RapidShare Urges US To Punish Linking Sites and Not File-Sharing Sites

War on Google by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:War on Google by viperidaenz · 2012-08-20 08:35 · Score: 1

You don't need to host links. The pirate bay hosts magnet uri's.
Re:War on Google by Altrag · 2012-08-20 08:49 · Score: 2

Which are, in essence, a link. Maybe not in the technical sense of a direct pointer, but its a method for finding what you're looking for.
Saying otherwise is just as pointless as the old bitching about how "piracy" wasn't a problem because "pirates" roamed the high seas and wore eye patches. Technically true, but a fundamentally pointless argument in practice -- which specific buzzword was used as the label is irrelevant.
Shakespeare even pointed this out several centuries ago ("A rose by any other name..") Its not like "using the wrong label!" has ever really held up as a useful argument.
Re:War on Google by Sir_Sri · 2012-08-20 09:05 · Score: 1

Conceptually it's the same problem though.
Computer nerds viewed torrents as a way around file sharing rules because you never shared the whole file, only a little piece of it, guess how well that went over?
Changing the technology being used doesn't change what it does, if I post a list of hashes that my browser can interpret as the comments on /. they may as well be the actual links to the comments. Storing a collection of magnets, or links or providing any resource that allows me to access something I'm not supposed to (however you decide that) is going to fall under the umbrella of the law eventually.
Obviously this is a silly game of whack a mole, there are still tax havens and people have been mad about those for centuries, either you block people from leaving your intranet, and then tightly manage what's on it, or you're going to find that people are constantly finding ways to access things you don't want them to, that you can't do much about.
Re:War on Google by Larryish · 2012-08-20 09:23 · Score: 1

The real question with magnet links is...
How do fucking magnets work?
Re:War on Google by Tanktalus · 2012-08-20 09:29 · Score: 1

Its not like "using the wrong label!" has ever really held up as a useful argument.
I dunno about that. If you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop writes down "Tuesday" but it's Wednesday, that is liable to get the ticket thrown out.
But, other than that, yes, the courts are unlikely to be impressed by technical hocus-pocus acts.
Re:War on Google by JudgeFurious · 2012-08-20 09:30 · Score: 1

Miracle

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Re:War on Google by hillbluffer · 2012-08-20 09:56 · Score: 1

Haven't yall figured it out? RIAA/MPAA mantra: "The Job's not done til the internet is GONE" Making linking illegal will pretty much kill the internet.
Re:War on Google by nurb432 · 2012-08-20 10:05 · Score: 1

, you're effectively attacking the basis of every web site on the Internet
And they dont care as long as they are still in business and make money.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:War on Google by king+neckbeard · 2012-08-20 10:59 · Score: 1

It is quite important to draw these distinctions. Had Romeo not been a Montague, or Juliet not been a Capulet, then perhaps they wouldn't have been star-crossed lovers with only a fleeting romance. Likewise, by conflating the infringing of a legal monopoly with theft or piracy, the argument is tainted and hope of rational argument quickly goes out of the window. Accepting the propaganda labels of cartels that the important distinctions aren't important is a major loss to finding a reasonable outcome.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:War on Google by gmhowell · 2012-08-20 12:06 · Score: 1

Had Romeo not been a Montague, or Juliet not been a Capulet, then perhaps they wouldn't have been star-crossed lovers with only a fleeting romance.

Or if they hadn't been idiotic teenagers prevented from just fucking each other due to lack of quality birth control.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:War on Google by russotto · 2012-08-20 12:25 · Score: 1

Which are, in essence, a link. Maybe not in the technical sense of a direct pointer, but its a method for finding what you're looking for.
MPAA v. 2600 made a legal distinction between those two. An actual link can be infringement, the text version of the link without html directives are not. Go figure.
Re:War on Google by viperidaenz · 2012-08-20 13:08 · Score: 1

I don't know who thought only sharing pieces of a copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement. It's not a way around file sharing rules, its a way of removing the central host and distributing the network load.
A magnet uri on the other hand is a number. When you want to find the content you think the magnet uri refers to you ask a bunch of people "Do you know what this hash belongs to?". If doesn't say "The location of the content this uri refers to is here." There is a slim chance it could refer to many different files.

