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!

How RapidShare Plans To Avoid MegaUpload's Fate

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the easy-now dept.

Piracy 97

concealment writes "On November 27, RapidShare will start putting a tight cap on outbound downloads for its free users. Paid members will still have 30 gigabytes in outbound downloads per day, but everybody else will be capped at one gigabyte. The change is expected to further deter pirates from using RapidShare to distribute copyright material on a large scale."

cancel ×

97 comments

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

This sounds like a money grab (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029363)

Why would this reduce piracy more than it would reduce legitimate uses?

Re:This sounds like a money grab (5, Insightful)

kontos (560271) | about 2 years ago | (#42029461)

Probably wont, but it is win/win. They can "do something" about the pirates, and get a bump in revenue from the few pirates that will pay for an account to get around the restrictions.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029839)

Not exactly. Read this move carefully:

In the future RapidShare will use a classic hosting model which means that not only the storage space but also the traffic created will be paid solely by the owner of the file. The prices will not change. With RapidPro you automatically have unlimited traffic for your own downloads of your files and the downloads by your contacts. Additionally you have 30 GB public traffic per day. The recipients of your files have no download limitations whatsoever regardless of if they have RapidPro, a free account or no account at all! [rapidshare.com]

They're really limiting the total downloads of a file by people who aren't in your contacts list. So really you need to pay for an account and get other uploaders to add you to their contact list, otherwise you'll still get snocked trying to download other's files when they reach the daily cap.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#42030413)

I'm pretty sure the MPAA/RIAA expect more than a token effort. This won't stop them from having their government agents kick down your door.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#42039535)

I doubt very much that this will raise Rapidshare's revenue significantly. Nor do I think it will decrease "illegal" downloads significantly. You're just going to see less of them be HD (750MB rather than 1.5GB).

Of course, in the meantime we have this "6 strikes" plan that the ISPs have put together, which has been much delayed, and which they have seriously screwed up at least once. (Turns out their "independent" expert who signed off on the technology was formerly a lobbyist for Big Content, so now they have to do a complete re-review of the "technology" they plan to use.)

And even if/when they get that done, they will probably face multiple lawsuits, because it is in violation of a huge number of existing contracts.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029465)

It would. Pirates would just move to better file hosts. No one would bother putting up with this shit, especially not the uploaders.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029895)

What better file hosts are out there?

The ones left either make you jump through hoops and toss a ton of ads at you, or demand you have membership just to download, and the download membership has a limit unless you pay them.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031133)

...BitTorrent? I know it's not actually a host (more just a system to make you the host) but I've personally used torrents almost exclusively over the years for file sharing and never ran into the slightest hoops or hurdles. And I'm saying this for legal and, naturally, pirated files I've uploaded and downloaded.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#42032433)

...BitTorrent?

Fail. Try again.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032903)

I tend to look for gamefront, peejeeshare, hulkshare. They offer very good speeds, and are completely unobtrusive.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (3, Insightful)

beep54 (1844432) | about 2 years ago | (#42036381)

Uh, have you actually tried to use RS? It already seems as tho the interface was designed by insane, autistic children. For this alone, people have stopped using it in droves.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2)

Urban Garlic (447282) | about 2 years ago | (#42029489)

Conjecture on my part, but when you pay for an account, you give them some information, so that they can get their money. To a non-infringing free downloader, the cap is an inconvenience, and some fraction of them will be willing to pay to make it go away. To a copyright-infringing free downloader, paying to remove the cap requires them to identify, and possibly incriminate, themselves, so it's more of an obstacle.

This explanation is incomplete, of course, since presumably the uploader is also on the hook for copyright violation, and you have to register an account to upload anything (I think), but there are few uploaders and many downloaders, so the explanation above could still work on average.
 

Re:This sounds like a money grab (4, Informative)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#42029593)

This explanation is incomplete, of course, since presumably the uploader is also on the hook for copyright violation, and you have to register an account to upload anything (I think), but there are few uploaders and many downloaders, so the explanation above could still work on average.

Who registers accounts with real personal data?

This post brought to you by Mr. Jesus Christ, Downing Street 10, Washington DC, Russia.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029799)

Who registers accounts with real personal data?

This post brought to you by Mr. Jesus Christ, Downing Street 10, Washington DC, Russia.

One who needs some manner by which they can pay for that which they're registering. Did you miss the part about paying for more upload space/bandwidth, or do you seriously think RapidShare will accept payments via throwing a plain manila envelope full of unmarked bills off a bridge at 2am?

