Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RapidShare Threatens Suit Over Piracy Allegations

Posted by samzenpus on from the sticks-and-stones dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "PC Magazine reports that RapidShare, named as a contributor to digital piracy by a MarkMonitor report, has threatened to sue for defamation. 'This defamation of RapidShare as a digital piracy site is absurd and we reserve the right to take legal action against MarkMonitor,' says RapidShare in a statement. 'RapidShare is a legitimate company that offers its customers fast, simple and secure storage and management of large amounts of data via our servers.' MarkMonitor, a Web site that specializes in 'enterprise brand protection,' says in their study that the most-trafficked domains engaged in digital piracy included three sites — rapidshare.com, megavideo.com, and megaupload.com — that combined yielded 21 billion pageviews per year. RapidShare acknowledged that copyrighted files do get uploaded to its site, however 'these users are in the absolute minority compared with those who use our services to pursue perfectly legitimate interests.' RapidShare says that it does not open and view the files of its users, and contains no search function so that other users may look for content."

16 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Perhaps Not Defamation by Kneo24 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just in my own personal experience, I've never seen Rapidshare used for legal means. I've never heard of anyone using it for legal means. I'm not saying that it can't happen or doesn't happen, but I really do wonder how much of their business is business done without breaking copyright laws. Furthermore, if they never open up the files put on their servers, how the hell would they know whether there's copyright infringement going on in the first place? You can't claim for absolute certainty that your core business doesn't rely on law breakers when you don't monitor what your customers are doing. You have to view data somewhere at some point to have a reasonable conclusion.

    1. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just in my own personal experience, I've never seen Rapidshare used for legal means.

      No offense, but that probably says more about you than it does about Rapidshare.

    2. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by Kilrah_il · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, if you see a file uploaded to RS and then it is downloaded by 10,000 users, it is probably not used for legal reasons. If, OTOH, it is downloaded by 1 other user, there is a higher chance it is used for a legal reasons.
      Of course, this is not conclusive evidence: A file can be sent to a whole group via RS and still be legit, and a movie can be sent illegally from one person to another. But still, usage statistics can give you some idea as to the legality of the files without opening them.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    3. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by somersault · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I've downloaded custom ROMs for my phones in the last few years (which are legal when it comes to Android at least), they are often hosted on RapidShare.

      I'm with AC on this one.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by xaxa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I expect RapidShare are carefully selecting their statistic. For instance, the ratio of legal:illegal uploads might be very favourable to them, while the ratio for downloads isn't.

    5. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That says more about you than about rapid share.

      Are you old enough that you've seen ftp used for non-piracy purposes? Does that means we should place a tax on ftp requests that lines the pockets of the MafiAA?

      There is a younger variation on RapidShare called DropBox which provide better backup & syncing functionality, but it's not as well suited for just sending a file. You better believe DropBox gets used for piracy though too. Does that mean file syncing services should be illegal?

      RapidShare exists primarily because email doesn't transport large files. You cannot expect a client to install skype, gtalk, etc. In fact, you don't want all your client's on your IMs, given how easily one can offend older people on IM. Ditto for firewalls, NATs, sshd, etc. RapidShare URLs just works.

      RapidShare also gets used by people trying to save bandwidth, like software developers distributing shareware & crippleware, etc. BitTorrent hasn't exactly been a bandwidth panacea for everyone, plus not everyone understands it.

      If you ever left your IT bubble, you'd realize there is a whole world of small business out there that ravenously consumes simple, cheap, and fast solutions to simple problems. RapidShare has hit back hard for defamation partially because that core user base can have fairly stringent sensibilities.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    6. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here are a few Rapidshare search engines.
      Look towards the bottom at "Recent searches" how many of those look legal to you? (in case you're still under any delusions about whats hosted on rapidshare some of the titles are definitely NSFW)
      http://www.filecrop.com/
      http://rapidsharesearcher.com/
      http://blog.egexa.com/download/
      http://fileknow.com/recent

      I fully support file sharing and the downfall of copyright law, but lets not lie to ourselves please.