You can't copyright 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Re:War on Google by TriezGamer · 2012-08-20 13:32 · Score: 1

That's because Tuesday is a label for a specific day, and Wednesday is not a label for the same day - it is an inaccurate label. The point is that it doesn't matter what we label something as long as we all know what is being discussed. And in such a situation, arguing semantics just makes you look like a tool.
Re:War on Google by agrif · 2012-08-20 14:11 · Score: 1

It might be whack-a-mole, but the law is having smaller and smaller ground to stand on.
All information is just a number; this sounds like a facetious remark but it's really central to this whole ordeal. A 3 megabyte MP3 file is an extremely large number (by our standards), usually somewhere around 2^3,000,000. A magnet URI is a much smaller number, usually around 2^128, and magnet URIs are literally just numbers.
The problem here is that current copyright law says numbers can't be copyrighted, and common sense even among non-math-literate folks says that no number should be illegal. I'm not about to argue that all data cannot be copyrighted, I'm just pointing out that there's a rather glaring inconsistency in copyright law that can be exploited by moving data needed to torrent something into a smaller string. Most people would be okay copyrighting 3 megabytes of data, but fewer would be okay with copyrighting 128 bytes. Especially if those bytes have no meaning other than just a number.
Wikipedia has a good article on Illegal Numbers. It's going to be a fun day when this all finally comes to a head.
Re:War on Google by Sir_Sri · 2012-08-20 15:24 · Score: 2

but the law is having smaller and smaller ground to stand on.

I think it's the other way around, the law is going to get more and more broad, because it's going to be about what you can do with a collection of numbers (after all, everything on computers is just 1's and 0's), or the interpretation of that number rather than the number itself is what matters on you.
We prohibit things like guns (in civilized countries at least) because access to them is dangerous. But it's not the gun itself that is illegal usually, it's the possession of it, the transport of it, the sale of it etc. Lawn darts is the same thing, any use of a lawn dart is unnecessarily dangerous, so society can't be on the hook for it.
Numbers are as dangerous as they can be interpreted to be, so possession of a number that can be used to break into a bank vault or steal an mp3 will be broadly illegal, whatever form that number takes.
Re:War on Google by Altrag · 2012-08-20 16:26 · Score: 1

Don't know the details of the case, but if its as cut-and-dry as you make it out, that sounds like the work of either a brilliant lawyer or a stupid judge (or both.)
Not that I have any love for the MPAA but come on -- if it points me to something, its a "link" I can follow, regardless of whether I can just click or if I have to cut and paste it (and the lines are even blurring these days with the advent of automatic link detection in various software.) Similarly, a "magnet" vs a "torrent" are both just links with different icons from the user's perspective (which is the perspective that really matters at the end of the day.) Magnet links having an extra layer of technical indirection doesn't make them any less link-like in the long run.
Re:War on Google by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:25 · Score: 1

Likewise, by conflating the infringing of a legal monopoly with theft or piracy, the argument is tainted and hope of rational argument quickly goes out of the window. Accepting the propaganda labels of cartels that the important distinctions aren't important is a major loss to finding a reasonable outcome.
I'm sorry, but you appear to be ignorant of the origin of the term "piracy" to refer to acts of copyright infringement.
Several decades ago, there was a radio station called Radio Caroline, and it broadcast from a ferry anchored in international waters off the coast of South-East England. Then along came Radio Atlanta, a little bit further north.
The term "pirate radio" was born, to describe unlicensed, off-shore broadcasts. As happens in language, the term gained new usages, and came to refer to all unlicensed broadcasts, including (strictly illegal) shore-based pirate stations.
As the term "pirate" was now established in this sense, it was a natural evolution for it to be applied during the boom in home-taping and market-stall trading.
It is not industry propaganda, it is an established usage. What would you prefer? "Counterfeiting" doesn't work. Should we invent a new term? Why not just accept the established one?

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:War on Google by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:33 · Score: 1

Making linking illegal will pretty much kill the internet.
Uh-huh. I'll assume that you're being purposefully disengenuous. I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting you're unable to make a distinction between "knowingly and purposefully linking to infringing content" and "linking".
I won't insult your intelligence by trying to explain the difference, or by analogising your statement to a claim that laws against (physical) theft are "making picking things up" illegal."

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:War on Google by cffrost · 2012-08-20 23:40 · Score: 1

And in such a situation, arguing semantics just makes you look like a tool.

Yes, one of the tools used by Big Grammar Nazi, no?

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Re:War on Google by cellocgw · 2012-08-21 04:42 · Score: 1

Ummm... just what do you think they had been doing between the balcony scene and "it is not the nightingale, it is the lark" ?

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:War on Google by Sir_Sri · 2012-08-21 06:32 · Score: 1

Erm... no, we don't. We require you to have a licence and pass tests at regular intervals, and we have a system to take away that licence if you are caught violating the rules often enough.
We also require people with a higher probability of failing the test to retake it at regular intervals (both young drivers through graduated licencing and old drivers who have to retest periodically).
Re:War on Google by king+neckbeard · 2012-08-21 08:24 · Score: 1

The use of the term 'piracy' predates the Statute of Anne, so it is you that is ignorant. It was used by the Stationer's Company, a truly horrible organization.