This post brought to you by leromarinvit, Slashdot user #1462031.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42029929)

prepaid credit card purchased with cash

Not paranoid enough (4, Informative)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#42031139)

Since they can probably:
1. Locate the retail card reseller from the account number
2. Cross-reference security video with receipt time stamp
3. Look up your license plate number or enhance your face

So make sure you walk or ride your bike, and maybe wear a fake mustache. In the future, all mustachioed cyclists will be suspected of piracy.

Re:Not paranoid enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42039347)

Dude, it's Movember - if you haven't got your real moustache mostly constructed by now, you might be in trouble ;-)

Re:This sounds like a money grab (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#42030063)

One who needs some manner by which they can pay for that which they're registering.

Prepaid VISA cards FTW - No one online gets my "real" contact info unless I need something physically shipped to me - And even then, I almost always have it shipped to my work address c/o my phone extension - Technically enough to ID me with two court orders (merchant and my employer), but good luck otherwise.


Did you miss the part about paying for more upload space/bandwidth, or do you seriously think RapidShare will accept payments via throwing a plain manila envelope full of unmarked bills off a bridge at 2am?

You do realize this conversation involves a company that used to (maybe they still do, haven't looked in years) accept payments through some sketchy Russian "bill it to your phone via SMS" processor, right?

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42030717)

Allow me to repeat what Lister king has already said:

PREPAID CREDIT CARD PURCHASED WITH CASH

It works.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

cavebison (1107959) | about a year ago | (#42052337)

Well, Rapidshare accepts PayPal, so that's at least one level of removal. If someone wanted to find out who that RS account belongs to, they'd have to go for IP address from RS, then go to the relevant ISP to get the customer details (good luck with that in most countries), or go to PayPal to get the c/card details of the payment. Not sure what PayPal's policy is on that - hopefully would require an actual subpoena (good luck with that).

Re:This sounds like a money grab (4, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42029809)

Who registers accounts with real personal data?

I *always* do, it's a matter of principle.

I know what you're thinking - YES, high school (and Jr. High for that matter) was a bitch for me, what with "Hey PISS this and PISS that..."

All I can say is that it made me a better person with thicker skin. This helped when I joined the military - Recruit PISS, Airman PISS, and finally, Sgt PISS...

But I used the GI Bill to get ahead, and all you asshats can now call me Professor PISS, if you want t decent grade. To my cook and maid and gardener, I'm Mr. PISS.

But my friends just call me Frosty P...

And I *NEVER* misrepresent my bona fides on line. Never.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2)

SkinnyChick (546560) | about 2 years ago | (#42029865)

Yes, I also always use my real information when registering on websites. Like you said, it's a matter of principle.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030003)

Who registers accounts with real personal data?

I don't want to play the "nothing to hide" card, but normal people do.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

alexhs (877055) | about 2 years ago | (#42032697)

This post brought to you by Mr. Jesus Christ, Downing Street 10, Washington DC, Russia.

Well, actually brought from Austria, and I'm sure eBay could tell us your real name and address :)
We might even know where you're bicycling once you will actually use that komoot account :)

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#42033343)

Right - but I wouldn't use the same name for Rapidshare if I were to create an account there, at least for any shady business. I think you can even find my real name from my usual nickname if you look hard enough, I don't particularly care about that.

Don't get your hopes up about komoot, I tried to use the Android app as a bicycle satnav, but it didn't work too well. OpenRouteService (with OsmAnd) is much better. :-)

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

lsulfate (1667537) | about 2 years ago | (#42037971)

Jesus, I think I know you. Is there a Libby in your past? Did Felix fly around your kitchen? If so, it's me, Green Lantern. Directly reachable at tothrowaway at gmail.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#42029611)

Woops I downloaded asdf.zip [AES 256-bit encrypted] from a link on [random site] using RS, I'm sorry I didn't know it was a copy of the latest bond movie judge.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029657)

Well, if you pay for account, doesn't that make it legal to download?

I assume, as shown by the Megaupload case, the *IAA/USA government would take them down in no time if it was illegal.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

lgw (121541) | about 2 years ago | (#42030471)

To a copyright-infringing free downloader, paying to remove the cap requires them to identify, and possibly incriminate, themselves, so it's more of an obstacle.

Is downloading somehow copyright-infringing now? That would make little sense, but then sense and copyright parted ways long ago.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030585)

In many countries it has *always* been infringing - USA for instance. You're getting a copy of a movie you didn't pay for. In most the countries where it's not infringing, you're paying for it through taxes on burnable media like CDs and DVDs, some countries have proposed adding taxes to your internet connection, etc.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#42031029)

Of course it makes no sense, but that doesn't stop some people from falling for the RIAA/MPAA FUD.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42030691)

The flaw in your theory, is that no one has been convicted of DOWNLOADING stuff like this, to my knowledge. It's the people who SHARE that get raped by RIAA and their ilk. All of those huge settlement cases we've read about involved UPLOADING. So many people fail to understand that torrents and other P2P clients upload and download at the same time, unless you dick around in the settings.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (5, Interesting)

bfandreas (603438) | about 2 years ago | (#42029981)

It might be a money grab. But riddle me this, holy Antisharkspray.
Legit services will do this to you:

Steam will cut you off of your sizeable and paid for and possibly extensive games library simply for moving into another region.
Amazon will cut you off of your whole Kindle library simply for moving into another region.