    7. Re:Perhaps Not Defamation by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is called selection bias. People who use RS for legitimate use, share the links with the intended recipient only. The files are not searched by anonymous people throughout the web on these sites. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't search http://rapidsharesearcher.com/ for "Presentation for 2011 shareholder meeting.pps".
      You are using sites that are used by people who d/l illegal files to show that RS is used for illegal d/l. If you look into Toyota's site, you would see that most of the searches on that site are for cars made by Toyota. Ergo, most people drive Toyota!

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  2. More harm than good? by rts008 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While I support the original intent of both copyright and patent laws, I also think both have exceeded their bounds, and need reform.
    The original intent was to BOTH foster creativity and innovation while protecting both, it has currently devolved into protecting/fostering those with the most money.
    Major reform is needed.
    One thing I learned from my GrandDad[among many, numerous things], was that only stagnant water breeds mosquitoes. Think about the concept seriously for a moment, it is enlightening.

    Maybe it seems new to you all, but it's a culmination of 100 year old insight and wisdom to me.
    Sonny Bono/Disney should have been stopped in retrospect, but that's how hindsight seems to work!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:More harm than good? by CitizenCain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If all of that stuff is so stagnant, why are you bothered about the copyright lease being so long? Look for cheap or free indie media.

      You're missing the point of that adage. The mosquitoes don't stay in the stagnant pool of water once they've bred. They fly off and bite anyone they can find.

      Likewise, absurd lease lengths on copyrights don't just effect the works the protect, but impact the entire media realm. Why bother funding new, creative media when you get the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended for another 90 years and keep milking that cow? Or, for that matter, why bother creating anything at all, when you can become a patent troll and makes tens of millions of dollars by suing other people for bothering to create something. (And so on.)

  3. *.R00 by metalmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've pondered on this since the first story broke, but can a company be liable for hosting partial files? A lot of the links i see for rapidshare are partial archives. By themselves they do no harm

  4. Everything can be used for Piracy. by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything can be used for "Piracy".

    Before we had tapes, then Floppies, then CDs, then P2P and websites...

    I can send illegal files by email, by handing them over on a thumb drive...

    Its easier if we just add "Everything" to the list of Piracy and let it be done.

    1. Re:Everything can be used for Piracy. by Drethon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, the open pandora gaming system http://www.openpandora.org/ got blocked on e-bay for a while as a pirate system that could play imports. After some discussion the pandora people were able to get e-bay to understand it is simply a tiny linux laptop and has little more/less capability than any other computer being sold on e-bay...

  5. Re:Understandable by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Plus it wouldn't work. Soon it'd be full of encrypted RARs of filenames like aiegflaeaergfaer.rar, or possibly sales_reports.rar... no way anyone could tell what they are unless they are a member of the private forum where the link and decryption password are posted.

  6. Missing the point by ProbablyJoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, RapidShare is used a lot for copyrighted material, but it's not as if it's their doing. On the contrary, they seem to make a lot of effort to remove copyrighted material - at least a lot of the links I see are deleted. Whether or not this is them specifically searching for it, or it being reported, I have no idea.

    What next? FTP is used for uploading copyrighted material too. What an evil protocol.

    Slashdot loves car analogies right? Clearly cars that can drive over the speed limit are also to blame for speeding.

  7. Re:Understandable by delinear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Your explanation fails the idiot test. As icebraining said - firstly Youtube have full access to the unencrypted data, it's relatively trivial to run some algorithm to compare it to a stored video/audio stream and you know what format the file is in to begin with. Rapidshare not only have the issue that users could just encrypt their files, but even unencrypted they'd need a reliable method to compare vastly more types of files. That's both technically complicated and incredibly costly. The alternative is that the people with a vested interest in preventing the sharing of illegal materials (the rights holders) do the police work and RS remove it when asked and... oh, wouldn't you know, that's what they already do. It's a much better situation, RIAA admittedly have to invest a little in chasing the content down, but compared to the millions they tell us in court this is costing them, it's a drop in the ocean to have some student checking download sites, meanwhile the rest of us get to use hosting sites for legitimate purposes without them being crushed by an unfair financial burden.