Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rapidshare Divulges Uploader Information

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the thanks-for-sharing dept.

Privacy 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Truth in naming (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724341)

RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

Re:Truth in naming (3, Funny)

derrida (918536) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724805)

Yes, but what about downloaders?

Netcraft confirms it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724859)

Of course it runs NetBSD [zoy.org] ...

Re:Truth in naming (4, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724929)

In most places I know it's only the making available, the uploading, that's a legal problem.

Re:Truth in naming (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725223)

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 if the music labels prove that you were uploading, it's probably much easier to argue, that the damage wasn't minor but big enough for the prosecution to get active and force the provider to give them their customer data, even if it's only about a few songs.

That's the whole reason, I think.

Shit! I;m next, I know it !! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725005)

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

Re:Truth in naming (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725397)

RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

Flanders, is that you?

Rights Holders!!!! (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725415)

Shouldn't that be the people they are hurting?

The right to privacy is a basic one.

Germany needs to rid itself of that Jewess Merkel (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724383)

That cunt is destroying the Fatherland!

Why even use RapidShare anyways? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724395)

There are far better hosts that don't require you to purchase a "premium" account. Why even bother with RapidShare?

Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724523)

Yes, don't use RapidShare, because all the other file hosting services would never disclose your IP address.

Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724927)

But those don't offer to disclose your IP address for $19.95 a month! They do it for free!

Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725343)

Who cares about IP addresses? they don't prove anything.

Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? (2)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724851)

ifile.it and mediafire.com spring to mind

This is what you get... (3, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724405)

...when you don't take adequate measures to protect yourself and rely on third parties to do the protection for you.

Re:This is what you get... (4, Insightful)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724777)

... when you're not a computer expert and didn't realize they were logging your IP.

Re:This is what you get... (0)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724945)

If only there were some system that makes it hard to pin the "uploader" because there are hundreds of uploaders at any given time, along with negligent sys admins that don't keep proper logs.
Let me thing
a) police call up host and get my ip (0% if im not the uploader but 100% if i am)
b) police connect to tracker and pick (1% either way)

while as a downloader i see the appeal of a, i can't see how sites like rapidshare/megaupload can survive, unless uploaders are really smart (chain of proxies/tor(but not tor because its not designed for large bandwidth useage)/etc) or really dumb (have no idea what they are doing)

just up 10% with ten uploaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725143)

haha
no one has a complete file so , and as you dont know what the other 9 have only you get 21%to 30% is your duty, you never have the whole file

sue me then.

Re:This is what you get... (4, Insightful)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#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..

Re:This is what you get... (5, Interesting)

ogl_codemonkey (706920) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:This is what you get... (4, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:This is what you get... (3, Interesting)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:This is what you get... (2, Insightful)

ydrol (626558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725359)

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.

Re:This is what you get... (1, Insightful)

pete_p (70057) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724939)

...when you distribute stolen goods. (Hey, if stealing cable is theft of service, stealing IP is too.)

Re:This is what you get... (2, Interesting)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725259)

Your analogy is a little broken. Stealing cable is theft of service when you directly tap in to the distribution lines outside your house. (I don't make the rules!) One cute way to avoid having to run your own cable from the pole is (which I may or may not have actually done) by installing a small (say 3 or 4 foot high) discone wide band scanning antenna out on the pole splitter. You could mount it all professional like, then put 'property of AT&T' stickers on it as a finishing touch. From there you can point your 32 element beam at it and get some free TV juice. The local free to air crap might block out a channel or two on a bad day, but hell, free cable without the wires or the hassle of getting caught. (Note, hiding your 32 element yagi is beyond the scope of this comment)

it serves you thieves right! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724409)

i hope you thieves all go to jail and get the aids from some big fat black guy fucking you in the ass. we know you'll like it.

Re:it serves you thieves right! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724719)

Why would you want them to do something they would enjoy? Wouldn't you want these people to have a BAD time in prison?

Re:it serves you thieves right! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724883)

Prison isn't bad for niggers. Why do you think they call it "nigger college"?

It's a lot like when the Romans used to throw people in the pit with starving beasts. Only those beasts are gorillas. Gorillas with HUGE dicks.

Some basic rules to follow. (5, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724425)

  • 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:Some basic rules to follow. (3, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724531)

* 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.

Disclaimer: 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.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724793)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724969)

He made the mistake of only posting the disclaimer (without the word disclaimer at the start).

