as possible;

          Let's see how this plays out for some copyright protester. He sets up a laptop outside MPAA headquarters, downloads that Wolverine pre-release (never mind how he gets an internet connection), and plays it for everyone around. Most likely outcome is he's ignored, of course, but let's assume he's not. The MPAA calls the cops. The cops arrest him, under a criminal copyright infringement statute. It's page 3 news, at best. The guy disappears into the system, maybe rating a Slashdot article at conviction and sentencing, maybe even an AP brief. He's in Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for a few years. Few know about it. Fewer care. Nothing changes.

          So why are these rules considered the only "ethical" way to do it? Perhaps it is precisely because they are ineffective: those who support the status quo are seizing the high ground by declaring that in order to object "ethically", one must also object ineffectively. Why, as an opponent of that status quo, should I or anyone else accept their definitions of "ethical"?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SpazmodeusG (1334705)

        If enough people do so, then either the laws will be repealed, or there will be too many people breaking the law it'll be untenable to prosecute everyone.

        Or the third option which is what they do right now with many laws. They prosecute a handful of people, making extreme examples of them, giving them fines and penalties so large that their life is basically destroyed.

        Saves having to arrest everyone and helps to force the majority to cower in fear of the unjust laws.

      • by RicardoGCE (1173519) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:39PM (#27725141)

        Corporations are winning the war against our rights. What else are we suppose to do about unjust laws?

        What rights? The sacrosanct right to wipe my ass with how an author asks that I handle his work? Or the right to bitch about how awful music/movies/games are today, all the while massively consuming whatever the RIAA/MPAA-children spit my way?

        How about actually creating new works and sharing them with the community, how about supporting content creators in tune with your ideas regarding copyright, how about laying the foundations for a freer community by actually creating content people are free to take and share, with no strings attached?

        Richard Stallman decided contractual and copyright-related restrictions were threatening his community. So he said (may not be an exact quote ;)) "fuck all y'all, I'm writing my own OS". Most (yes, some do walk the walk, but most? Not at all) digital "rebels" of today would have settled for cracking and pirating, instead of creating, and we wouldn't have gotten the GNU-led FOSS community that not only serves as realistic alternative to commercial computing solutions, but also are an important counterweight that at the least, helps keep commercial vendors on their toes, and at the most, slowly makes the light dawn on them: You can profit without enslaving users! What a novel concept.

        If instead of whining about the "right" to take (sorry, "share") that which the creator/rights owner has placed restrictions on, people actually created new content, the world would be a far richer place than if copyright were simply done away with. But it isn't going to happen. Because downloading "Wolverine" while feeling you're striking a blow for freedom beats actually doing so.

        I love free culture. Sometimes for practical reasons (OpenOffice is better than MS Office, in my opinion), sometimes for financial reasons (I have no beef with MS operating systems, but Linux gives me a comparable experience for zero money), sometimes for political reasons (I try not to buy DRM-restricted content). But going from that stance to "everything is free because I decree it" is just infuriating. I like copyright. I like the notion that if I create something, I get to decide the terms for its distribution.

        Contribute something to the cultural enrichment of the community. Modern copyright law just means that "they" can keep tight controls on the content "they" own. So let's stop favoring their offerings, if the terms are disagreeable. Let's make sure there's a sufficiently large and appealing body of free works so as to make them as obsolete as sympathizers of poohooping (trying really hard not to use the word "piracy", in order to avoid the mandatory "surely you mean 'copyright infringement', as 'piracy' means high-seas pillaging" retorts) say their business model is.

        • Copyright is a social construct and contract that society has with content creators and is very artificial. You can defend a hill with a pointy stick, but you can't defend a song. Some of us feel that copyright law in its current form is not beneficial to society, and so the construct should be changed. Many who hold that view use stupid language like "rights" and muddy the waters. Still, the sentiment is the same and valid. Essentially, half your argument is the same type of argument you tried to avoi

        • by tepples (727027) <<tepples> <at> <gmail.com>> on Sunday April 26, 2009 @09:52PM (#27725891) Homepage Journal

          How about actually creating new works and sharing them with the community

          If I did, I could get sued for accidental plagiarism. It happened to George Harrison.

