Atari Loses Copyright Suit Against RapidShare

dotarray writes "Online copyright lawsuits aren't all about music. Video game publisher Atari Europe recently became concerned that copies of its game Alone in the Dark were floating around one-click file-hosting service RapidShare, so it took the hosting company to court. While they won the initial case, the decision was overturned on appeal, finding that RapidShare is doing nothing wrong."

Comments

torrent

[Anonymous Coward]

They did nothing wrong hosting a full game, while other site hosting torrents are?

Re:torrent

[HungryHobo]

they follow the DMCA, they remove things when people report stuff to them.

Re:torrent

[mariushm]

And you suppose they should just ban everything with the text "AloneInTheDark" in the name, as if nobody can upload some some screenshots or some machinima movie or some game mod or some fan related stuff for Alone In The Dark... Just look up Youtube to see how many videos are for "Alone in the dark", only 5040 videos.

The reality is the name of the file has nothing to do with the content... and if you enforce something like this, soon you'll find files called a.rar, a.r01 and so on, and copyright owners won't even find the pirated stuff because people posting pirated content will just type the description, do a print screen and post the picture with the details instead of text. And how is that going to help anyone?

Re:torrent

[ledow]

So not only must Rapidshare know the name of every film, book and video game in existence (and in copyright) but they also have to filter anything that sounds even vaguely like them, has characters added, uses "l33t" spelling, etc. so that they don't accidentally host them? And not only that, but they have to go by the filename, so if I upload 2.7 millions movie clips all called "Aliens", they have to take every single one of them off despite not a single one of them actually having any copyrighted material in them?

Yes, it's obvious that it's easy to circumvent. It's also immediately obvious that, even if a court orders it, they can't *stop* that no matter how many people they hire, checks they make, or copyright holders they work with. Thus it's a pointless exercise to try to pretend they can. All they NEED to do is react to reports of copyright infringement, the same as anyone else. If you don't react, you are basically hindering copyright holders from stamping out infringement. If you DO react, you're not getting in their way even if you do end up inadvertantly hosting some of their content - but you can at least say "it wasn't us, this guy gave us that file" and so trace it back to an individual that CAN be prosecuted (and refusing to identify users etc. will get you into the same trouble with courts as not taking off the files when asked to by a validated copyright holder).

Additionally, I'm a copyright holder. I have written software, written books, drawn images, filmed videos and all manner of things. Thus if I ask, they have to take stuff down if I believe it's mine. That means they have to have some kinds of primitive checks to ensure I *am* a valid copyright owner and have NOT given my permission (there are some genuine software authors that willingly use RapidShare to save their bandwidth, for example), even for the most obscure and nonsensical things that get uploaded to their service. So even investigating every copyright infringement *report* is a huge burden, let alone every *potential* copyright infringement (which basically means performing those checks for EVERY file).

RapidShare might be a hive of illegal content, but when reported it gets removed. So is eBay a hive of illegal content, but when you report it, it gets removed - whether that's because you're selling Nazi memorabilia in France, a baby, or just unlicensed software. It's RIDICULOUS to expect a host to pre-screen absolutely everything they put onto a download website or even a busy auction site. (Almost) Every court in the world recognises that and only expects them to co-operate fully when things ARE reported.

Re:torrent

[laughingcoyote]

The DMCA put the "policing" responsibility on the copyright holders, who are, after all, the ultimate beneficiaries of the copyright anyway. So no, they shouldn't be forcing unrelated third parties to do it for them.

Re:torrent

[mwvdlee]

RapidShare is not just sharing files, it's making money off content that is mostly illegal. This is not a service that wants to "share" anything, in fact they try to push you into paying by making the "sharing" part next to impossible for free. Remove all illegal content from RapidShare, and they'll be out of business very quickly.
To me, that makes RapidShare, and similar services catering primarily to illegal files, immoral.

I think you'll find a pretty large amount of Slashdotters believe that filesharing copyrighted content for profit IS immoral.

Re:torrent

[TFAFalcon]

But rapidshare isn't the one sharing the material. They don't even enable searching for files. They just provide storage and downloads of files someone else uploads and then tells people about.

Would you consider google evil for enabling the sharing of files through email? Or ISPs evil for providing their customers upstream bandwidth?

Re:torrent

[mcgrew]

Rapidshare may be legally right, morally they are very wrong.

Like Obiwan said to Luke, that depends on your point of view.

Some people think homosexuality is immoral, some think that drinking is immoral, and hell, my great aunt told my grandmother that she was going to hell because she wore pants. Morality depends on your viewpoint.

There are people who think there should be no such thing as copyright, there are people who have bought a license to the game but scratched the CD, there are people who don't want to shell out good money until they've tried the game; I've seen posts from all these viewpoints at slashdot and so have you.

Then you have to remember that there has never been proof that piracy is harmful to anyone, and there is proof that with books at least, piracy is actually beneficial.

What's going to happen when we can print anything physical we want?

Besides, what do morals have to do with business? To someone who worships money, nothing that brings a profit is immoral.

Re:torrent

[Hatta]

Who's more immoral, the guy who uses government power to get himself paid in perpetuity for a days work, or the guy who helps others get around that?