Without that it loses all context and GP looks like he's bashing someone else's honesty rather than pointing out the rather extreme hypocrisy.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0, Troll)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724695)

Jury Nullification.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724773)

If I'm ever called up for jury duty in a copyright infringement case, I'll sure as hell do my best to nullify it. Unfortunately, the chances of that happening, and of me not being thrown off the jury for knowing how to spell nullification, are very low indeed.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (4, Insightful)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724795)

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:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Interesting)

Carlosos (1342945) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724999)

Just remember that we are talking about Germany where a judge makes the decisions and never a jury.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724913)

If I'm ever called up for jury duty in a copyright infringement case, I'll sure as hell do my best to nullify it.

You might wanna, ya know, like listen to the case first.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (-1, Troll)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724835)

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification is best used for its traditional purposes, such as letting white people off for killing blacks that looked at white women wrong, or tried to drink out of the white drinking fountain, or tried to register blacks to vote, and things like that. It shouldn't be used for trivialities like letting people rip off artists.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (5, Interesting)

mrvan (973822) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1, Offtopic)

Sopor42 (1134277) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724775)

My kingdom* for a mod point!

(Sopor42 promptly gets off his "ethical" high horse...)

*It's NOT my mom's basement, i swear!

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

ZiggyStardust1984 (1099525) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724809)

Yep. Just logged-in in hopping to have a mod point. Parent->Parent really deserves it.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (4, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (4, Insightful)

mrvan (973822) | more than 5 years ago | (#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...]

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725075)

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 arrest you, and submitted to whatever punishment the law requires, that would be civil disobedience (Bonus points are awarded for alerting the media beforehand, and getting as many people as possible to join you). Hopefully, you've raised awareness, and demonstrated exactly how assinine the law you're fighting really is.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725175)

Actually, no.

Smoking weed at home is something you do for personal gratification.

Hiding Jews from Nazis was simply "doing the right thing". Those doing it had no expectation of affecting the law, nor were they obtaining any sort of gratification.

Downloading media? Gratification. Not sticking it to the man. If anything, you're giving the man more mindshare, if not actual cash money.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Insightful)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724847)

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, assuming whatever level of risk with which you're comfortable. Working to change it is good, but not mandatory.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725071)

You're missing the point: civil disobedience is when you are working to change the world. That you don't care to try to make the world better is one thing, but you shouldn't align yourself with civil disobedience when you're really just doing what you want to do.

If you want to change the meaning of civil disobedience to be something more along the lines of "ignoring laws you don't like", then we'll have to come up with a new term to describe what is normally considered civil disobedience.

civil disobedience [reference.com]
 
-noun

1. the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (3, Interesting)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724947)

prohibition did not follow these rules, but it worked.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725401)

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". Nowhere in their post do they claim that the reason that they download is in order to change the law, only that it's one possible effect of their downloading (which is possible, though highly unlikely). They also do not make claims of a lack of self-interest.

Just seems a little odd to me that you're criticizing someone for a position that he doesn't claim to hold. If he had actually made claim A, I would agree. As it is, his statement is reasonable, even if his dream of changing the copyright law through downloading is just a teeny, tiny bit optimistic.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Interesting)

ibbey (27873) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725421)

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". Nowhere in their post do they claim that the reason that they download is in order to change the law, only that it's one possible effect of their downloading (which is possible, though highly unlikely). They also do not make claims of a lack of self-interest.

Just seems a little odd to me that you're criticizing someone for a position that he doesn't claim to hold. If he had actually made claim A, I would agree. As it is, his statement is reasonable, even if his dream of changing the copyright law through downloading is just a teeny, tiny bit optimistic.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725403)

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:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Insightful)

SpazmodeusG (1334705) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725103)

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. (5, Insightful)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725291)

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 avoid by not using the word "piracy".

On the other part of your argument, sweeping a broken system under the rug by avoiding those that profit from the system doesn't fix it. I think we should change the system.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725357)

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.

All of human society is artificial. The very notion of property is an artificial construct. 5,000 years ago, I owned property because I was strong enough to scare you off it, and you decided it was best not to try to take it again. Today, I own property because most people agree that granting individuals control over a piece of territory is beneficial to the overall development of society. Same goes for copyright law.

If I can lobby the government to send many men with pointy sticks to arrest those who violate my rights (if you should forgive my continued use of the word), then I have "defended 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.

