Rapidshare Divulges Uploader Information 281
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."
Truth in naming (Score:5, Funny)
RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Truth in naming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
don't follow parent link (Score:3, Informative)
It's to a nasty javascript-tastic shocksite
Shit! I;m next, I know it !! (Score:2, Funny)
Damn, what a day to not use my neighbor's wifi.
Re:Truth in naming (Score:5, Funny)
RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.
Flanders, is that you?
Rights Holders!!!! (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be the people they are hurting?
The right to privacy is a basic one.
Why even use RapidShare anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about IP addresses? they don't prove anything.
Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently they lend enough credibility for a judge to okay your home being raided.
Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (Score:4, Insightful)
IP addresses are not nor will ever be valid evidence in a court of law.
A bold statement. Time and again it has been proven that judges don't know jack about the inner workings of the internet and believe all too readily that something "is hard fact" if some "expert witness" (paid by the side with deeper pockets) says so.
Yes, it's anything but a proof. But that doesn't mean it can't be used as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ifile.it and mediafire.com spring to mind
Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (Score:4, Informative)
Rapidshare didn't actively screen their files. most other file hosts do. That's the reason why it's the largest single host of illegal files on the planet.
I wonder what's gonna happen to katz now...gonna seem pretty empty.
This is what you get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is what you get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is what you get... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, that sounds like the plot for a movie. A couple of dim witted but lovable friends decide to rob a RIAA to pay for a neighbourhood kid's cancer treatment, but it all goes wrong when the rapidshare server logs their IPs, and then there's a madcap chase across the internets with viruses and trojans and a crazy Bavarian hacker named Grubi with a fetish for spaghetti.
Re:This is what you get... (Score:4, Insightful)
... when you are posting protected works.
I know artists who use Rapidshare to post their own music to download, and they love it. But why should Rapidshare protect you if you are posting their other albums, etc, that they don't want to be given away for free.
Why should they protect you before they uphold the laws of their land?
Re:This is what you get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is what you get... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This is what you get... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...]
It puts the "war" in War on Drugs (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Gandi and Jews and some Other Things (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Downloading media? Gratification. Not sticking it to the man.
But if I make videos that make fun of the man's works and put them on YouTube [youtube.com], does that count as sticking it to the man?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Interesting)
Not sure why my post showed up as AC, but here it is again for those of you filtering ACs:
Maybe I just don't read Slashdot enough, but I really don't think many people make your argument A, at least as you phrase it. For example the post you're replying to doesn't say what you're implying it says. They said "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". Nowh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
;)) "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.
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
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Accidental copying? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you'd be thrown off the jury for having a pre-conceived opinion, and rightly so. It is the duty of a jury to be completely neutral to either party, so that a fair decision can be made.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just remember that we are talking about Germany where a judge makes the decisions and never a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^ I'm not sure that the previous poster has a point. Jury nullification does not presume (much less require) jurors who come with preconceptions; it allows jurors who come to the conclusion that a law is unjust, inappropriate or inconsistent, to vote with their conscience.
In practice, any prosecutor or defense attorney is likely to try a line of questioning to determine juror's willingness to convict based on 'the letter of the law,' however, peremptory challenges are limited and its a guessing gam
Re: (Score:2)
Jury Nullification is the classic geek fallacy.
He needs to think how unlikely it is that his case will ever go to trial.
It's a very expensive, very high risk proposition.
The federal courts - civil and criminal - accept only cases which have an interstate - a national - dimension. In Doc Brown's words, the potential juror comes in expecting to see some serious shit here, It could mean he'll be tied up for months.
The small-C conser
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You might wanna, ya know, like listen to the case first.
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Funny)
If you can spell nullification your too smart to be on a jury. Juries are made up of people to stupid to think of a reason to get out of jury duty.
Since you're on a crusade to determine who is too stupid to serve on a jury, please allow me to correct your own glaring errors.
"If you can spell nullification you're too smart to be on a jury. Juries are made up of people too stupid to think of a reason to get out of jury duty."
Given the fact that you're obviously too stupid to compose a grammatically correct reply to the GP, I suppose you'll be scheduled for jury duty shortly. Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
correction
s"like letting people rip off artists."like letting people rip off corporations."
If you're going to be a **** at least be an honest one.
P.S.: the term was elided to allow you to fill in your own term of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
for anything personal.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everything is illegal. By your logic, you're fucked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Fair Use is not illegal (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Explain to me how this works again (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Some basic rules to follow. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry dude, they can pass unacceptable laws way, way, way faster than I can get them repealed.
I don't listen to music, and I don't use
Non-German users? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Non-German users? (Score:5, Funny)
I could never make out the captchas so this doesn't affect me.
i dunno i found them "captchas" [tinypic.com] rather interesting [tinypic.com] :P
and then we had the these cats and dogs [wordpress.com]
Re:Non-German users? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you distributed it to RapidShare. You "sent" it to them without permission of the rightsholder.
I always wondered... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I always wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
simple
they comply with take down requests
while thepiratebay rubbed salt on the MAFIAA wounds and then pissed on top for good measure
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rapidshare.de, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(someone correct me if I'm mistaken)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, given what Kentucky just pulled it might not even matter.
I know what's going to happen to Rapidshare next: (Score:3, Funny)
Rapidfail! ^^
Wow.. House raided (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wow.. House raided (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
This is the geek's all-purpose defense to a charge of white collar crime.
But the police can multi-task.
To be fair.... (Score:4, Funny)
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)
- 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
Not copyright, but invasive law. (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Rapidshare is Swiss, actually (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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).
Password-protect the stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
So the law should be ignored? (Score:2)
We should show them that we do not accept such behavior.
Rapidshare was complying with the law in the country in which it was operating. I would have thought that this was an entirely reasonable thing to do.
Of course, because they are prepared to comply with the law means that you cannot continue to download copyright material to which you have no implied right with impunity. Now you might have to face the consequences of your actions in much the same way as you would expect to be treated if you broke any other law.
You have no inherent right to the product of s