This is not even for real but only contractual law since publishing rights still honour the outmoded notion of country borders.
Would you accept if you were to move to Europe to forfeit everything you ever bought on Kindle, Steam, or any other sevice?

Copyright stuff has moved beyond the usual 100 years after creator's death + Disney shenanigans into the crazy realm of publishing rights into however the world got carved up into publishing rights areas.

I for one have deDRMed my whole Kindle-bought Batman collection just in case I might want to move away and if I put it onto Rapidshare just to protect my investment then it shouldn't be viewed as outlawnessnessitude but a failure of copyright law. Took me a whole weekend. Which in turn made me realise I spend too much on Batman.
Also, Batman.
Copyrightpublisherlaw shouldn't stand a chance of a snowball in hell but it instead thrives like The Penguin in Nomansland. How come?
Comply?
COMPLY!

Sorry, try as I might, the pirates offer the better service.

While I deDRMed my Batman collection I went on search for my favourite childhood radio show. Amazon had an offer for the first 4 shows of 40. The second episode cost 30€ from "affiliiates". Nada, zip, zilch for the next 36 episodes. So I went for another online shop. Same misery, less cutthroat. 36 episodes not published. And even if they were, it still would have been 10€ per episode. Pay 400€ for stuff I recorded from radio to tape as a kid? I could afford that but guess who took to Teh Mighty Internets to torrent that stuff from kids who managed to have backups of their old tapes? Worse even still, the originals got lost and they tried to restore it from amateurs who still had recordings in their attic.


Current copyright reality is worse than the fire in the Library of Alexandria. Copy that floppy and shoot a lawyer.

I beg of you, just because somebody carved up the world into publishing areas and only stuff that will offer short term yield will get archived(read: put into the back catalogue) copy the hell out of that stuff. Future generations will thank you.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (4, Interesting)

jovius (974690) | about 2 years ago | (#42030309)

Incidentally by the way, at the modern Library of Alexandria resides the mirror of the Internet Archive.

You are not alone in commenting about the service. Valve's Gabe Newell has said "In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem."

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42037689)

Yep. Except when in some parts of the world almost always the problem is both, a service problem and a pricing problem.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030533)

Feh, worse, steam cut me off all my games because I won't agree to their Arbitration Contract. Of course, they will say I could have offlined them all before it, but I guess it's my fault for assuming they'd be decent people and let you get the games and leave if you don't like the new contract?

It's like bringing my car in for warranty work and the dealer saying "Oh, by the way, we need you to sign this so that warranty work issues don't go to court, but instead to arbitration. You don't like it? We'll just be keeping the car then. Don't like that? Why didn't you get the car back BEFORE we asked, hmmm?"

I agreed in the end so I can download my games, but steam won't see another cent from me.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (5, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about 2 years ago | (#42032173)

Steam will cut you off of your sizeable and paid for and possibly extensive games library simply for moving into another region.
Amazon will cut you off of your whole Kindle library simply for moving into another region.

It gets worse than that. I was on vacation in Germany last month, and had a couple extra hours to kill at the hotel one night. So I fired up my Amazon Prime account to watch some movies on Amazon instant video. Not authorized in the area. Same with Netflix and Hulu.

I had to run an SSH proxy through one of my web hosting servers to trick these services into thinking I was still in the U.S., but very few people know how to and have the resources to do that. This whole anachronistic distribution and publishing rights by region has got to die. I try to be a legit customer, paying for my movies and music. But if this is what's going to happen, I'm ripping everything I buy and making my own copies regardless of what silly laws they get passed. If I can't bypass the DRM, I'm downloading the pirated version of my legitimately bought media.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

cavebison (1107959) | about a year ago | (#42052405)

Yep, and then there's free-to-air TV. If I want to watch Batman Begins or whatever with NO ADS, I can either record it from the TV - which is perfectly legal - or I can download it and watch it - which is somehow illegal, even though it's exactly the same thing.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

mug funky (910186) | about 2 years ago | (#42037003)

i concur, having worked tirelessly to restore a beloved series that had it's masters destroyed decades ago in a fit of lack-of-foresight. bootleggers are all we have sometimes. people who have the courage to, when presented with a reel of film and instructed to burn it, will keep the reel and say "it's burnt".

btw, it wasn't Doctor Who.