And for Radio Caroline, the appropriate term would probably be 'unlicensed' radio. Radio Caroline wasn't even illegal, so piracy would be an inaccurate term. However, I'm quite sure that a number of organizations saw a benefit in demonizing this entity that the law couldn't touch, and 'pirate' was an easy label to affix.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:War on Google by gmhowell · 2012-08-21 10:08 · Score: 1

Might have to reread it. It's been 25 years.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:War on Google by hobarrera · 2012-08-22 01:29 · Score: 1

And google just hosts http uri's.
Mere semantics.
Re:War on Google by jp10558 · 2012-08-24 08:49 · Score: 1

Somehow I expect it had to do with a judge seeing an HTML link like technical mumbo jumbo which has often been blocked as infringing, whereas plain text has long be held to be protected under the first amendment, however much someone powerful may dislike it - and so when printed, cannot be infringement or something as it's not a fixed copy in any way of the actual art. IDK - not a lawyer, but they come up with some strange stuff.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

How does this even make sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I doubt anybody would punish linking somewhere without punishing outright sharing too.

Re:How does this even make sense? by cpu6502 · 2012-08-20 08:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

The UK just did it..... sent a man to jail for 4 years because he provided links to piratebay, demonoid, and other sites that had TV shows/movies.
Of couse the UK has demonstrated itself to be as bad as Russia when it comes to free speech, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:How does this even make sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 08:44 · Score: 1

Careful there... you're bordering on hate speech!
Re:How does this even make sense? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 09:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

The UK just did it..... sent a man to jail for 4 years because he provided links to piratebay, demonoid, and other sites that had TV shows/movies.
That sounds innocuous enough - but keep in mind that he actually made GBP35,000/month in 2009 with these activities.
Given that they were merely link sites, his hosting costs weren't going to put much of a dent into those figures.
Now I'm not saying that his profiting is what made it illegal (it was illegal either way), or that 4 years in jail is an appropriate sentence - but let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that these site operators are only wishing to give to the world, to provide cultural enrichment to the needy, etc. They most certainly do profit by providing an avenue through which 'piracy' is committed.
That said, under my copyright reform suggestion, linking sites would in fact not be a valid target for legal action. But not because of some misguided 'free speech' concern. ( In case you were referring to the Pussy Riot thing - wow. Did you really just equate the two? If so, you may wish to read up on that case a bit more. It's many times more scary than any piracy-linksite getting targeted is. )
Re:How does this even make sense? by Artraze · 2012-08-20 09:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

... which is so awesome, even, because that's already down the slippery slope: Piratebay and Demonoid don't have TV shows/movies either, they only link it themselves (torrents are just oversized links). So that means there is now someone in jail for linking to a site linking to pirated bits. Can one even argue there's a difference between:
https://thepiratebay.se/
https://www.google.com/search?q=thepiratebay
https://www.google.com/ seatch for "thepiratebay" and click the first link
?
Sense is really just not a player here.
Re:How does this even make sense? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 09:32 · Score: 2

an one even argue there's a difference between:
https://thepiratebay.se/
https://www.google.com/search?q=thepiratebay
https://www.google.com/ seatch for "thepiratebay" and click the first link
Yes, one can argue that. If argued in front of a judge, they'd even agree with the argument. If argued in front of any reasonable person, they'd also agree.
Open up TPB in one window, open up Google in another. Present to some person unfamiliar with either. Give them 5 minutes to explore each site. Now ask them to give a summary description of each site. I'd be highly surprised if your test subject would suggest there's no difference between the two sites.
Of course when you add search query details for 'pirate' sites or for 'pirated' contents to the URL, there's far less of a difference. But that's the major, major difference between the two, isn't it? TPB presents the information for you, along with very useful categories, links to the latest content, etc. Google presents you with a search box and a bunch of links to their other services (none of which are comparable to TPB either). (Common) Sense is very much a player here.
It doesn't detract from your earlier statement - or the odd legal approach taken (conspiracy to defraud) - but the whole "TPB is exactly like Google" argument falls apart right at the moment the sentence is finished with ", but for 'pirated' content.". Nobody in their right mind would argue it in a court of law anymore - I don't know why some people continue to suggest this comparison :)
Re:How does this even make sense? by Shagg · 2012-08-20 09:40 · Score: 1

Of course there's a difference. Google has a lot more money than TPB does. Bullies go after the weak, not other kids bigger than they are.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:How does this even make sense? by king+neckbeard · 2012-08-20 11:03 · Score: 2

Except the UK had ruled that linking sites were legal. Also, I seem to recall the site in question linking to legitimate sources as well, such as Hulu and iTunes.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:How does this even make sense? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 12:23 · Score: 2

Except the UK had ruled that linking sites were legal.
iirc there were two cases in which the sites in question were deemed legal. It remains a case-by-case thing. However, I do agree that the charge in this case is suspicious at best (conspiracy to defraud).

