Slashdot Mirror
RapidShare Urges US To Punish Linking Sites and Not File-Sharing Sites
hypnosec writes "RapidShare has said that the U.S. government should crack down on linking sites rather than punishing file-sharing sites and strangling innovation. The file-sharing site is understandably a little worried about the recent crackdowns on sites involved in or found to be promoting piracy. Daniel Raimer, RapidShare's Chief Legal Officer, is to meet with technology leaders and law enforcement at the Technology Policy Institute forum. Responding to a public consultation on the future of U.S. IP enforcement, the company emphasized that linking sites are the real problem. It wrote, 'Rather than enacting legislation that could stifle innovation in the cloud, the U.S. government should crack down on this critical part of the online piracy network.'"
YOU'RE the problem! Not the innocent file hosts!
The problem with cracking down on "linking sites" is that it's way to broad. When you start attacking sites that provide users a collection of links, you're effectively attacking the basis of every web site on the Internet. It will no longer be safe to provide links. Further, it will undermine search. What is google but a collection of links?
How about we don't go after file sharing or linking sites and instead go after the RIAA and MPAA for buying our politicians and extorting money out of people by their frivolous lawsuits. I buy my content, but when they go after the basic foundation of the Internet, it makes me rethink that. No revenue means no buying politicians.
I doubt anybody would punish linking somewhere without punishing outright sharing too.
It is hard to go after the linking sites, they are way too much. The storage sites are just a few, and is easy to go after them.
Shouldnt they actually go for the uploader and not hosting company or the ones that link? Ahh going for uploaders would hurts their business, so they would rather have the authorities going for the ones that link.
"Rather than enacting legislation that could stifle innovation in the cloud, the U.S. government should crack down on this critical part of the online piracy network.'"
I guess that's Newspeak for "Do it to Julia, don't do it to me, do it to her!"
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
What, they are urging us, the community of Slashdot, to punish them?
How about no, you hypocritical Deutsche bastard?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Because we DEFINITELY want a precedent that, rather than punish actually illegal behavior, we should punish people who inform others about potentially illegal behavior.
Sure, the "go here for teh warez!" sites are an issue, but they're not doing anything against the law. Where do you stop when you try to stop non-illegal activities?
As the first poster mentioned, it's not a crime. I can even link to a criminal site if I want, with the link saying "Look! Here's a criminal site! The bastards!"
If they start regulating what you can link to, the internet is doomed. Don't go there.
Besides, at least in the U.S., free speech is very much an issue when it comes to links.
The "problem" isn't file sharing. That's legal. It's not linking. It's legal. What's against the law
are violations of the law (e.g. copyright).
HOWEVER, in saying "don't come after us, go after linking sites" rapidshare has thrown the
babies to the wolves in hopes that they can evade a similar fate.
Rapidshare, for that, deserves to die. Linking sites and sharing sites are legal. The US Federal
government and its ICE dogs will sooner or later be brought to task. (Rojadirecta probably).
We'll still remember that Rapidshare threw everyone else to the dogs.
E
I can't wait until the regular internet gets so oppressive that even non-geeks feel the need to run a freenet node or even better a byzantium node http://wiki.hacdc.org/index.php/Category:Byzantium
then the "democratic" western governments will have two choices; give up the appearance of legitimacy and go the china route or give up the ability to use enforcement power to support corporate profits
our world is really becoming the world pictured here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read
They prefer you, RapidShare, to actually going after a moving target. Sure, they take down a whole bunch of people using your service legitimately, but if they had to go after the sites that linked to pirated materials, and more importantly the individuals who are pirating, then⦠well⦠that would be a lot of work!
Just outlaw free speech. That will cover a whole plethora of crimes all at once. Oops! That goddamn 1st Amendment! Gets in the way of everything. Definitely need a constitutional convection and get rid of the damn thing. Nothing but trouble it is.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) government ( ) market-based (X) finger-pointing (X) political
approach to fighting illegal file-sharing over the Internet. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
(X) There is no centralized authority that will force people to carry out your plan
(X) Your plan is incomplete or contains too much "needs to be further discussed." phrases
(X) Requires a consensus on whether a problem actually exists
(X) Requires a consensus on the definition of where the problem lies
(X) No one can agree on the definition of the problem
(X) Proposal is philosophically inconsistent in mulple places
(X) Computers and frequently people can't tell if a copyrighted item is being hosted legally or not
(X) The item at the end of a link can change over time
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Existing court decisions protecting the very activity you want to restrict
(X) Scalability
(X) Extreme opportunity for mischief when abused
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Stupidity on the part of some people who do business over the Internet
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) A near-consensus that the activity you want to restrict should not be restricted
(X) Many people download illegally because it is not feasable to obtain content otherwise
(X) If file-sharing ended tomorrow and everything else remained the same, gross revenue wouldn't increase all that much
(X) Is this really the purpose of government?
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Looking forward to similar posts by others who can do "funny" better than I can.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You say that they should go after the uploaders. That sounds like a good principle (in fact, I favor this approach - although in my view rapidshare would not be an innocent bystander either).
There's just one problem with what you are suggesting - how do you suggest they go after the uploaders?
Have you ever sent an e-mail to rapidshare asking for information on the user who uploaded a file? Did you get that information? Were you able to use that information to get additional information required for legal action from the ISP? Were you then able to successfully bring forth legal action against the person?