Re:torrent

[andydread]

I think you'll find a pretty large amount of Slashdotters believe that lying to congress about your lost profits, running college extortion schemes, presenting false information about how piracy is killing jobs, corrupting govenrment officials, corrupting DJs with payola, ripping off artists, paying a RIAA/MPAA/CRIAA/IFPI tax on blank media and many more of the practices of the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/CRIAA/IFPI immoral

Re:torrent

[ledow]

The second you filter, you become responsible for what passing through the filter. Ask ISP's in restrictive countries and almost any modern legal system. If you claim to have a "safe web filter" and then someone gets a dodgy site from it, you are deemed partly responsible because "why didn't your filter catch it"? I work in schools, so I know this problem well. This is why ISP's don't WANT to filter stuff, or people don't WANT to run cybercafes in restrictive countries, or why wikipedia DOESN'T moderate every edit you do. As soon as you say "we're filtering", *EVERYONE* with a stake wants to be on your filter, and have it be perfectly accurately implemented for them alone. You filter MGM's films - okay, I'm an independent film producer, filter me too. Why not? Is piracy against me "allowed" just because I'm not part of the big studios? And by extension ten years later every website publishes nothing because nothing passes their 7 million filters in under an hour, and what does is deliberately chosen by malicious people to step on the toes of the one company that *doesn't* have a filter with you yet.

I don't believe it

[paganizer]

If nothing else, this article led me to the Wikipedia page that provided the information that Alone in the Dark was remade in 2008, and that Atari is suing pretty much everyone that has anything to do with it.

It was REALLY exciting, until I realized that no North American courts are involved... A sane decision concerning copyright infringement by a U.S. Court would be really fantastic.

Re:I don't believe it

[KDR_11k]

From what I read playing that AITD remake alone is punishment enough, no need to rub it in with a lawsuit.

Re:Well well well

[allometry]

A file sharing service being held accountable for a file a user posted?

While they are technically hosting the file, they did not originate the content. Kinda like saying a person who picked up a second-hand pair of boots off a dead guy is an accessory to murder.

This was the right call.

Re:Well well well

[beothorn]

#disagree

This is slashdot not twitter. If you know a bulletproof way to stop someone from uploading any copyrighted material to a upload site, please, enlighten us.

Re:contrast with pirateBay

[Rysc]

No.

Rapidshare hosts (unknowingly) copyrighted content, not guilty.

PirateBay does not host any copyrighted content, guilty.

Re:contrast with pirateBay

[Josh Triplett]

RapidShare hosts content themselves, and takes down content when requested to. Atari sued them because they didn't want to keep sending takedown notices, and would prefer that RapidShare do their job for them, like YouTube currently does for copyright holders ("here, tell us what files you don't like look like, and we'll handle it automatically"). The courts sensibly said that RapidShare doesn't have to offer any more help to Atari than they already do.

PirateBay doesn't host content themselves, infringing or otherwise, which means they very sensibly don't respond to takedown notices. That then confuses and annoys both copyright holders and courts, who can't quite figure out that PirateBay has done nothing wrong, because naturally they *must* be doing something wrong if they're not responding to takedown notices.

Re:contrast with pirateBay

[Rysc]

Except that in the jurisdiction in which The Pirate Bay operates there is no legal way to demand that you remove a link to copyrighted material that you do not yourself host. That's a USA law and not found in most other places.

Re:Well well well

[CRCulver]

Is Rapidshare used for anything besides sharing films, music and ebooks?

Re:Well well well

[dbune]

Is Rapidshare used for anything besides sharing films, music and ebooks?

Yes it is! games,pictures,porn,cracked softwares .. ..almost everything

Re:Well well well

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a better analogy is a person puts drugs in an airport locker and holding the airport criminally responsible for possession of drugs.

Cryptic names for pirated stuff

[vgerclover]

(...) and if you enforce something like this, soon you'll find files called a.rar, a.r01 and so on, and copyright owners won't even find the pirated stuff because people posting pirated content will just type the description, do a print screen and post the picture with the details instead of text. And how is that going to help anyone?

Some groups have been doing this for some time now, generally using the first letters of the name. For this it might be something along the lines of al.int.d.r01.

One click?

[halcyon1234]

one-click file-hosting service RapidShare

One click? Sure, if you mean one click to follow the posted link, then three more clicks to navigate towards the download, a few more to skip adds, then at least five more to answer questions like "Do you want the premium service? [NO], I don't want to wait, sign me up. [YES] I want it..... [extremely tiny font] just download my fucking file already [/extremely tiny font]

No North American courts?

[Theaetetus]

If nothing else, this article led me to the Wikipedia page that provided the information that Alone in the Dark was remade in 2008, and that Atari is suing pretty much everyone that has anything to do with it.

It was REALLY exciting, until I realized that no North American courts are involved... A sane decision concerning copyright infringement by a U.S. Court would be really fantastic.

Apparently, while this article may have led you to the Wiki page, it didn't lead you to the article's third paragraph, which states:

This is not the first time that the file hosting company has come under the legal spotlight. Last year, the same German appeals court overturned a separate ruling against them, while a US court has also decided the company is not liable for its users behaviour.

i'd be concerned about it too

[smash]

I mean piracy of that game? I got 5 minutes into the demo, bored out of my brain and quit.

Why bother wasting the bandwidth?

Re:contrast with pirateBay

[BitZtream]

Yea, you should completely ignore intent when thinking about these sorts of things.