Slashdot Mirror


Rapidshare Divulges Uploader Information

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."

13 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Truth in naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

    1. Re:Truth in naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      RapidShare is now rapdidly sharing uploader information.

      Flanders, is that you?

  2. Why even use RapidShare anyways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Why even use RapidShare anyways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  3. Some basic rules to follow. by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful
    • 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.
    1. Re:Some basic rules to follow. by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Some basic rules to follow. by mrvan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You hear this argument on slashdot a lot:
      Post A) I disagree with copyright and therefore I download; not out of personal profit but as an act of protest
      Post B) You should not break the law: obey it and meanwhile try to change it through political process

      A essentially calls for civil disobedience, which is a relatively ethical way to change laws and society when poltical process is exhausted or futile. A burglar stealing my TV, however, is not a political protester trying to change property law, he is just a criminal stealing my shit. The essential difference between a crime and an act of civil disobedience is not breaking the law, however, but the manner in which this is done.

      The Dutch sociologist Kees Schuyt formulated a number of rules for something to classify as ethical disobedience (rather than eg anarchist revolt or petty crime). Gandhi formulated a similar set of rules for his non-violent protest.

      Let's have a look at Schuyt's rules:

      1) The act is illegal;
      2) The act is conscionable; it appeals to your conscience and that of your fellow citizens;
      3) There is a link between the criticized law and the chosen illegal act;
      4) The act is thought out and not impulsive;
      5) The act occurs in public;
      6) You co-operate with arrest and prosecution;
      7) You accept that you might be punished;
      8) You used legal means of protest before;
      9) You are non-violent and remain non-violent;
      10) The rights of your fellow citizens are respected as well as possible;

      Especially important is 5-7, and possibly 7 and 10. The idea behind these rules is that civil disobedience means breaking a law in order to show other people that the law is bad, and accepting possible consequences. You sacrifice yourself for the higher cause.

      Downloading songs from behind tor or other means of hiding yourself disqualifies your action from civil disobedience. If you want to make a political statement, buy a CD which you strongly believe should be out of copyright, upload it to your personal homepage, and write an open letter to the RIAA stating what you did and why. Get all the people who agree with you to do the same. If RIAA sues you, don't settle and escalate to the highest court you can afford. If enough people do this, your fellow citizens will react, and so will politicians.

      If you are not prepared to do that: by all means download everyhing you want (information wants to be free, right?!), but please don't act all ethical. If you stand behind your actions, do them in public. If you just want to get free music, raid the pirate bay while they're there but don't brag about it.

    3. Re:Some basic rules to follow. by RicardoGCE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:Non-German users? by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I could never make out the captchas so this doesn't affect me.

    i dunno i found them "captchas" rather interesting :P

    and then we had the these cats and dogs

  5. Re:I always wondered... by ionix5891 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    simple

    they comply with take down requests

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

  6. Re:This is what you get... by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I didn't want people to use tOR for whatever they thought should be anonymous; I'd currently be adjusting my exit policy to not allow everything (but SMTP).

    In my mind, that is the point of a free, neutral network. YMMV.

  7. Gandi and Jews and some Other Things by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is interesting in a political and an historical context. Gandhi worked with non violent means as a choice, but not as the only choice except by circumstance. Although he was a pacifist, he recognized that the "gun control" laws that prohibited the Indian people from ownership (mostly) were designed to quell any insurgency against the British colonial powers. The Indian people had been disarmed by the British, on purpose and "by law", (privately and even for the most part they had no armed governmental workers either) and as such they had no means to use force against their "masters". Non violent resistance then became their only option, and they suffered a lot for it. And in Germany, one of the very first acts the fascists managed was the almost total disarming of the civilian populations, making it quite easy for them to implement their "solutions". There's a pattern...

    People seem to forget, civilization doesn't necessarily equal freedom or peace. Civilizations can be quite organized and have a great amount of civil governmental infrastructure, but still be violent with state sponsored terrorism and oppression of all the people or selected subgroups of the people there. Civil does not equal free. A full oppressive police state can be quite "civilized". Or like they are wont to say, "pacified".

    I'll also add this as a personal anecdotal. As a civil rights worker back in the day (belts..onions..), there was some success, but it was one step back for every two forward and it was scary and it sucked mostly. It wasn't until the scene changed as more and more vets came back from viet nam who were either black and returned to still oppressive society or poor whites, who had gotten drafted while their richer peers got off with basket weaving majors in college with the 2s deferments, and those dudes weren't all necessarily into being non violent, quite the opposite actually, they had just returned from where being very violent was the expected norm. Whoops....

    These folks and a growing sense of direct action combined with some other factors led to the major riots in the mid to late 60s. The powers that be (here comes my opinion) finally got scared enough to actually DO something about the situation rather than just talk about it. They didn't want to, they were *forced* to make some concessions.

    The 64 civil rights act didn't do much of anything until the fatcats realized they could wake up one day with one or several major cities no longer under their control, important big cities. They would have been seized and occupied by outright rebels with a cause and several legitimate and rather large beefs, or burnt to the ground, either way, lost to their control. They capitulated, although they won't admit it, that is exactly what happened and it went beyond non violent protest or threat and promise of same to get there.

    And everyone knew it.

    Then stuff changed, for real this time. They *really* starting enforcing the civil rights laws, in a lot more places. They changed the draft to a lottery system so no more fatcats kids getting out of it. That backfired on them though, because that in turn lead to the war finally ending (started to become obvious it would end, put it that way), because the protests then quintupled/more in size from all these new kids suddenly realizing it wasn't going to be just the blacks from the ghettoes and rural farmers kids going, but THEM too, so they joined in the protests. It went from thousands to hundreds of thousands at protests, and rather quickly. And the situation was clearly not going in wallstreet's/government puppets favor, they had to keep backing down or they were eventually going to face the "heads on pikes" stage of social readjustment.

    Now they did have a goonish reactionary success that they weaseled through, the passage of the 68 gun control act. That was a huge disappointment for true second amendment rights, and was clearly a racist and reactionary bill (you had to really be there to ca

  8. Re:This is what you get... by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    Hey, that sounds like the plot for a movie. A couple of dim witted but lovable friends decide to rob a RIAA to pay for a neighbourhood kid's cancer treatment, but it all goes wrong when the rapidshare server logs their IPs, and then there's a madcap chase across the internets with viruses and trojans and a crazy Bavarian hacker named Grubi with a fetish for spaghetti.