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.'"
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!
I think this all comes to who is more important: the milltions of user who enjoy such services, or the few execs who stand to make _more_ money if people do not enjoy these services. One thing though, I highly doubt they will be satisfied with what ever amount they make when they have rid the world of all filesharing services. They will find new targets then.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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
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.
GEMA=Nazis... just like the RIAA...
Except that it's Germany's version of Nazis.
No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
Argghhh.
Hard to mod someone down when they make such great games.
Think about this though; I bought democracy after playing a demo version. That was a smart move on your part, making a playable demo.
However, I have done the same thing with companies that do not make demos available; I've grabbed a copy off of P2P to see if it was worth having, then bought the game if it was.
I do the exact same thing with Video & Music; If I can not find a place to hear a decent example of the music, there is no chance in hell I'll buy it; if a band is cool enough to release a free version, i'm almost certain to buy it even if I just sort of like it; I like to support people not being idiots with my $$$.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
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.
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
Don't spin the old "everyone in entertainment is a millionaire" nonsense.
Nor are they starving.
Perhaps we can all agree that infringement hurts content providers. But the so-called industry needs to face reality. 1) The Internet is a great distribution system. It's light years ahead of the old 'put it on plastic disks and distribute it by plane and truck' method. 2) No matter how many of these sites you shut down, others will pop up in accordance with the principle of supply and demand. (Shutting down Napster was an example of that.)
Perhaps GEMA needs to beat these sites at their own game by distributing the content themselves first and making their money by either pay-per-download or by selling advertising on content hosting sites.
Let's be real, the Internet is the best content distribution system ever. At some point there's going to be a realization that lawsuits are not the answer. All moral arguments aside, that's just a fact.