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

mgcarley (735176) | about 2 years ago | (#42046059)

Legit services will do this to you:

Steam will cut you off of your sizeable and paid for and possibly extensive games library simply for moving into another region.
Amazon will cut you off of your whole Kindle library simply for moving into another region.

You forgot Apple.

Otherwise I'm in full agreement - this is why I keep "spare" copies of everything I buy digitally and/or will probably support Mega when it comes out.

I have 3 bloody Apple accounts right now that I've used in 3 different countries I've lived in over the last few years. As a result I get emails from Apple in 3 languages about the same 3 shitty (but pretty) products every time there's a new release. (Yes, I have a reason to keep those coming in).

Happy to compensate artists - and yes, even publishers - for their work but FFS the distribution mechanisms just aren't suited for increasingly mobile people like myself who now, as it happens, lives in a country where the services we've mentioned aren't even bloody well available to me anymore anyway (no Netflix, no Hulu, no Spotify, no nothing... except Reliance BigFlix which is, let's say, extremely poor - and doesn't have ANYTHING I'm even remotely interested in, and the foreign content it does have is... limited).

This, despite me having valid payment credentials for the countries where the services and content I want *are* available. Except HBO Go when I'm in NZ but that's another story.

So, dear lawyers, please realize that my IP address doesn't always correlate with my residence permit, citizenship or sometimes both, and that by disallowing me access to something I've paid for a license to watch or listen to, you're making an incorrect assumption about who I am. So damn well let me listen to it otherwise I have no choice but to download the stuff I've paid for through "alternate channels" and if the publishers want to accuse me of piracy then they may find me replying with some variant of "stick it up your arse" or "gfy".

Re:This sounds like a money grab (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42030037)

Why would this reduce piracy more than it would reduce legitimate uses?

It probably won't make the slightest difference to either group. Legitimate users are likely to pay anyway. And savvier kids have been streaming video and music, or using peer to peer, for a long time. Not all do, as evidenced by megaupload's downfall, but they're quick learners when it comes to downloading stuff on the web.

Is it just me... (1)

hubang (692671) | about 2 years ago | (#42029369)

Or does this seem like a way to punish free users and play a victim card at the same time.

"It's not us doing it to try and force people into paid plans. It's... um... pirates?"

Re:Is it just me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029475)

Not to mention it does jack shit to actually protect them from liability. The law doesn't say it's okay to pirate "this much" material and you're okay. If you pirate at all you're liable. If their business support piracy, no matter the amount thereof, they will be taken down as well. It's simply a matter of time.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#42032095)

Not to mention it does jack shit to actually protect them from liability. The law doesn't say it's okay to pirate "this much" material and you're okay. If you pirate at all you're liable. If their business support piracy, no matter the amount thereof, they will be taken down as well. It's simply a matter of time.

Just like the roads will be shut down if any amount of criminals drive on them, right? The law doesn't prevent you from selling goods and services that a criminal could use in furtherance of a crime, in that case you probably couldn't sell a tooth pick without going to jail. It's only when something is popular with criminals and rare among lawful citizens they start reacting. It doesn't matter how much The Pirate Bay and Google are both search engines in principle, in practical reality one is going to get bothered by law enforcement and the other not. Rapidshare wants to point at their actual user composition - not just a few puff pieces for appearance - and say most of our users aren't pirates, we're not catering to pirates, in fact we've tried discouraging pirates from using our service and if some choose to use it anyway, well it's not our fault.

The other practical reality - which also has very little to do with the law as such - is that Rapidfire doesn't want to be the worst in the class. Both because it means they're less likely to be singled out for the next Megaupload-style raid and if they are, they can with some legitimacy question why us, there's many other sites worse than us so why are you harassing us? Personally I think Rapidshare is playing it very wise, they've been challenged in court several times now and won while staying in business and as far as I know making money. Why risk it chasing that extra business? There's always some file hosting company willing to go further and possibly tip over into illegality, let someone else push the limits while you stick on the semi-established border of legal.

rapidshare the geoshitties. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42029371)

look, if I could go with limited caps( AND CENSORING) why the fuck would I be putting it on rapidshare in the first place ?

sounds to me that even dropbox has the drop-kick on rapidshare now(I always thought that rapidshares waiting system for free downloads looked and felt like shit too - by the way if you've already removed the fucking file don't fucking show those wait dialogs to users, it just pisses them off).

Rapidshare will die soon (2)

aglider (2435074) | about 2 years ago | (#42029381)

30GB/day is really ridiculous for a paid service, unless there's some other larger plan. I mean, legal downloads ... Just imagine a 100 MB application/movie being downloaded 300 times a day ... it's either a toy or something it won't interest anyone.

