Slashdot Mirror
Germany's RIAA Sues Rapidshare - YouTube Next?
Hermel writes "The GEMA (Germany's RIAA) obtained a temporary injunction against 'one-click-hoster' Rapidshare.com. If their lawsuit is successful, the GEMA intends to use it as a beachhead against their next targets, including Youtube and MySpace. From the article: 'According to GEMA, the service ... has at times boasted of making some 15 million files available to its users. The operator had however failed to obtain from GEMA a license for making copyright protected files available ... Through its injunctions the District Court in Cologne had now made it clear to the company that the fact that it was the users and not the operator of the services that uploaded the content onto the sites did not, from a legal point of view, lessen the operator's liability for copyright infringements that occurred within the context of the services, the spokesman added.'"
This makes me wonder whether services like these are a good idea. Aren't they somewhat liable to stuff like this? I've seen them remove illegal content, but sometimes it's on their servers for a long while...
"Let's face it, it's a good story. Accuracy would kill it."
1) Create crappy copyrighted material
2) Upload my crappy copyrighted material to every website that allows anonymous posting
3) Sue every website uploaded to
4) Profit!
The next best things since torrents is going to leave! What will /s/, /y/, and /h/ do?
After all, we know the ONLY place to upload our pr0n and such is rapidshare, a membership-supported host!
some people might disagree with your choice of terminology.
I see nothing wrong with five meals a day
Shutting down a whole hosting service like Rapidshare is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The burden for copyright abuse complaints should be on the music/movie/etc. lawyers to file complaints about abuses. This is what they do for many hundreds of other hosts, why noy for Rapidshare?
is anyone suprised? I can see how having some temporary storage for files that is totally anonymous *may* have some legit uses occasionally, but if you allow people to anonymously upload any content to a site for free, and other people pay a monthly subscription to download multiple files up to 100MB a time, is *anyone* even remotely suprised when 99% of the content is illegally shared content?
Rapidshare can remove content on a whim, it's no use for anything thats really vital. Webspace is now trivially cheap, and so is bandwidth. If you need to share big binary files, setting up an ftp server or a website is trivial. The only real market for rapidshare that I can think of is illegal content, and it's no suprise to find so much of it there. Every software, movie and game site that is trading illegal software has dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of rapidshare links.
This was inevitable.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
...depends on the order in which your pursue them. It's lucky that law isn't based on anything like logic where the order of facts makes no difference to whether or not they are true.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Germany's Recording Industry Association of America!? How is that even possible? Or do you mean Germany's equivalent of the RIAA?
From what I understand, the GEMA is funded by individual artists and composers, not major record labels like the RIAA. I wonder how many of their members agree with this lawsuit...
Rapidshare is simply a host that you don't have to pay for (except through viewing ads). It is essentially like any pay-for-host that allows you to post stuff on, junk, music, whatever. Pay-for-hosts don't have the obligation to scan all your files for music, now do they? If someone believes a copyrighted file is illegally located on their server, then the complainer has to file a written formal, legal complaint and send it to the host. I don't get why this kind of model shouldn't work for Rapidshare.
i wonder what will happen if Rapidshare will shoutdown cuz theres alot of Warez communitys that uses Rapidshare to upload warez, i think they need to find another good upload host lol
GEMA=Nazis... just like the RIAA...
Except that it's Germany's version of Nazis.
No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
Like Falco Kraftwerk, and Rammstein?
How dare they!
The GEMA is by no means Germany's RIAA, more like Germany's ASCAP. It's a society that collects licensing fees for distributed and broadcasted music on behalf of the creators (but, as in this case, can also act on its own if it thinks that due fee payments are being evaded). The closest thing to a German RIAA would be the national section of the IFPI.
So with the same logic, could they also sue the ISPs involved, and in fact any nodes in between?
Rapidshare and similar sites are set up as simply temporary holding places --- tubes, if you will --- that allow users to send files from one to another.
This really again brings up the question of what should constitute a "common carrier", where do the boundaries start and end? Yes, Rapidshare is offering harddrive space, but every node in between is also carrying packets that contain copyrighted data. On the other hand, since sites like Rapidshare don't have big lists of hosted files, people don't usually download the distributed content until a link is posted in a forum or blog. So in a sense Rapidshare could itself be considered simply a carrier. I guess one difference is that it actually has a copy of the whole file at once, whereas a node only carries parts of the file, and (supposedly) is not actually examining the content. (Neither is Rapidshare though, even though it would be easier to do so.) Still, how and where should the line between "carrier" and "hosting service" be drawn?
For example, why is it that torrent sites can be sued, when they aren't even hosting the file?
Whereas Rapidshare _is_ hosting the file, but relying on outside media to provide access to it.
the GEMA cannot be compared to the RIAA. While the RIAA is mostly an industry organisation, the GEMA is a representation of the artists. Not that it doesn't suffer the same delusions of grandeur the RIAA does, but at least the money paid to the GEMA really ends up in the pocket of the artists. And the fees the GEMA requests are pennys compared to the invoices the RIAA sends out.