          Richard Stallman decided contractual and copyright-related restrictions were threatening his community. So he said (may not be an exact quote ;)) "fuck all y'all, I'm writing my own OS".

          To establish that copying has occurred, the copyright owner must demonstrate both 1. the alleged infringer's access to the copyrighted work and 2. the substantial similarity of the works in question. It's easy to shield yourself from access to proprietary software: don't read non-free source code. But music differs markedly from computer programs in this respect. Once you've heard a song on the radio or as background music in a grocery store, you are deemed for the rest of your life to have had "access" to that song.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Your missing the point. People want to download all the "rubbish" and "crap" that the MPAA/RIAA put out for free. They don't want to actually do hard work.

          In a "free market"--that is a market where the laws of copyright are the same for everyone, then there should be a clear demand for stuff thats not "rubbish" and "crap" that a company could exploit for some profit. If the current prices are so out of whack and internet distribution is so free then low prices should lead to high volume and large margins.
      • by Svartalf (2997)

        How about NOT contributing to the network effect that funds the removing of our rights, hm?

        Infringing their crap provides a larger audience.

        A larger audience equates to more money, money that fuels the crap they're doing.

        Just.
        Say.
        NO.

        The media and the artists that produce it aren't worth this and instead of infringing the stuff, just simply opt out of it all. Honest indie stuff is as good or better than the stuff the RIAA players are shovelling.

        Companies like PayPlay [payplay.fm] and CD Baby [cdbaby.com] happen to have a lot to offe

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      Use strong crypto whenever possible.

      for anything personal.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MrMista_B (891430)

      Everything is illegal. By your logic, you're fucked.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)

      It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.

      The problem with these laws, is they are essentially criminalizing everything. Its not that easy to say "Well, you uploaded X, X is copyrighted", no, the laws have gone to such extremes that if there is simply background music, or someone is lip syncing a certain song, it can be taken down. This isn't just about uploading Hannah_Montana_Song.mp3.

      How do we change them? The entirety of the internet has been protesting against the DMCA since day one, yet I don't see a movement to change it. Heck, there h

    • by Jurily (900488)

      It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.

      Wrong. WTF does Rapidshare have to do with Germany? Couldn't they just say "Get me a Swiss court order or shut the fuck up"? Case in point: The Pirate Bay. Yes, they were convicted, but under Swedish law, and a biased judge. Have a look at how they ridiculed all the threats with DMCA for years.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Brian Gordon (987471)
        Rapidshare is German.. I don't know about rapidshare.com but rapidshare.de certainly was around first.
    • by billstewart (78916) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:06PM (#27724615) Journal

      Yes, there are people who upload material in infringing ways. But there are also lots of people who upload material in ways that (at least in the US, Your Kilometers/litre May Vary Elsewhere) don't infringe copyright but are still complained about by record labels and other alleged copyright holders. One way to support alternatives to infringing activities is to support groups like the EFF and Lessig's folks in defending fair use.

      • But there are also lots of people who upload material in ways that...at least in the US...don't infringe copyright but are still complained about by record labels and other alleged copyright holders.

        Legitimate distribution implies that you can produce a license from the owner of the copyright or his agent.

        It doesn't matter how small and scattered are the pieces of the puzzle you've uploaded. If they can be requested, delivered and assembled on demand you are a distributor.

        Talk of "Fair Use" is smoke and mi

        • "Legitimate distribution implies that you can produce a license from the owner of the copyright or his agent."

          The grandparent poster said it properly but you seem not the be hearing: different countries, different laws.

          "Talk of "Fair Use" is smoke and mirrors."

          But talk of "private copy rights" is not.

          "If you can name a court case where the defendant uploader successfully challenged the plaintiff's ownership of a copyright, I should very much like to hear of it. But I don't believe the beast exists."

          At least

        • by tepples (727027)

          Legitimate distribution implies that you can produce a license from the owner of the copyright or his agent.

          Q: If I write a song, do I own the copyright?

          A: Not necessarily. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music.