According to your argument, the goal of changing copyright law would be to benefit society, presumably by fostering culture. I maintain that existing copyright law can be made to work to that very end.

But yeah, it wouldn't allow for the idea of grabbing "Lost" for free.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724535)

Use strong crypto whenever possible.

for anything personal.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1, Interesting)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724583)

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

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724587)

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 have been many, many, many, letters sent to congressmen, and they don't do anything. Its not easy to change a law when those supporting the laws have million dollar worth of lobbyists.

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.

Sure, the example of using Linux works because MS is basically dependent on piracy to entrench Windows users in poorer countries. But for independent artists it just doesn't work. What happens is RIAA sees a drop of 10% in CD sales, now, having a basic monopoly on CDs have made them not think logically. They see the 10% of CDs not just as 10% that has gone to non-RIAA labels, or has gone to purchasing other things that aren't music, but rather because CD sales have dropped 10% that must be piracy!!! So because they think that they manage to convince a blind congress to passing more RIAA friendly bills and increasing DRM.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724603)

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:Some basic rules to follow. (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724803)

Rapidshare is German.. I don't know about rapidshare.com but rapidshare.de certainly was around first.

good ideas, but also : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724605)

Always share all your media files with your friends via sneaker net & expect to copy theirs in return. 100% safe! :)

If you must upload to sites like rapidshare, please take great care. Bittorrent is safer since it doesn't say who started the upload. I don't know if superseed more is safer or less safe, but I'd imagine safer.

Fair Use is not illegal (3, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724615)

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 (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725365)

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 mirrors.

The uploader is tagged because his files are publicly exposed.

It's as simple as that.

His files are the primary P2P sources, the files with the Five-Star rating.

It's likely he stamps his own nickname over the opening credits - and its worth laying out real money to run him to ground.

Talk of "alleged" copyright holders is no less fraudulent.

You'll find the occasional enthusiast interested in forties radio, fifties television and the flicks that play on TCM.

The Okatu who needs his obscure anime fix.

But - for the uploader - the real prize is the movie not yet in first-run theatrical release.

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.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724747)

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.

I'm a little ashamed to be asking, but how would you go about doing this?

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724867)

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:Some basic rules to follow. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724905)

No? Didn't think so.

You pretentious twat.

Re:Some basic rules to follow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725185)

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

Yes, because everybody knows how open the US is to other countries' wishes. And it's also common knowledge that we pay very close attention to the concerns of foreign citizens.
(/sarcasm)

But seriously, there are too many laws & too many conflicting laws about copyright, IP, etc. to keep them straight. While it's easy to say "just don't do anything illegal", most people aren't expecting the FBI to kick in their door at 3am because they downloaded & used the latest Metallica hit as background music for the family vacation photo CD...

Rapidshit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724427)

Rapidshit has been going downhill for years now. Everyone I know uses megafail instead.

Non-German users? (4, Interesting)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724429)

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.

Re:Non-German users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724507)

Also, if no one downloaded the content you uploaded, have you still distributed?

You would have distributed to rapidshare's servers, so yes.

Re:Non-German users? (5, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724519)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724713)

You made my day.

Re:Non-German users? (3, Insightful)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724627)

Also, if no one downloaded the content you uploaded, have you still distributed?

Yes, you distributed it to RapidShare. You "sent" it to them without permission of the rightsholder.

So much for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724475)

... Hardcore filesharers using Rabidshare!

I always wondered... (4, Interesting)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:I always wondered... (5, Interesting)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724563)

simple

they comply with take down requests

while thepiratebay rubbed salt on the MAFIAA wounds and then pissed on top for good measure

Re:I always wondered... (3, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724653)

Very true. I just figured the way in which direct download sites charge for premium accounts is a more obvious model of monetizing copyright infringement than the advertising or donations on a torrent site.

news? (1)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724551)

I've heard from many that rapidshare is the last place one should come to because they track the consumers. So i ask, whats new here?

Re:news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725125)

That a load of (new) idiots will finally realize that crapidshare is NOT safe?

I sure hope so.

Rapidshare.de, right? (2, Insightful)

TigerTails (1453761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724565)

I'm assuming this is for Rapidshare.de, yes? Seeing as Rapidshare.com's master company is based outside of Germany..

Re:Rapidshare.de, right? (1)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724589)

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)

Re:Rapidshare.de, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724897)

Sorta like how if a parent company does business in China, it still has to obey all Chinese laws right? (In the end, it's just if they want to CONTINUE doing business in the target country will they comply.)

