Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Court Rules Rapidshare Is Legal, But Must Adjust Content Policies

Posted by timothy on from the some-zwiespältigkeit-with-that? dept.

New submitter loosescrews writes "Online file locker Rapidshare is legal in Germany, but has to adjust its policy regarding infringing content, the Higher Regional Court in Hamburg has ruled. Rapidshare plans to appeal. Rapidshare was sued by the German copyright organization Gema which represents 64.000 copyright holders. After reading the verdict, both parties claim they are victorious."

27 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. So they left out the good part by _0xd0ad · · Score: 5, Informative

    It would have been nice if the summary had described the "adjustment" that Rapidshare is being required to make:

    The copyright organisation had asked the court to order Rapidshare to scan files during the upload process, but the court took another approach, ruling that Rapidshare must actively monitor incoming links from external sites to the files it hosts and take down any illegal files thus identified.

    I.e., if a warez site links to a Rapidshare file, then Rapidshare will deactivate the file.

    Amusingly enough, Rapidshare already did this, which is why warez sites typically don't allow posting clickable links. Non-clickable link = you have to copy and paste = no HTTP referer = Rapidshare is none the wiser.

    1. Re:So they left out the good part by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most sites I see rapidshare style linkage on uses anonymizer services to hide the referrer for exactly that reason.

      No reason to make the link unclickable these days.

    2. Re:So they left out the good part by Scott+Swezey · · Score: 2

      @AC, if you are out there and still reading this.

      Most of the sites I know of that index links to sites such as Rapidshare, use HTML magic to forward you to the link without a referrer anyway

      I am relatively proficient when it comes to many things web/html related, yet I have never heard of being able to create a link that doesn't pass referrer information. After googling this topic for a little bit, all I see is that most modern browsers now pass the referrer info, even with target="_blank" or when the link is handled via javascript.

      That said, I am well aware that "The more I learn, the less I know."... So... Can you enlighten us on this HTML magic to which you refer?

      --
      Scott Swezey
    3. Re:So they left out the good part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can you enlighten us on this HTML magic to which you refer?

      rel="noreferrer"

    4. Re:So they left out the good part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      HTML magic is not really required (I dont think it is possible either). There are websites, whose sole purpose is to forward you to the link passed as a parameter. Pretty much every website uses such an "anoymiser" service. So your website redirects you to the anonymiser website, which inturn redirects you to rapidshare. Now according to rapidshare, the referrer is the anonymiser website, and it cannot know which website really sent you to them.

    5. Re:So they left out the good part by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "No shipping browser currently supports this"...

    6. Re:So they left out the good part by wmbetts · · Score: 3, Informative

      double meta refresh no referer

      Google the above phrase and you'll get more information on it than you care to know.

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    7. Re:So they left out the good part by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

      !!!! WELL THANKS A LOT SLASHDOT, you don't support unicode, but you turn my text post into a link even when I didn't add the a href tags. :-(

    8. Re:So they left out the good part by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they ban the anonymizer website...

      And suddenly 234235623 twitter links go dead. In this context a URL shortener is an anonymizer too, you'll now have a bit.ly referrer not a evilwarezsite.com referrer. I bet Rapidshare would love it if they insisted on that, it'd turn into a PR nightmare for the copyright holders.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:So they left out the good part by toutankh · · Score: 2

      That's why you have to click on "preview" before you can submit. Apparently it's still not enough. Or did the preview show you something else than what we are now seeing?

    10. Re:So they left out the good part by Hentes · · Score: 2

      Apparently slashdot still does it even if you set your post style to plain HTML. You can evade this by using the pre tag: http://www.slashdot.org/

    11. Re:So they left out the good part by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      There's a preview? I just mash the button in the bottom left.

    12. Re:So they left out the good part by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's pretty trivial to do. You write a CGI script that redirects to the URL passed as a parameter and host this with SSL. Browsers don't pass referrer information to non-HTTPS pages when the preceding page was HTTPS (to prevent things like passwords or session IDs in GET requests being passed on to other sites). DuckDuckGo, for example, optionally does this to prevent other sites from seeing your search terms.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:So they left out the good part by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid the preview function often fails, at least it does for me, when I am trying to make a link that isn't clickable. it looks like its not gonna be a link but then /. turns it into a link when you hit submit, or at least it did when i was using the new layout which is one of the reasons I went back to the old way. When i put a link to a small site that i don't want /.ed I do NOT want it to be clickable as everyone knows there are plenty that won't bother with copy/paste unless it is something they really care to see.