Get your own web site (2)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42029739)

If you are the author of a 100 MB application or a 100 MB movie, why are you using RapidShare in the first place? You could just get a domain and get some $7/mo hosting plan that claims "Unlimited Bandwidth!!!111" like Go Daddy's.

Re:Get your own web site (3, Insightful)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 2 years ago | (#42029885)

Some roms from my android tablet are 300-400 MB and are hosted on rapidshare.

Why host Android ROMs on RS? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42030207)

I'll assume that by "ROMs", you mean community-made Android system images like CyanogenMod, not infringing copies of classic video games. But why are they hosted on RapidShare as opposed to hosting them on a site dedicated to Android system images?

Re:Why host Android ROMs on RS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030843)

Yeah he's talking about those kinds of roms, game roms are tiny. And I imagine it's because it's a free way to offload a ton of large downloads.

Who cares? (4, Funny)

leromarinvit (1462031) | about 2 years ago | (#42029451)

Please wait 1 minute to read this comment.

Re:Who cares? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#42031603)

JDownloader is the program I use to automate downloading from filehosts.
You still have to type in the CAPTCHA (if required), but everything else happens automagically.

Mipony and Orbit Downloader are also legit.

I don't like pr0n... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029457)

I Love It!

Long live file hosting! Fuck yeah! RIP Megaupload/Filesonic/Oron!

One gig? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029463)

So their site WON''T be useful for those extreme large patch and legit f2p game install downloads anymore.
Got it. Ignore rapidshare.

Plus if i see an ad for them ever i'll just hosts file block their entire site. And nothing of value will be lost.

kimdotcom might be a scumbag criminal... but he's about the only one on the side of the internet.
Everyone else will cut and run.

Re:One gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030145)

The above post brought to you by a whiny, I demand bits to be free, bitch.

If you find a service useful, pay for it!

Re:One gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030425)

The above post brought to you by a spoiled entitled little twit who thinks they should get paid just for getting up in the morning.

If that service is useful and or popular. Someone else will do it for free because they enjoy doing it and want it to continue and grow and get better. How do you think ALL of these sites got started?

What is the true value of something that can be replicated perfectly. Endlessly. For near zero cost?

Re:One gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030515)

Talk about a spoiled entitled little hippie free love down with TheMan(tm) no one can own anything twit who feeds off mommas teet while living in her basement.

Re:One gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030521)

Above post brought to you by reading comprehension FAIL. GP was advising GGP to pay for a filesharing service if he finds it useful. If you like rapidshare, pay for it. Get a paid account. GP's post did not talk about piracy or music or anything close to that.

Re:One gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42041663)

So their site WON''T be useful for those extreme large patch and legit f2p game install downloads anymore.

WTF? Like those aren't available from the creator of said game's site (which isn't an RS host, btw)...

If it isn't illegal and there is no other way, torrent the damn thing.

1 gigabyte caps (1)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#42029469)

It sounds to me like this is designed to prevent people from downloading HD-quality movies. In the old days, you could click, wait your sixty seconds and then start the download, and a half-hour later have your movie.

I guess their policy of policing music blogs is assumed to take care of the music piracy.

Either way, as the article pointed out, these changes are to keep the regulators happy, more than they are designed to actually curb piracy.

For example, a blogspot music blog that uses a URL redirector should be OK from these new restrictions.

Re:1 gigabyte caps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029859)

Announcements like this also give the site some more profile in newssites (such as slashdot) , and have a added benefit of driving a certain (probably fairly small, but still noticeable) amount of their users to paid subscriptions.

The majority of pirates pay. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029491)

I have never, ever met someone who uses Rapidshare extensively for piracy who wasn't a paying customer. It's mostly useless if you don't pay.

I admit, I don't understand this at all.

Re:The majority of pirates pay. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#42029803)

I'm surprised that RS has any momentum left. The original "Rapids" debacle was what, three years ago? Why would anyone still bother to pay for their service after all that has happened since then?

It's has already been the case for some time that you never RS links at the two web hotspots beloved of for-profit uploaders... personal blogs and forums that allow anonymous browsing. RS is apparently content to kick out all the pirates and get by with a fraction of their former traffic.

Re:The majority of pirates pay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029919)

RS has no captcha, you can set downloads in motion and they'll arrive quite swiftly too, sans any intervention on the behalf of the user, which is true of hardly any other hoster. This is with using a program like JDownloader to automate the process, of course. RS very definitely stood above the competition here.

A fine tradition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029553)

Rapidshare continues to make its own service worse; what a shocking development!

FTFY (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 years ago | (#42029679)

"The change is expected to further deter non-paying pirates from using RapidShare to distribute copyright material on a large scale."