    • by fm6 (162816) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:54PM (#27724867) Homepage Journal

      It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.

      The copyright laws are not going to get changed anytime soon. The media conglomerates just ahve way too much clout.

      Civil disobedience is a tried and true way to oppose unfair laws. The fact that non-whites no longer have to go to the back of the bus is a testimony to that.

      But note that it isn't civil disobedience unless you're willing to go to jail. Is anybody out there willing to go to jail for their "right" to download a copy of Terminator Salvation? No? Didn't think so.

      • the various rights holders having so much clout is hilarious when you think about it...
        how they get so much clout? lobbying
        what's that translate into? money
        how much money in $ do they have? X

        how many 'pirates' are out there? Y

        Is Y > X? Yes | No

        Would those 'pirates' even be willing to spend that $1 ? Yes | No

        If yes to both - why isn't it happening? Seems to me there should be way more people -and- money on the pirates' end of things. Yet.. get themselves organised to actually do something? huh.

        Well at l

    • by theNAM666 (179776)

      • It's best to avoid illegal acts.

      1) Violates US Founders' Principles-- active not passive subversion.

      2) If applied to the current matter, RIAA and crowd would still be big, fat cats with no impetus to change.

      3) "Illegal" schemgel. The legality or illegality of much of this is a matter of great dispute, just as the tea tax was. If you hate the King, you steal his revenue.

    • by russotto (537200)

      It's best to avoid illegal acts. If you don't like a law, work to change it.

      Sorry dude, they can pass unacceptable laws way, way, way faster than I can get them repealed.

      Support alternatives to infringing activities. I don't like the music industry any more than most people here, and I like to support independent artists in any way I can. I use Linux on all my desktops and servers because I (a) it works well for me, and (2) I don't enjoy feeding Microsoft more money.

      I don't listen to music, and I don't use

  • Non-German users? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @05:41PM (#27724429) Journal
    So all you "IAAL's" out there, could these logs be presented in a court outside of Germany?

    Was the act of uploading to Rapid Share from country X a violation of copyright laws in Germany, X, or both? Also, if no one downloaded the content you uploaded, have you still distributed?

    Just curios... I could never make out the captchas so this doesn't affect me.
  • I always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mister_playboy (1474163) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @05:55PM (#27724543)
    why direct download sites operated with so little trouble, when torrent sites were always being targeted for infringement. Maybe that will start to change.
  • I'm assuming this is for Rapidshare.de, yes? Seeing as Rapidshare.com's master company is based outside of Germany..
    • IANAL, but I think that as long as rapidshare.com's parent (master) company does business in Germany they can be affected by this. It all depends on the legal structure of the organization and how decentralized they chose to set things up.

      (someone correct me if I'm mistaken)
    • I highly doubt that the tld is relevant here and I'm assuming that a .com domain doesn't necessarily mean that the server is outside German jurisdiction.
  • Wow.. House raided (Score:4, Interesting)

    by joocemann (1273720) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @06:47PM (#27724825)

    Gotta appreciate the lazy cowardly policemen that chose to raid a music pirate instead of dealing with serious violent/criminal offenders.

    I love (no I don't) how the police will spend hours, if not days, of their man-hours dealing with petty nothings while the most blatant criminal elements are perpetually neglected.... I suppose this comes from giving the police the option which crimes deal with. In that case of course they will avoid dangerous battles and cowardly resort to minor traffic infractions and (as made evident) music pirates.

    NWA said it best.

    My proposal? Double the pay and bennies for the police, half the number on the force, and then expect a LOT more out of them and focus them on worthwhile crime. Then implement a very small, separate force to deal with traffic infringement and all the other petty crap.

    When I served in the military, if there was more work to be done, you don't go home. That is part of service. I fail to understand how the police go home after a shift of handing out speeding tickets when there is quite obviously a *lot* more to be done --- that is not what they have sworn to do when joining the force, nor is it what we should permit them to maintain.

    I would rather have very little or no police than to have a force that operates under convenience and laziness.

    • by neuromanc3r (1119631) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:13PM (#27724983)

      Gotta appreciate the lazy cowardly policemen that chose to raid a music pirate instead of dealing with serious violent/criminal offenders.