Re:Rapidshare.de, right? (1)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724963)

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.

Re:Rapidshare.de, right? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725233)

Of course, given what Kentucky just pulled it might not even matter.

I know what's going to happen to Rapidshare next: (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724595)

Rapidfail! ^^

No more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724681)

I have been using Rapidshare for a long time. I am canceling my account immediately. I advise anyone that uses Rapidshare to do that too.
We should show them that we do not accept such behavior.

So the law should be ignored? (1)

janrinok (846318) | more than 5 years ago | (#27724991)

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 someone else's work simply because you believe that all music or films should be distributed free of charge to anyone who wants them. The laws regarding copyright might well be biased too far in favour of those who own the copyright, but the correct way to counter this is to get the law changed.

Please don't think that you represent me when you use the word 'We'. I do not like the laws regarding copyright, but breaking the law is not necessarily the best way to get the law changed. It might seem like one possible solution and it may indeed be tolerated in a small number of countries but most of the civilised world has an alternative process in place for such needs.

Posting AC also indicates quite a bit about your character. If you haven't the courage to stand up for your beliefs and be seen to be doing so then you are certainly not taking part in an act of civil disobedience, but simply hiding in the shadows in fear. In which case perhaps you have already destroyed your own argument.

That's Fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27724811)

As long as they don't tell anybody that I've been uploading kiddie porn.

Wow.. House raided (3, Interesting)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Wow.. House raided (3, Insightful)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Wow.. House raided (2, Insightful)

NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725023)

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 to close out monthly maintenance jobs before the clock ran out, or death in combat.

I suspect the police don't sign on the dotted line for anywhere near that level of obligation. Keeping them there "until all the jobs are done" probably requires a declared state of emergency or something similar.

Child Pornography Not Music! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725057)

Rapidshare really should be going after the child pornographers. I run an image board website and we are constantly inundated with child porn often linking to rapidshare files. I try to report them but they just dont seem to care.

This a GOOD thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725065)

Information wants to be free, right?

The solution to me is quite clear... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725087)

How about you don't actually retain ANY information.. just provide a God damn service. Stupid nubs.

To be fair.... (4, Funny)

jdong (1378773) | more than 5 years ago | (#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 (2, Interesting)

Heppelld0 (1003848) | more than 5 years ago | (#27725123)

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 to the record labels, and covers the costs of advertising, paying the production team and fueling corporate profits. the band make most of their money from live concerts, which, in my eyes, far exceeds the experience of listening to an album on my headphones. in accordance with this level of experience, live concerts cost a substantial amount more than a cd, but i really dont care. if i managed to get all my albums free of charge, i'd be able to pick the best ones to go and see live, and have more money with which to fund such a venture.

- the fact that, when a law suit is filed for copyright infringement, the amount demanded is so far in excess of the amount of music that has actually been downloaded. this can only lead me to think that its the record labels suing fans, not the bands, and that the record labels are looking to recoup their losses to copyright infringement on the few scapegoats hap-hazardly chosen from the masses. if it was a case of "okay, you've been caught, hand over the money"... "okay, here you go"... *hands over money for the 3 cd's he downloaded for a friend*... then i would be quite willing to co-operate. but that'd be honest, and more expensive, quite un-corporate. instead they sue for hundreds of thousands of *currency* to make up as much money as they can manage.

i suppose all the above is indicative of a flawed system. as a band, the last thing you want to be doing is hassling your fanbase for money that you're not getting anyway... i just question the higher level affiliations between the record companys, production companys, parent conglomorates and the policing services. i'd imagine the governments of the world are quite sympathetic to the industry that makes an extremely substantial amount of money, and has the ultmate influence on popular culture in society. you have large record companys paying for "britney spears 2.0" to keep us away from thinking about the real issues... like in the USA, and their laws about income tax, or lack of them... or in england, and their complete lack of understanding of how money is created (nobody knows the answer to a simple question - "where does money come from?").

i've probably missed stuff, but jus add to it when you feel free. :-)

The Principle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725207)

I break the law and download illegal music, movies and tv shows not because of anything to do with principles but because it's easy, I can, and I don't want to pay.

Not copyright, but invasive law. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27725293)

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 property" were vehicles to get these laws passed, if the vehicles disappear, the law remains, as does the drive towards totalitarianism. New vehicles will emerge, new totalitarian laws will get passed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?