Also, I seem to recall the site in question linking to legitimate sources as well, such as Hulu and iTunes.
Probably - but let's face it, even TPB has magnet links to Linux distros, The GIMP, etc. That doesn't suddenly make TPB the 'go to' place for all things F/L/OSS - and judges would be similarly unimpressed by the argument that the site 'also links to' when that is an insignificant component of the site's functioning and intent.
Re:How does this even make sense? by 10101001+10101001 · 2012-08-20 12:26 · Score: 1

That sounds innocuous enough - but keep in mind that he actually made GBP35,000/month in 2009 with these activities.
Given that they were merely link sites, his hosting costs weren't going to put much of a dent into those figures.
Shh.. I hear there's this website, Google that merely links sites and makes over $1,000,000,000/month in 2010. Oh, right, making money from linking isn't illegal or relevant per se. Of course, Google isn't going around directly encouraging users to upload other people's copyrighted works, but since "inciting to commit copyright infringement" isn't itself a crime AFAIK... Then again, it could be argued to be a form of conspiracy. In any case, linking would seem to be a moot point.

Now I'm not saying that his profiting is what made it illegal (it was illegal either way), or that 4 years in jail is an appropriate sentence - but let's not kid ourselves by suggesting that these site operators are only wishing to give to the world, to provide cultural enrichment to the needy, etc. They most certainly do profit by providing an avenue through which 'piracy' is committed.
Um, and? Do you think most site owners or, hell, copyright owners who make any sort of profit are "only wishing to give to the world, to provide cultural enrichment to the needy, etc"? Fuck no. They're in it for the money as a general point. And why shouldn't they be? It's not there's anything illegal or amoral about trying to make money. The fact that those actions may only incidentally provide cultural enrichment or whatever is really precisely a byproduct of how copyright was written; the fact that violating copyright might actually, even incidentally, have the same effect is both amusing and rather condemns the idea that copyright is necessary. Of course, the hard part is actually knowing if and when cultural enrichment actually is occurring. Personally, I don't think I can hand wave one way or the other about the need or effectiveness of copyright/copyright law in that regard.

That said, under my copyright reform suggestion, linking sites would in fact not be a valid target for legal action. But not because of some misguided 'free speech' concern. ( In case you were referring to the Pussy Riot thing - wow. Did you really just equate the two? If so, you may wish to read up on that case a bit more. It's many times more scary than any piracy-linksite getting targeted is. )
Very true. I only hope the GP was speaking in hyperbole. The whole Pussy Riot case in Russia is absurd.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:How does this even make sense? by Kjella · 2012-08-20 13:15 · Score: 1

Sure, but there is a huge difference between linking to the front page and links to specific pages that exist only to facilitate copyright infringement of one particular item. It's like a guy asking you "Do you know where I can get some drugs?" and the difference between you answering "Try the phone book." and "Here's the number for a dealer I know." A lot of people like to pretend the phone book and your guide book to local drug dealers with phone numbers are one and the same, because they both contain phone numbers and have ads. Just like both Google and The Pirate Bay contain links. In the words of a guy trying to sell me a fake Rolex, "same same but different".

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:How does this even make sense? by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-08-20 13:32 · Score: 1

From what I remember reading only one quarter were infringing.
In all reality any site that host links like this should simply block anyone accessing from the USA. I am no international lawyer, but I think part of the problem is that his site was available in the USA, even if it was hosted in the UK. It is probably a grey zone, in terms of international law, but since the UK is bending over to USA based entities, this probably doesn't matter.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:How does this even make sense? by king+neckbeard · 2012-08-20 13:38 · Score: 1

Probably - but let's face it, even TPB has magnet links to Linux distros, The GIMP, etc. That doesn't suddenly make TPB the 'go to' place for all things F/L/OSS - and judges would be similarly unimpressed by the argument that the site 'also links to' when that is an insignificant component of the site's functioning and intent.
It wasn't an insignificant amount of the links posted, and they would make the same amount off of ads whether or not the links were legal or illegal. Your argument is not on based upon evidence towards a specific legal crime. Instead, you are doing hardly anything more than saying that this business doesn't feel legitimate, so let's punish them. That is contrary to how law should work. They punished him under a law that doesn't make any sense here to get around the precedent that linking sites like his are not copyright infringement.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:Darn you Google! by hesiod · 2012-08-20 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem isn't that I'm offering fake Rolexes for sale, it's that some law breaker is telling people about it!