Note that at every single question mark above, there are at least a dozen reasons why you would be answering 'no', and half a dozen more from privacy advocates who would rather that the above were, in fact, impossible - from strong defenses to weak ones. Just think of the very last one.. have you seen the discussion here since, well, forever, that a subscriber is not necessarily the person actually uploading? Could be somebody else in the household or maybe the WiFi was hacked.
So how, exactly, would you suggest that they actually go after the uploaders?
Though you are right that it might hurt their business - seeing as every single case against an actual uploader that's been covered here has resulted in very, very negative comments on the action.
It seems the only acceptable response to many is to do nothing. Let piracy happen. Or offer better alternatives (and accept that piracy will still happen because it'll never be 'better' enough for everybody.)
But in the interim, I would guess that targeting the hosting sites AND major indexing sites is at least the most efficient, even if the effect of doing this lasts at most a week (at which point pretty much everybody using the site will know of the alternatives to go to).
The problem is not the file-sharing sites nor the linking sites: it's copyright law.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
that they went after Rapidshare instead of Megaupload.
Only a united front can beat back the MAFIAA. Winston Churchill's statement on appeasement seems apropos here: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last".
So if someone is guilty of copyright infringement for posting the web address of a file, are they guilty of murder for posting the address of a known murderer?
Current efforts of law enforcement are already being wasted on pursuing linkers, when they should be focused on the publishers of copyrighted material. The people uploading, and the people garnering revenue from those uploads are the criminals. The file sharing sites know that plenty of people will subscribe so that they can download that material. They have an incentive to allow it to occur and turn a blind eye. They should be fined for any revenue they receive from subscribers who download pirated content. Essentially nullifying the revenue from the copyrighted material.
A file server you have to pay for? What exactly did rapidshare innovate in their entire existence?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
By RapidShares...
RapidShare, MegaUpload, Demonoid, etc all provide competition to the distribution monopoly of the RIAA members. That's their real problem. It isn't about piracy. The RIAA member/cartel are more worried about artists deciding that the middlemen are no longer necessary.
As long as the RIAA has their way, it will be impossible to operate a file locker/linking service without being arbitrarily shutdown by the "piracy" boogeyman. That's what they want, and right now they're the ones writing the laws.
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
So basically, say I am a DJ that is hosting a party at a club. At that party, someone brings in drugs or prostitutes or an illegal firearm. As the DJ who handed out a flyer promoting the event, I would then be breaking the law by telling people about an event in which a crime was committed?
Yeah, great idea....
sudo make me a sandwich
much bigger problem.
Stop wasting my tax dollars enforcing other people's copyright. Seriously: stop it. I'm tired of this shit. Especially when they're hosted in other countries!
And what if we add in the thousands of paste sites as well? If someone were to construct a small algorithm we could paste links to these sites, and point these leaves back up to a trunk. Then find them either with a search engine, or by scanning several paste sites. I seems to me that this could all be handled by a bit of javascript in a person's browser.
Suddenly instead of a single paste site, it becomes a web of information from an amalgamation of sites, pieced together by an agent running on a desktop?
Sorry, to spread FUD to the RIAA/MPAA supporters. but I think there are numerous potential innovations that can make linking sites into an unstoppable service.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I.e. the company who owned the copyrights weren't desirous of making any money off it.
We have that pesky first amendment... even the insane reactionaries on the current supreme court probably wouldn't go for a crackdown on linking sites
Yeah way to go. Kill the messenger to demonstrate to your constituents you're doing something about the problem.
Okay I've read all of the reasoning here for why people are against this, but lets think about it: linking is not illegal, file hosting is not illegal, but hosting a website with the explicit purpose of linking to copyrighted material in such a way that it infringes upon the copyright of the content owners? THAT should definitely be illegal. Don't tell me none of you have ever seen a forum or a blog filled with nothing but links to illegally shared copyrighted material. Heck I've seen several that have explicit categories for things like games on a per-system basis, genres of music, or whatever else. Whether it's for ROMs, ISOs, MP3s, or any other type of file, they exist. Lets not pretend that they don't. You can wear a tin hat and stroke your neckbeard while saying that the problem is copyright law, but realistically, in the world we live in where changing it so radically will never happen, these sites should be stopped. Heck I'd gladly link to at least a dozen that I know of off the top of my head for evidence if it wouldn't possibly incriminate me.
"No, DownloadSomeFreeGamesAndShitOrWhatever.com is totally legal! It's just people linking to stuff! They can't control what people share!"
Think about how freaking ridiculous that sounds. Yes, we should go after the infringers in the first place, but that doesn't mean we can't attack these sites as well. It's not like only one person is allowed to infringe. By hosting theses sites, the site owners are accomplices.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
I urge the U.S government to mind its own business, and stop pandering to the whims of lobbyists from the recording/movie/commercial software industry.
Stop using slashdot before its shut down!
Don't forget that the internet itself is a storage device. Assuming speed-of-light transfer (that's pessimistic) and 10Gbps transfer rates, we have a storage of about 33 kbit per kilometer of cable.
Are they going to forbid the internet?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
(see subject)
On February 24, 2012 Rapidshare announced that due to a surge in illegal traffic in response to the Megaupload seizure, it had limited all free accounts to a total of 30 kbit/s maximum download speed [and added pauses to the download every minute or so]. In order to lift the download cap it suggests users purchase a RapidPro account.
And I think even paid users have a daily quota and need to pay for "points" if they want more.
Soon to happen: Crackdown on Phonebook Companies