FTFY.

Follow the money (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42029767)

FTFY.

Does this stand for "follow the [expletive] yen"? The idea is that payment requires handing over personally identifying information that could incriminate a habitual infringer.

Re:Follow the money (1)

Kergan (780543) | about 2 years ago | (#42029909)

FTFY.

Does this stand for "follow the [expletive] yen"? The idea is that payment requires handing over personally identifying information that could incriminate a habitual infringer.

Or, it'll merely lead to hapless citizens whose ID and credit card details were stolen.

Re:Follow the money (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#42029939)

Or an increase in sale of prepaid credit "gift" cards.

Re:FTFY (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 2 years ago | (#42038023)

There would be an easier way to do that: reintroduce the kitty captcha for non-paying users.

This might be a really good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029757)

Rapidshare is still very well known. They probably also have some of the best infrastructure.

What drives advertisement? Users. Preferably, unique users.

If you can position yourself as someone for hosting "small files", and can leverage the brand name and recognition to become the preferred hosting provider for small files, then that can mean that you lose one guy who downloads 10GB of .iso files, but gain a hundred guys who download 100MB videos.

Of course, what's a good idea for Rapidshare might be a bad idea for those who want to download 10GB of .iso files. But in that case you should probably be using BitTorrent.

Re:This might be a really good idea. (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#42030047)

There are legit uses for the download sites. I pay and keep a membership with one because it offers links which are one-click downloads for the receivers. This I use for an acting troupe I'm in to store documents, as well as MP3 files of presentations. Yes, I could use YouTube, but for something which is intended only for a private group, I much rather have it in a place where I control, so I can respect the wishes of the presenters. With the downloads only coming from one authorized site that I have access to, I can pretty much guarentee that their stuff only stays within the group, and nowhere else, barring someone else divulging links.

Yes, I could host them from my domain's web page, but that means I would have to get off my duff, actually spin up a Web server, point DNS at it, and create a Web presence, as opposed to just using the domain for E-mail as I do now.

Re:This might be a really good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42037289)

it offers links which are one-click downloads for the receivers.

Plus a one-minute mandatory wait, plus ads, plus membership nagging.

Just to download your stupid file. Thanks!

Re:This might be a really good idea. (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 2 years ago | (#42044625)

If one is a paid user, there is no mandatory wait for people to download uploaded items. However, if one had a free user account, there is one.

For what they provide, the subscription fee is worth it, since there are no ads for downloaders.

Yes, it is a no brainer to spin up an Apache server, but for the same functionality, I can have the files hosted on a faster pipe for far less money and time.

the fate of megaupload (0)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 years ago | (#42029883)

was not determined by the number of pirates it supported. Megaupload failed because it did not have a system in place to hand kickbacks to the cartels (the RIAA and MPAA respectively.)
rapidshare needs to create a system by which they pay the protection racket. if not, expect a few busted windows and broken signs.
kims model differs substantially in that not only does he refuse to pay blood money, he has decided to flat-out intrude on the cartels stamping ground with his own digital content distribution system. If you want a war, kim has a war. if you just want content sharing and upload sites, try EC3 or dreamhost objects. and if you want to see rapidshare step face-first into the same bear trap kim just extricated himself from, just wait.

What fate are they speaking of? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42029989)

Megaupload died because they were creating a service that was actually a threat to the music industry, so much so that they pulled some strings and got some people to bring back some dirt on Kims past to try use it to attack him. (TWICE at that, they took down his new site without it even being involved in ANY file sharing at all, highly illegal in BOTH of the countries involved!)

And the more stuff discovered about how they fucked with the legal system, the more and more I want to ban every American IP from ever accessing anything I run until they fix their damn legal system.
Of course, doing that will solve nothing because Americans are too lazy to give a damn about how wrecked their country is. (especially all those whiners who use that stupid .gov website crying about change and sitting on their asses doing nothing!)
Seriously, fix your shit. Don't even reply, do.

No content worth anything on Rapidshare (2, Insightful)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about 2 years ago | (#42030045)

If I come across content that is served by Rapidshare, I don't bother getting it because its usually not worth the effort to try and get something off that POS service.

Seriously, BitTorrent is more then adequate to share both legit and illegal content without BS pay walls and content throttling. Why anybody uses RapidShare or MegaUpload to share content in this day and age speaks to a group of ex-geeks that were relevant back in the early 90's but haven't learned or done anything new since then. its like people that share files using RAR to break them into a thousand pieces because of old Usenet group limitations, absolutely no point to do that in this day an age of broadband and torrent services.

RapidShare and other file download services are like AOL where the last few remnants of old-school geeks and vapid Luddites still believe they need some kind of portal to access web content at a time when torrent and cloud services has become the most prevalent way to share any content.