Not that easy by thoriumbr · 2012-08-20 08:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Uploaders? by ThatsMyNick · 2012-08-20 08:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Uploaders? by VortexCortex · 2012-08-20 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Shouldn't they actually go for the content creator and not the uploader or the hosting company? Ahh pointing out that content creators licenses are what causes the uploading, hosting and linking to be illegal makes them look stupid, so they would rather have unlimited copyright for "a limited time" that's actually THREE GENERATIONS OF HUMANS in length.
Re:Uploaders? by fa2k · 2012-08-20 08:50 · Score: 1

Agree 100 %. The hosting company is also technically breaking copyright by distributing copies, but there are methods for dealing with that (the good part of DMCA).
Re:Uploaders? by BlackSabbath · 2012-08-20 09:51 · Score: 1

Why that's crazy talk!
You young people and your logic...
Re:Uploaders? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 10:46 · Score: 1

Shouldn't they actually go for the content creator and not the uploader or the hosting company? Ahh pointing out that content creators licenses are what causes the uploading, hosting and linking to be illegal makes them look stupid, so they would rather have unlimited copyright for "a limited time" that's actually THREE GENERATIONS OF HUMANS in length.
While I agree that rights' holders current licensing schemes, artificial distribution limits, etc. etc. very much are a huge factor in piracy, the duration of copyright is not a factor in this except for the few activists that decidedly say "I believe 5 years is long enough for copyright, and because of the author.life+70-year copyright term, I will now download this movie released 10 years ago - that I wouldn't have downloaded if the term was 5 years - just to spite them! ha!".
Let's be honest - if copyright duration were reduced to those 5 years, or even 3, do you honestly believe that a significant portion of current 'pirates' would stop 'pirating' material that is not yet 3 years old?
As much as people complain about the author's life + 70 years, the fact of the matter is that mostly they will be downloading content that's not even a year old. Be that a movie released on DVD 2 weeks ago or a TV series episode that aired just the night before (in the U.S. and you have to wait 6 months before it airs where you life - I do hate that with a passion, just not the passion of a 'pirate', instead I go straight to the rights holders - kudos to HBO for airing Game of Thrones rather timely in NL - 1 day after U.S. airing (whether or not my - or the hundreds of other) letter(s) was a factor in that, doesn't matter)).
Re:Uploaders? by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-08-20 13:35 · Score: 1

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.
The other problem is that the hosting sites may be in jurisdictions that aren't so sympathetic to foreign entities screwing with their legal system. This would mean it is easier to screw with parties that are making money in jurisdictions that are sympathetic.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Uploaders? by Esteanil · 2012-08-20 14:02 · Score: 1

Let's be honest - if copyright duration were reduced to those 5 years, or even 3, do you honestly believe that a significant portion of current 'pirates' would stop 'pirating' material that is not yet 3 years old?
No. I believe that if the powers that be hadn't committed the largest theft in the history of mankind - stealing the vast majority of our cultural works and hiding them away behind their paywalls (those they don't just let rot and vanish from the face of the earth so they won't compete with their new works), piracy would never have risen to the levels it's at now - and would be much harder to justify.
Now? It's too late. We've already got several generations hooked on easy, free, downloads.
And strangely, when they succeed in lowering the rates of piracy by draconian measures (See France, Hadopi), it turns out that consumers end up buying *much less* of their products than before...

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Re:Uploaders? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 23:24 · Score: 1

No. I believe that if the powers that be hadn't committed the largest theft in the history of mankind - stealing the vast majority of our cultural works and hiding them away behind their paywalls (those they don't just let rot and vanish from the face of the earth so they won't compete with their new works),
Wait - how can it be theft if it was never your possession in the first place? I get what you're saying, and I'm sure the copyright extensions would make for a good argument of "if not for the copyright extensions, they would have been in the public domain, and indeed be our 'possession'!" - but since they were enacted, those 'what ifs' are moot.
In addition, just because it's behind a paywall doesn't mean it's not accessible.
The lack of releasing old material on new media is a better argument, but not for competing purposes. While many enjoy their older TV series on Netflix, they're still also watching Game of Thrones / The Walking Dead / Keeping up with the Kardashians (x.x)

piracy would never have risen to the levels it's at now - and would be much harder to justify.
While it would be harder to justify (not sure how much harder), under a shorter copyright term there would also simply be less 'piracy' by virtue of the fact that most works would be in the public domain. It would do nothing for recent works, which remain the largest portion of 'pirated' material.