      As for TFA I wonder how damned long the MAFIAA are gonna play whack a mole before they just accept reality and embrace new technology? there is no damned logical reason why I can't go to Amazon, whip out a CC, and buy a movie or show in .avi or .mkv for playing on my dad's media tank but as it is here are my choices...1.-Buy DVD, 2.-wait for DVD to arrive, 3.-rip DVD into format that will play on media tank, 4.-upload video onto media tank. or I can 1.-download from TPB in the format I need, 2.-stick file on media tank....now which one is easier? Which one has fewer steps?

      So why the bullshit, does it in ANY way hinder piracy? nope, in fact the pirates often have the movie or show at or before release day. So wake up and smell the 21st century MAFIAA and embrace the Valve model, make it easy, make it simple, make it cheap. I'm sure you could power half the USA just by wrapping Henry Ford's corpse in copper for all the spinning he is doing in his grave from so many fucking up one of the most basic tenants of capitalism with all their hoop jumping and artificial scarcity bullshit. He'd be cranking that shit out in any and every format someone would give him money for and backing the money truck up to his back door daily.

      It just amazes me that all these so called "MBA" or Masters of Being Assholes, can't even figure out the most basic ideas of supply and demand. Black markets are the market's way of telling you that you are fucking up, your price is too high or you aren't offering the people what they want. make it easy, make it simple, make it cheap, and watch the huge piles of money rolling in. In a way it reminds me of how the MPAA had to be literally dragged to the huge profits that videotapes offered, because until the government literally forced them to allow the format to exist they were comparing it to the Boston Strangler. How many BILLIONS did they make off of videotapes again?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Always amazes me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is it okay for Rapidshare to make money off copyrighted content but not the creators? As some one that lives off copyrighted content why do they have more rights than I do? I spend years creating the content that they casually hand off to anyone with a computer. My creditors would point out that I'm far from rich yet the owners of Rapidshare make serious money off copyright holders. Take away the profits and the creators will vanish. I couldn't care less about the distributors I'm talking about the creators. As a creator I'll tell you now if you give all the profits to groups like Rapidshare then there will be no new content. They aren't the heroes it's the content creators who have been screwed over by the distributors who paid them $0.10 on the $1 and now the file sharing services that pay zero cents on the dollar!. Support the artists and screw the corporate lackies including Rapidshare!

    1. Re:Always amazes me by aix+tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just make your content as easy (or easier ) available than on rapidshare. Note that I said "easier" not "cheaper" or "free" just "easier".

      Sometimes it seems the priority one of the artists (or perhaps the distributors) is to PREVENT people from getting their stuff. Last Month I was looking for some older songs I remembered. No CD available at all, Only an MP3 on amazon.com I tried to buy it, but I wasn't allowed. So I had to spend about an hour tracking it down "some other way", since nobody was willing to offer me a option to actually buy it in a way that would have supported the artist.

      Last week I got shipped 5 Blu-Rays hat I ordered. Only 2 of them worked out of the box, for 2 others I first had to upgrade my players firmware first, the fifth didn't work even then but funny enough I had no problem ripping it and then watching the copy.

      So every time when I have to decide whether to buy or pirate, I have to take into account the amount of work it takes to get the actual purchased copies to even WORK. The only way out of this problem for customers AND content creators in my opinion to cut out the distributor middle-man. It used to be they were the ones who had better technical means to distribute content from the artists to the masses. But now every artist could have way better means to get his content to the masses, and in the end have perhaps $0.90 of $1 left over for himself.

    2. Re:Always amazes me by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      If you're only creating stuff to make profit, then I'm not interested in paying you. Generally, talented people create things because they either love doing it or have a real need to express themselves. Often, they can also make a living out of doing that if they are good enough

      Human culture has always been based on sharing. It's one of the first lessons that kids are taught ("share that toy with your sister, Bobby"). Modern capitalism seems to be moving away from this aspect of culture, but people genuinely enjoy sharing experiences with others.

      If you dont want to create things without getting paid, then maybe you should just go and get a job. Maybe there's too many content creators in the world - there certainly seems to be a lot of rubbish content out there.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    3. Re:Always amazes me by muuh-gnu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > but not the creators?