Re:No content worth anything on Rapidshare (1)

Cito (1725214) | about 2 years ago | (#42030215)

Yea personally I use newsgroups (My local telco VDSL service still offers free newsgroup access with up to 5 simultaneous downloads at once), I use torrents, kat.ph/thepiratebay.se/h33t.com or other private/pseudo-private sites.

And for some smaller stuff like ebooks, some latest and greatest apps that haven't hit torrent yet, I can find them on Tor darknet on a .onion site usually a day or 2 before they wind up on the mass torrent sites.

newsgroups also have some rare shit you wont get on torrents like on demand stuff, for example shitty howard stern tv on demand uploads to newsgroups within 5 to 10 minutes after it airs on tv. But rarely latest episodes ever show up on torrent.

So that's what newsgroups is good for, mainly for fast access to on demand, pay per view stuff within minutes after it airs.

I liked megaupload when I'd use the ICE script from icefilms.info to stream movies in the browser using divx plugin or vlc media player which I mainly used for television shows and used torrents for HD movies.

but now I just have my RSS downloader setup on my torrent program to auto download my favorite shows to my media server then I stream them over the LAN to my Western Digital WDTV Live set top box on my television.

Re:No content worth anything on Rapidshare (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 2 years ago | (#42030383)

Third world and not-so-third world countries have crappy ISPs that block torrents, or similar P2P stuff.
A few years ago, in Argentina, several ISPs did this, and rapidshare/megaupload gained a lot of users. Nowdays, no ISP blocks p2p (except in small towns perhaps), but users are still used to file sharing sites, and huge communities have grown around them.

Re:No content worth anything on Rapidshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031209)

Rapidshare is extremely slick, no bullshit captchas or any of those other hoops. literally click the link, click save to my computer, it is downloading. that is it.

Re:No content worth anything on Rapidshare (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 2 years ago | (#42031319)

I'm under the impression that Rapidshare has the advantage of limited legal liability over Bittorrent, as downloading has not been prosecuted, only uploading.

Re:No content worth anything on Rapidshare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032645)

Dude, Rapidshare is direct http. On Rogers here In Canada, I can Rapidshare (premium member) at 5MB/s, no lies. I could never get those speeds with torrents. Think before you post.

Pointless... (1)

Covalent (1001277) | about 2 years ago | (#42030175)

...since charges of piracy are so ridiculously inflated. If you download the discography of your favorite musician, that's usually under 1GB and can contain hundreds of songs. Each one of those violations could come down on RapidShare's head. So just one user using one day's worth of bandwidth is enough "piracy" to end RapidShare.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030187)

"Paid members will still have 30 gigabytes in outbound downloads per day, but everybody else will be capped at one gigabyte. The change is expected to increase profit from pirates using RapidShare to distribute copyright material on a large scale."

FTFY. They're not deterring piracy, they're just deterring free piracy.

Is it possible to download that much in a day? (1)

jandrese (485) | about 2 years ago | (#42030209)

Last time I used Rapidshare as a free user the download was throttled to some absurdly slow rate (5-10kbps IIRC). Also, you were limited to 1 download at a time and there was a 30 minute window between downloads. Downloading a gigabyte in a day over that kind of connection should be rewarded, not punished. Someone had to work really hard to get those bits.

Re:Is it possible to download that much in a day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031003)

It's currently capped at 30 kB/s for me (free user). There's no waiting and no captcha either. So, while it is slow, it is easy to queue up rapidshare downloads in jdownloader, walk away and come back hours/days/weeks later when it's finished.

The only real change this has is that, at 30 kB/s, you will hit your 1 GB daily cap in just under 10 hours. So this effectively reduces your overall throughput to about 12 kB/s. So it will be roughly 60% slower (i.e. take 60% more time) for free users than it is today.

Like I said though, it is already so slow that the "got to have it now" crowd quit using rapidshare a long time ago anyway, so I'm unsure what real effect this will have.

Another thing rapidshare seems to be doing is checking and removing (illegal) downloads that generate a lot of traffic. Either that or they have become much better at responding to DMCA takedown requests. The life of a popular illegal download on rapidshare is fairly short now. With some downloads you are lucky if they are there even 2 days after posting. This is something I've just begun noticing in the last month or so. This seems to only affect new posts. Old illegal posts that no longer get that burst of traffic that a new post does seem OK.

So combine short time to live on files with long download times and they may have a combination that deters its use for illegal purposes, but also probably for legal purposes too.

Re:Is it possible to download that much in a day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42031037)

To my understanding, the limit is 1gig upload per account. Meaning if you have a single 100MB file, only 10 people could download it in a day. It's not a user download limit, but an upload limit for stored files associated with an account.