Now? It's too late. We've already got several generations hooked on easy, free, downloads.
And I believe people would have gotten hooked on that either way because there's practically always a superior element in 'piracy' that appeals to a large group.
That doesn't take away that how things have been handled (and continue to be handled, in many respects) are a large factor in the rise of - and continued success of - 'piracy'. I fully recognize that the iTunes model has driven many people to buy songs piecewise, for example. That Amazon Prime's $1 or $3 movies are finding a large audience. That app stores with anything between $1 and $30 apps are very successful. All of these despite 'piracy' alternatives. Had they been available early on, then 'piracy' may not have become such a mainstay.
On the other hand, people do still pirate (Amazon Prime doesn't carry every single movie, iTunes doesn't carry every band, app stores don't carry all the apps - and even if they do, $0 can still look rather appealing), and one of the major reasons people use the legal alternatives is not because they particularly want to pay but because it's convenient; they can sit on their couch and control their smart TV, find a movie they want to watch, accept that it costs $n, and it begins playing within seconds. 'piracy' doesn't (yet) have an answer to that for most consumers, in large part because it practically requires streaming services rather than a "download first, then play" model.
If the 'piracy' sites/services were every bit as convenient, you tell me if consumers would navigate to Amazon Prime, or to Pirate Prime on their TV when the only difference is that one of them is free.

And strangely, when they succeed in lowering the rates of piracy by draconian measures (See France, Hadopi), it turns out that consumers end up buying *much less* of their products than before...
Actually, I don't find that strange at all. I know I come off as pro-industry at times, but it couldn't really be much further from the truth :) Efforts to fight piracy are costing the industry far more than they stand to gain from putting it to their advantage; there's no reason they couldn't release movies themselves, in higher quality than pirates typically can on short notice, and include trailers of other movies in the MKV. Or leave out the surround sound track - point out that the paid version ($1-5, say) has that and more (such as the bonus material often omitted from 'p
Re:Uploaders? by Esteanil · 2012-08-21 11:00 · Score: 1

That said, I don't particularly think that Hadopi is 'draconian'. I think some of its elements are questionable at best, but the core principle that you get warned a few times before your connection gets cut off isn't 'draconian'. If anything it's like (and yes, comparisons fail every single time) telling a thief that he was caught stealing and please don't steal again 2 times and only actually punish them the 3rd time.
What makes HADOPI draconian is that you don't have to get caught, you just have to get accused 3 times and you lose your internet for 2 months to 1 year.
Yes, you can go to court, but only *after* this, and then you have the uphill battle of proving your innocence.
As such, HADOPI is in complete conflict with the principle of presumption of innocence - that the burden of proof should lay on the accused.
This is a complete contravention of literally over a millennium of recognized legal tradition, and I hardly think calling it draconian is overstating it...
As to copyright extensions, literally hundreds of thousands of work were stolen that were humanity's common property - for the benefit of commercial entities. That you can pay to see (some of) your stolen objects doesn't mean they weren't stolen. With the latest US copyright extensions, and the secret treaties that they won't let us see, it's become completely clear that copyright is no longer about promoting progress of science and useful arts.
It's about letting the rent-seeking parasites, who by the nature of their businesses are so profitable they can give vast amounts of money in buying useful laws, continue to rent our own culture to us for their profit.
I also think it's pretty damn close to a crime against humanity to let vast amounts of our culture simply vanish by neglect - they're copyrighted, so you can't copy them, and the company that owns them couldn't give less of a damn because they haven't been making the company money for 50 years.

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
Re:Uploaders? by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-22 03:41 · Score: 1

What makes HADOPI draconian is that you don't have to get caught, you just have to get accused 3 times

Right, that's one of the bits that I find questionable at best. I do believe that any kind of 'N strikes' setup there has to be due process for any of the strikes that actually count. If they want to send the person on the connection's account a little notice that some copyright infringement was detected, along with details, that doesn't count as a 'strike', I think that should be fine; after all, maybe the subscriber just has an open connection, or one of their kids did it.. better to know (and then decide how to deal with that, if at all) than not.

As to copyright extensions, literally hundreds of thousands of work were stolen that were humanity's common property

Except that in the case of copyright extensions, I believe these were enacted before the first works would become Public Domain? I could be wrong in that - I'm sure hitting wikipedia would tell me either way.
I do know of the case of foreign works, which were considered PD, re-entering copyright in the U.S. as part of an international treaty, first signaled in 2010 and I think settled at the Supreme Court level in 2012. But then, those works were largely in copyright in e.g. the author's country - so international matters complicate things quite a bit.