      It is OK for creators to make money off content... if they can. If people are willing to pay. If they are not willing and prefer to produce their copies themselves instead bying them from you, you're SOL and have to change jobs to something wehere people want to pay for what you do. What is NOT ok is to solve the problem simply by making technological advancements and the modern copying infrastructure illegal with the intent to simulate the 50's where nobody had a PC and nobody had his PC connected with billions of other people with a PC. "Now as all of you have those wonderful futuristic tools became real... dont use them, because people will lose jobs."

      For your business model (selling copies) to work, you basically have to make people forever stay in the 50's. This is the same as if people in the 16th century made book printing illegal to protect manuscript scribes. You're basically a luddite fighting technological advancement because it obsoletes your business. Do you sincerely think you can win that fight? Before, you could run a business to distribute stuff to people, now they can do it themselves. The distribution problem has now been solved. Your business model is simply gone. Adapt or die, you won't win this.

    4. Re:Always amazes me by Hentes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are mistaken, Rapidshare doesn't make any money off of copyrighted material. Their income comes from selling storage space and bandwith. Granted, some people use these services for copyright infringement, but blaming Rapidshare for the crimes of others is stupid. Guess what, warez sites also buy their storage and bandwith from someone, should we make ISPs illegal too?

    5. Re:Always amazes me by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Proper response in a market based economy is to...

      In what sense? Perhaps in terms of economic theory, but then again economists have been described as people who, when they see something working in practice wonder how it can work in theory.

      Anyway, the whole thing is so far from a market economy that it doesn't make any kind of sense.

      Copyright is a very artificial construct designed to make easily copyable data act like physical goods in order to make the market work so that such data is produced (which I think is fine). Between lobbying causing massive theft of the public domain[*], DRM making the data which is meant o be like physical goods less so and the fact that vendors of such data can't touch pirates, so they abuse paying customers instead. Oh and throw in various chunks of patent and copyright law which prevents companies from making products which strip out the DRM and you have a complete mess.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Always amazes me by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Forgot to fill in [*]

      What the copyright lobby are doing fits the definition of theft much better than piracy. If a thief steals something, then you no longer have it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Always amazes me by future+assassin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is it okay for Rapidshare to make money off copyrighted content but not the creators? As some one that lives off copyrighted content why do they have more rights than I do? I spend years creating the content that they casually hand off to anyone with a computer. My creditors would point out that I'm far from rich yet the owners of Rapidshare make serious money off copyright holders. Take away the profits and the creators will vanish. I couldn't care less about the distributors I'm talking about the creators. As a creator I'll tell you now if you give all the profits to groups like Rapidshare then there will be no new content. They aren't the heroes it's the content creators who have been screwed over by the distributors who paid them $0.10 on the $1 and now the file sharing services that pay zero cents on the dollar!. Support the artists and screw the corporate lackies including Rapidshare!

      Seems to me your method of making money is dead. Sitting there and bitching about it will do nothing and legislating will take year and years to lock up the illegal distributions methods while new ones pop up. So wouldn't it be about time to change careers like the majority of the population or embrace the interweb as the ultimate distribution channel and work your way up to success. Mind you, you still need to produce something worth while as like with antiques all of a sudden those rare ones seem to be popping up all over the place because of people using the Internet to connect with each other, No where there were only a few, there a hundreds and technology killed that scarcity.

      Here you go http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/22/louis-ck-makes-1-million-in-12-days-proves-that-drm-free-conte/

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  3. Re:"Both parties claim they are victorious" by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Funny

    As it happens, though, it was the lawyers for both parties talking. After that they went out together for caviar.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  4. in 2009... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "No shipping browser currently supports this"...

    Are you sure about that?
    Support for the "noreferrer" option was added to Chromium in 2009.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  5. Re:Not quite true by GmExtremacy · · Score: 2

    But here's the thing: their demands never stop. It's impossible to police all the content, and even their current policies are bound to affect innocent users. They shouldn't be forced to scour warez sites just to make sure no one is copying anyone's precious, precious data. Even that is too much to expect. And if it's automated, it's bound to hurt innocents.

  6. Re:Not quite true by moronoxyd · · Score: 2

    If they keep taking down files due to copyright violations, and those files are referred from particular websites, then they need to examine other files linked to from those websites.

    That might run against the privacy laws in Germany.
    A hoster must not 'inspect' the data of its users.

    And even then: Rapidshare can not decide what is a legitimate use and what not. You know, Rapidshare does not employ judges, to my knowledge.

  7. Re:Never been about freeware by lxs · · Score: 2

    I hate paying freeloaders too but studio executives appear to be a necessary evil these days.