Detering pirates (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 2 years ago | (#42030353)

The change is expected to further deter everyone from using RapidShare.

Legal != profitable (1)

synir (731266) | about 2 years ago | (#42030947)

Another question is how far their revenue will drop from now on. Sure, the chance of being sued is likely to be reduced, but so is the probability of their actual user base shrinking - including paying customers.

Looking the other way on what was rather commonly known as a piracy haven might have been a great deal more profitable than the company realizes (or, perhaps, simply more than they fear). Once the content's no longer there neither will users.

They are going to be a legitimate service (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42030981)

and not a site that was dedicated for piracy.

Color me shocked.

Won't save them (3, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42031207)

The example of Megaupload showed that you don't actually have to be convicted. An accusation is enough to ruin a business.

30 gigabytes in outbound downloads per day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42032487)

Sure, I'll happily pay RapidShare so that I can go through 85.7% of my ISP's monthly cap in a single day.

NOT!

What I want to see is... (2)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 years ago | (#42034433)

What I want to see is a site similar to Rapidshare or Megaupload or MediaFire that uses client-side encryption (even the actual name of the file would be part of the opaque blob). Heck, build a system (presumably using a cypher that is designed to be good with random seeking in the file if such a cypher exists) that can play videos in the client (where the video player would take the key as input and decrypt on the fly). So like YouTube except that the hosting provider never sees the content and is unable to pre-screen it.

So without the key all you get is some kind of ID for the file (just start at 0 or 1 and keep going up) and an opaque AES encrypted blob.

Harder for the media companies to send take-down notices (as they would be unable to use their regular automated system and would have to have a human manually find the decryption key for the content in whichever blog post, forum post or other location the link itself was found in.

Re:What I want to see is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42034937)

What I want to see is a site similar to Rapidshare or Megaupload or MediaFire that uses client-side encryption (even the actual name of the file would be part of the opaque blob)

Kim Dotcom's new project "Mega" does exactly that. You upload a file, the client encrypts in and you get your key and a link. You have the option to share both, but Mega doesn't know what it is that you uploaded and thus is not responsible. They are also avoiding US jurisdiction, so -if I were him- I'd avoid the word "DMCA" on the site. Just to re-inforce that there is a world outside of the US and that world is getting sick and tired of being bullied, especially New Zealand.

File host information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42037693)

It's an attempt to deter file link generator websites. Sites like olget.com, filesnappy.com, etc.

Its almost funny, I pay less for 6 mo of olget then rapidshare.com yet I get over 30+ hosts, including rapidshare. But I imagine the hosts at rapidshare.com must see some accounts transferring terabytes/day out of paid accounts and fume. Anyways, rapidshare.de and rapidshare.com in old-school days were bandwidth capped.

Rapidgator.net is all the rage, Depositfiles too. They have crazy retention, I guess they just don't respond to DMCA requests. Direct downloading has become superior to torrents, but the private torrent sites are still good quality. A bigger concern in the near future is if aggregation sites like warez-bb go offline.

I haven't used rapidshare for a while (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42038043)

But it was quite useful back in the day. Now this cap hurts legitimate users just as badly as any pirate. I think this is as good as a suicide move from rapidshare, there might be no pirates left using it after this (even the paid 30GB/day is laughably little). But there'll be noone else left using it either. So bybye ad-incomes. Honestly I don't see any use for a file host that limits its download to 1GB, 1GB is not even considered to be that much data anymore.

As for bittorrent as an alternative I don't think it is one. Bittorrent needs a tracker, and while there are open trackers that you can use to upload everything. But then you would have to seed the damned data from your own computer 24/7, until there are enough seeds to take over (assuming there'll ever be enough, because most users on open trackers just hit and run) While on the other hand with a file host, you can upload the file and forget it.

Good move (1)

johnwerneken (74428) | about 2 years ago | (#42038257)

I am rather opposed to the idea that there even is such a thing as "intellectual property", with one exception: commercial and competitive use without payment: that seems unwise for all of us in the long run (I HATE fairness it's a devil theory, but. Not being reciprocal in important i.e. Survival or business related matters-that violates whatever - common sense, the Golden Rule, the Commandment, The US Constitution, and/or whatever few actually legitimate statutes as may exist).

2 GB/day might be better; maybe sometimes we have a fat iso or two videos to share under our personal interpretation of fair use. After all, what we want to do is what we do do; what we do do is what we think is right; what we think is right is what we ought to do; – all we really might get better at it starting with the right step, what we think is rightso my interpretation of any law IS the law as far as I care. Because if I do it, it’s clear just from that that though I have preferences as to the consequences, the consequences cannot change my preferences as to what I will do next. End of rant.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>