      I don't approve of that kind of crap either, but you do realise that that is a false dichotomy, right?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Gotta appreciate the lazy cowardly policemen that chose to raid a music pirate instead of dealing with serious violent/criminal offenders.

      Oh come on--the police are just doing what they're told. There's some guy/gal way up the chain that made the decision to raid the pirate^H^H^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringer's premises.

      I agree that it's a stupid use of resources, but don't put that on the folks that are at the bottom of the chain.

      When I served in the military, if there was more work to be done, you don't go home. That is part of service. I fail to understand how the police go home after a shift of handing out speeding tickets when there is quite obviously a *lot* more to be done --- that is not what they have sworn to do when joining the force, nor is it what we should permit them to maintain.

      I don't know about you, but I got into the military by signing a lengthy contract that essentially obligated me to do whatever the service deemed necessary, whether it was 12 hours of watch every day, marathon sessions

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356)
      Gotta appreciate the lazy cowardly policemen that chose to raid a music pirate instead of dealing with serious violent/criminal offenders.

      This is the geek's all-purpose defense to a charge of white collar crime.

      But the police can multi-task.

  • by jdong (1378773) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @07:32PM (#27725097)
    It wasn't all fun and games for the record labels EITHER...



    http://rapidshare.com/files/12345678/PIRATE_IP_ADDRESSES.part1.rar [rapidshare.com] | 209715 KB
    You are not a Premium User and have to wait. Please notice that only Premium Users will get full download speed.
    Still 66 seconds...
  • unfortunately (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Heppelld0 (1003848)
    there are several things wrong with the whole system (in terms of music)...

    - the fact that you're paying for a license to listen to the music, not the music itself is a bit of a fiddle. (correct me if i'm wrong). if i pay for music, i want to be able to do with that particular music, what i wish. if i want to play it from the rooftops for all to hear, i should be able to.

    - the fact that, out of the money you pay for music, only a small percentage of that money actually goes to the artists. the rest goes
  • by Anonymous Coward

    What matters is not whether or not copyright should be abolished or fundamentally altered because of the digital revolution: it probably should.

    What matters is the streamlined procedure to obtain ip addresses, as specified in German law. What we should ask ourselves is whether or not these laws are just, constitutional and proportional. We should ask ourselves whether we want to hand out such broad authorizations, turning private entities into 'law enforcement' agencies.

    Piracy, copyright and "intellectual p

  • by Corbets (169101) on Sunday April 26, 2009 @10:59PM (#27726235) Homepage

    They may well have released data to the German authorities, but they're based here in Switzerland. I've worked a bit with some of the guys there (I used to live in the town where they're located). Besides which, the "AG" suffix is a Swiss business designation, roughly equivalent to (I think) GmbH in Germany. And of course, Wikipedia backs me up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidshare [wikipedia.org]

    Of course, they did originate with German TLD (rapidshare.de).

    Why is this relevant? Because rapidshare.com accounts don't work on rapidshare.de (at least, according to Wikipedia). Therefore, people with .com accounts may not be at risk (from this instance).

    Just FYI. There's some great comments on this article about the so-called civil disobedience vs simple greed, so I'm not condoning the downloading behavior (though, frankly, I've done it myself), but I thought some people would probably like to consider this angle.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dunkelfalke (91624)

      Uhm, AG stands for Aktiengesellschaft (joint stock company) and is common for all German-speaking countries. The legal basis for it differs though between Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

      GmbH is a limited liability company and also exists in every German-speaking country.
      If you a french-speaking Swiss, AG is Societe Anonyme and GmbH is Societe a Responsabilite limite (sorry, no accents because I doubt slashdot supports them and besides my French is pretty rusty).

  • by Jugalator (259273) on Monday April 27, 2009 @02:18AM (#27727143) Journal

    Just RAR and password-protect the uploads then. And give the archives non-obvious names. You'll be safe. In theory, the passwords can be bruteforced, but they have better things to do. Like hunting down people who upload in "the clear" so to speak.

Per buck you get more computing action with the small computer. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...