I also think it's pretty damn close to a crime against humanity to let vast amounts of our culture simply vanish by neglect - they're copyrighted, so you can't copy them, and the company that owns them couldn't give less of a damn because they haven't been making the company money for 50 years.
I largely agree, but again things may be more complex in some instances.
Think of simple games from the DOS or Win3.x era. You couldn't really sell them today unless it was as part of some large bundle (some major titles exempt). So some gaming sites would post these (some with consent from the original publisher / creator / etc., some not so much) based on the idea that doing so wouldn't cut into anybody's profits, while making these great games available for the newer generations.
But then cell phones that could run mobile editions of java appeared, and some smart individuals realized that if they could buy up the IP, they could re-release these games for mobile (this continues with smartphones). So now making the games available could be argued to cut into some company's profits.
Personally I don't think that's a very strong argument and favor making works available over letting them gather dust 'just in case' somebody finds a way to monetize it years down the road, but it has been grounds for some of these sites to remove titles.

In the end, he loved Big Brother. by Tackhead · 2012-08-20 08:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.'"

"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.

Right.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 08:24 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Right.... by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:51 · Score: 1

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?
Ermmmm... the only reason it's not illegal is that there isn't a law against it... yet. We can write new laws, you know. These sites are a problem, so they should be illegal. Let's pass laws that ban them, then!
Of course, RapidShare shouldn't be entirely off the hook -- there should also be laws that make a clear legal distinction between a casual user (protecting web companies from having to do due dilligence on every single user) and a heavy user (who must be considered a contractual client/supplier, and usual business due dilligence therefore applies). So a single wedding video that gets downloaded by a few dozen friends and family wouldn't require investigation, but an account hosting 100 DVD ISOs, each downloaded by a thousand people certainly would....

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

It would be a dangerous precedent. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-20 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by clonehappy · 2012-08-20 08:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

Facilitating copyright infringement is a crime and has been upheld by the US courts. Linking to copyrighted material would fall under facilitation. You may not agree with it, but that's the way it is. Free speech doesn't give you cover for it either.
And the US courts are always infallible, right? You sound awfully Team USA with your statement.

If someone asks Siri where to hide a dead body, she will give them the locations of Dumps, Mineshafts, Quarries, etc. Would that make Apple accessory to murder?
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by haruchai · 2012-08-20 08:47 · Score: 1

It would have to be clarified considerably better than "linking to copyrighted material".
Otherwise you could be charged for a link to a public library.
Say, if linking to copyrighted stuff is criminal, why are Google and Microsoft still operating search engines?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-20 08:53 · Score: 1

"Linking to copyrighted material would fall under facilitation."
So far, according to the courts, that is only true when the INTENT is clearly to facilitate infringement. And even then... infringement is not a crime. Piracy is, but by (legal) definition, "piracy" only occurs when infringement is done for profit motive.

"If someone asks Siri where to hide a dead body, she will give them the locations of Dumps, Mineshafts, Quarries, etc. Would that make Apple accessory to murder?"
You are merely reinforcing my point. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to ask such a thing... even for the purposes of forensics. Just as there are plenty of legitimate "fair use" purposes for copying or downloading, which would otherwise be infringement.

At least in the U.S. I don't pretend to know the laws of other countries.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by spazdor · 2012-08-20 08:55 · Score: 1

"Facilitating" is absurdly broad language for this kind of a law. It deserves to be struck down, or else every ISP needs to be shut down for their role as facilitators too.
If free speech isn't cover, then neither is 'common carrier' law.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-08-20 08:56 · Score: 4, Informative

"Say, if linking to copyrighted stuff is criminal, why are Google and Microsoft still operating search engines?"
Exactly. And that is only part of the point: how can linking be a crime, when even downloading isn't a crime. ("Piracy" is, but downloading is not piracy, according to the legal definition. Downloading is merely infringement, a civil infraction. Piracy is a crime, but in order to be piracy (generally speaking), it has to involve mass distribution of copyrighted materials for profit.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by gl4ss · 2012-08-20 08:58 · Score: 1

It would have to be clarified considerably better than "linking to copyrighted material".
Otherwise you could be charged for a link to a public library.
Say, if linking to copyrighted stuff is criminal, why are Google and Microsoft still operating search engines?
because the law isn't the same for everyone.
link collection sites have been targeted by feds since the dawn of internet whenever some riaa,bsa or such wanted them to go down. it's not about logic or the feds applying the law on their own.
but the thing is, you find those sites with google... and plenty of those search sites aren't even manually operated.
what rapidshare is trying to pre-empt is them getting raided due to queries made on other sites like http://rapid-search-engine.com/index-s=mass%2Beffect.html

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by h4rr4r · 2012-08-20 09:01 · Score: 1

I understand that has happened, but then how does google survive?
Searching will bring up all kinds of infringing links.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by miltonw · 2012-08-20 09:27 · Score: 1

It would have to be clarified considerably better than "linking to copyrighted material".
Much of the material on the Internet is copyrighted and the authors very much want people to link to their sites -- that's what they are there for. I'm sure most of Microsoft's site is copyrighted, for instance. If "linking to copyrighted material" was a crime, the Internet would cease to exist.