Regards, Martin
Before I explain the difference, I should acknowledge that many Slashdotters have equal disdain for anybody in the music business who tries to assert their rights. For example, we normally state that we're in favor of the artists and that we think artists should have more rights, money, and respect, but when the BMI or ASCAP (US performing rights agencies run by and for artists and wholly unrelated to the RIAA) sue businesses for playing music without a royalty, Slashdotters bring out the hatred equal to that of the RIAA. So, if "RIAA" is shorthand for "anybody in the music industry who tries to interfere with the free (as in beer AND speech) distribution of music", then yeah, GEMA is like the RIAA, but it's still important to understand the difference.
Here's what GEMA is about, in English. Like BMI and ASCAP, they're a society of composers, lyricists and music publishers.
I believe (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) that the actual German equivalent of the RIAA -- that is, the trade group representing record companies -- is the IFPA.
With all the ire at GEMA's actions, I think the message here is clear: as covered above, we all respect the musicians, and we want them to have more money, rights, and respect. But only on our terms. If they take legal actions or otherwise demand more money, rights, or respect -- in other words, if they simply get too uppity -- then they're on equal moral grounds as the RIAA et al.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Some think copyrights should be defended at the expense of file sharing sites while others think that its up to the copyright holders to defend their rights and request content be removed.
The only trouble with both of these ideas is that they rely on a broken process or standard. When paper based products and other media that could not be easily created at home were the carriers of such copyrighted content, these arguments made sense. They no longer make sense. In one way or another, both lead to preposterous conclusions that leave one group or another in a state of loss.
If copyright holders were to imprint their copyright on the content in some way, it could clearly be argued that file sharing services should remove this content upon detection or request for removal. That currently is not the situation, so while the copyright owners do nothing to provide easier protection for their work, there is not much that can be done to help them without offending the rights of others.
There has been work to implant 'finger prints' in audio and video files that would have to be stripped out. This would make it difficult for the average joe to use copyrighted works without being told they are copyrighted. It would also make it easy for file sharing sites to automatically remove content containing listed copyright 'finger prints'.
As far as I can see, its up to copyright holders to make an effort to provide this type of method of protecting their works, or they get what they deserve.. more or less. If you don't chain your bicycle to the rack, don't complain when someone steals it. Oh sure, you can still complain, but you should expect it to be stolen if you don't lock it up. I am reasonably certain that insurance companies are not going to give artists insurance if they don't do something to help prevent continued abuse, just like they don't give you a break if you total a car every year.
NOTE: This is not a suggestion of using DRM, rather it is a suggestion that a copyright notice be embedded in the content.
On the one hand, I see their point. On the other hand all I can hear is them whining. They need to make an effort to get the respect they want. Simply suing is not the right way.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
So, once again. The state of research on the effects of file-sharing.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Hey I'm on Slashdot.. and Slashdot loves analogies, right ?
What if I'm in a hardware store, and I use a chainsaw to cut someone in half. Am I guilty of murder, or is the hardware store guilty of allowing me to misuse its goods and services ?
What if I'm on some website, and I use its resources to commit criminal acts. Am I guilty of said act, or is the website guilty of allowing its resources ?
I don't give a flying toaster about how lawyers will try to bend the facts... it seems pretty obvious to me. Does Lexus get named in lawsuits involving drug busts ? Because their cars seem to be quite loved by high-end coke runners, and it could be argued that having a vehicle facilitates the couriering of illicit substances, just like a file backup web site facilitates the couriering of illicit data.
Hell, sue the post office while you're at it. Last I heard, you could buy weed online and have it shipped across the continent right to your mailbox. What the hell?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
At some point, an artist makes the choice to have their music managed by the RIAA, and those made into copyrighted, not-to-be-shared-without-being-properly-licensed recordings. I'm guessing that the advertising the RIAA does for artists they think can be successful is the driving force behind musicians still using them.
Musicians can get a loan and have a high-quality studio recording made of their music. With the internet, they can attempt to market it, and with the new music sites and the ubiquity of the internet, they might even get noticed. But noticed by who? Venues like to see you draw a crowd. How do you become a megastar without radio airplay, music videos, etc? I suppose you can get on the radio by popular opinion (enough calls to the radio stations by your fans), but getting airplay on MTV (do they still play videos?) is a bit more challenging without the RIAA paying for the time.
I guess it takes money to make money, and the RIAA makes that "easier" if not simply "possible" for the artist by saying, "Give us your act, and we'll make you famous." It just seems like the time is coming for artists to dodge the RIAA and publish themselves. Hell yes, it takes effort, but you're artists! You're supposed to starve.
step 1: web 2.0 = websites with content from users
step 2: users add crap to the websites
step 3: the websites publish and distribute the crap
step 4: some of the uploaded crap is copyrighted material
step 5: copyright protected material generates lawsuits between [insert RIAA or GEMA or whatever] and website owners
we can eliminate steps 4 & 5 by inserting:
step 1.5: strong check of the users identity using [SSN or fingerprint or whatever] before they have upload rights to the website
OR
step 2.5: the website has an approval stage for the uploaded content
inserting step 1.5 will move the lawsuit to [RIAA or GEMA or whatever] vs. user as a copyright material distributor. i know: it's a hard measure to apply and the lawsuits will be at another level.
inserting step 2.5 will probably end the business for a lot of web 2.0 websites, these won't have the resources to filter all the uploaded content.
...depends on the order in which your pursue them. It's lucky that law isn't based on anything like logic where the order of facts makes no difference to whether or not they are true.
I'm not sure what you mean. If the lawyers for GEMA say "Websites allowing users to upload copyrighted media can be sued for infringement, therefore we are suing sharing websites X, Y, and Z for letting users upload copyrighted material" before they say "Rapidshare is a website allowing users to upload copyrighted media, and was successfully sued", they have no precedent. It's always easier and cheaper to try a single case for precedent rather than start dozens of lawsuits all at once.
In logic the same holds true. Without lemmas, theorems can't be proven true. There are always a sequence of steps in a proof, all of which are necessary for the final theorem to be proved.
They love to get the benefits of U.S. technology and services but love to hate them and fight them at the same time.
And you, in turn, can go back to using gopher. You love to use the benefits of European-funded research but just can't help trying to lord it over them at the same time...
Please do. We do not want anything from the US. And, since you are at it, please leave our neighboring countries alone and move your bases out of German or European soil, and stop exporting genetically modified crap and "detainees" to this part of the world for "interrogation".
In logic, it may be optimal to prove X first because its easier, but it doesn't become more likely that Y is true is a result. Reordering merely changes the difficulty of proof, not the outcome.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
step 3. Allows the user to publish their crap. They don't actual publish.
maybe someone who stop me whenever I leave my house to be sure I am not wearing a shirt with an unauthorized coyrite material on it?
What we are seeing is a result of the change of copyright for all practical matters.
Digital distribution has ended copyright as we no it. The industry can either line copyright with what the people want, or loose it completely.
In the US, it's the will of the people that allows for copyright, and the will of the people can take it away.
And for those who say it will never change, look at all the big changes that have happened in the US in SPITE of who had the money at the time.
Personally I am for copyright, but only for 14 years, and allowing for sharing among non-profit entities.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Webspace is now trivially cheap, and so is bandwidth. If you need to share big binary files, setting up an ftp server or a website is trivial. The only real market for rapidshare that I can think of is illegal content, and it's no suprise to find so much of it there."
I know of several photographers who use RapidShare to share their own photographs with each other and with their clients. None of them could set up an FTP site, and none of them are interested in setting up a website. The advantage of RapidShare is that it's in place, it has an easy-to-use interface, it provides rapid uploads and downloads, and it provides a reasonable level of privacy in that you have to know a URL to find a download.
... current copyright laws are plain wrong and need to be updated ASAP.
Do not. Touch. Down.
what is so wrong with copyrighted material being shared for others to view/listen/gander.. I'm 100% certain i wouldn't mind someone sharing my stuff, as long as they dont try to sell or claim it as their own, but come one; they're not "selling" anything on "filesharing" websites, if you want to sue then sue ebay, sue people who put up yardsales, sue the karoake bar owners.. go ahead make yourself look more like a fucking shit-faced asshole (refering to the **ia's), i thought the whole object for many musicans/movie producers was to make art, and possibly fans who like the art, not contained art that is to be sold, but to be shared with everything who would appreciate your work!
We are connected to each other now. You can't undo that. Your "content" is for the most part boring as all hell. Some of us will be downloading it, but no harm -- they weren't planning on paying good money for that crap anyway.
Stop trying to prevent us being connected to each other. It's done.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Holy crap GEMA are attacking, quick, someone find the Onimusha.
You believe the "internets" is owned by America? *snicker* Coming next: why creationism is the True American Way.
that RIAA goes after Myspace and Youtube because it would cause a serious backlash. Enough consumers could complain to compel congress to curtail their "cartelings.*" Unfortunately, that's exactly why it won't happen. : -- *cartelings: neologism for cartel like activities.
They are tackling the little guy first, to gain precedent, obviously.
We could all test this by firing up a mule and doing a search for "Heino"
German superstar of the Sinatra variety.
You'll get a bang out of this fellow.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
(Disclaimer: I'm German).
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
The GEMA is not the German RIAA. ... And besides, as far as artist organisations go, the GEMA is actually a relatively fair organisation. It's the the one or other federal law that makes them worse than they actually are. For instance, by law I pay a GEMA procentage on every blank CD I buy as a flatrate for any music I could possibly copy on to it. (Scanners and Photocopiers have a simular fee) Yet 'copyprotected' CDs aren't prohibited in germany and circumventing copyprotection is sort of illegal (the law they issued on this is a complete mess so nobody really can tell for shure). So now what can I do? To who'm do I turn to get my GEMA percentage back because I legally can't copy any of them DRM CDs? Somebody with time and money on his hands can have the german supreme court blast all of this shit to chunky kibbles. In the end nobody - politicians, lawmen and probably even the people don't even give a shit. After all, analog copies are still legal, so to speak.
I'd trade the RIAA for the GEMA at any time.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Cologne is the french name for the city. You know what I say? I say, Fuck France.
every time from now on replace riaa with sony warner bros ect. dont let them hide behind riaa it is these companys so put there name on it.