I believe you mean "linking to unauthorized copyrighted material" but tell me how you propose a person determine, quickly, reliably and automatically, which copyrighted material is authorized and which is not.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Algae_94 · 2012-08-20 09:52 · Score: 1

Link sites often link to other sites and not to copyrighted material. How many levels of indirection makes it no longer a crime? Since most of the web is linked together through a path of some number of links, the logical conclusion is that the entire web is facilitating copyright infringement.
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 10:35 · Score: 1

Link sites often link to other sites and not to copyrighted material. How many levels of indirection makes it no longer a crime?
That's a good question, and I certainly don't have a answer to that with a foundation in any jurisdiction's laws. I'm pretty sure the judges here (NL) wouldn't even know and would have to determine that on a case-by-case scenario until law were written on it ('precedent' doesn't mean much in our courts - which can be both a bane and a boon).
However, in reality, link sites linking to link sites is not really a diverging network. 100 link sites all link to 25 link sites which link to 5 link sites which link to maybe 1-3 hosts that actually carry the files or do link in a divergent manner (content stored on a multitude of small sites, temp accounts, hacked accounts, etc.)
So within that network, the nodes at the 100 level, the 25 level, and the 5 level? Inconsequential when instead you can take down the 1-3 'hosts'. Of course if you can't, then going after the 5 makes a lot more sense than going after the 100.
Would that make the nodes at the 100 level exempt from legal action? Probably not - but why bother if you just took away their 'sources'?
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by bughunter · 2012-08-20 11:45 · Score: 1

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.
Agreed. I thought we learned this lesson nearly a generation ago with the whole HD DVD crypto key / deCSS controversy. The DVDCCA thugs were going around threatening to prosecute people under DMCA for even linking to the deCSS code or the HD DVD decryption keys (which were being found simply by peeking into RAM after running licensed HD DVD playback software). EFF and other internet groups tried mounting a defense, with mixed results, but afaict the real reason the whole thing died down is due to a) the Striesand effect (deCSS was distributed on everything from tee-shirts to steganographic porn while HDDVD keys were published widely in similar fashion), and b) DVDCCA enforcement of better key security among licensees.
In this case, a solution like b) isn't going to be so easy... but the Streisand effect isn't going away either. I fear that may mean a very unpleasantly different outcome.
I believe I still have my deCSS tee shirt, which can be seen here, about a third of the page down.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Zimluura · 2012-08-20 11:52 · Score: 1

This!! This!! 1000 times!!
"...so you see your honor, we feel it is our potential customers responsibility to make sure that the site they're getting media from is one of our authorized sites. they should know the difference between a video on hulu and one on youtube, and if they don't they should be sued for it... ...to avoid getting sued just watch what we tell you to watch, while paying us large sums of money on a monthly basis... ...the only way to make sure you don't get sued is to watch only from our approved sites... ...that news show, with the slant we don't agree with, we can't be sure you have the right to watch it, and can't guarantee we won't sue you for watching it..."
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Kjella · 2012-08-20 13:57 · Score: 2

Exactly. And that is only part of the point: how can linking be a crime, when even downloading isn't a crime. ("Piracy" is, but downloading is not piracy, according to the legal definition. Downloading is merely infringement, a civil infraction. Piracy is a crime, but in order to be piracy (generally speaking), it has to involve mass distribution of copyrighted materials for profit.
That's not +5 Informative, it's wrong. USC 17506(a)(1)(B):

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
Did you see "reproduction" there? That's what you do when you download, it's been confirmed many times by the courts. The uploader distributes, the downloader reproduces. So if you download say the Adobe Master Collection ($2599 retail price) you are a criminal, not just a civil infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is actually more of an OR than an AND, either for profit OR distribution of high value OR in large quantity OR reproduction of high value OR in large quantity OR distributing an unpublished work OR a movie in cinemas but not on sale. That is, there are many ways to commit criminal infringement without it being for profit. The main reason it's used much less is that it's harder to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt), needs a public prosecution, you get all the benefits of a trial like the right to a lawyer and by itself the copyright holders aren't making any money on it - except possibly the scare factor.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Artifakt · 2012-08-20 18:04 · Score: 1

The principle starts being abusive well short of that. Let's say Google provides 2,312,000 hits to a query. The first couple of pages don't really seeem to be what the querent is looking for. What happens to a site that tells people how to refine their searches to better get meaningful results?
Maybe Google has substantial non-infringing or otherwise legal uses and can claim a defense here, but what's to stop someone from arguing that, say, tips on refining searches lack that substantial use? For a specific example, suppose a site lists terms that will get a large number of webcam feeds that have been set up to enable public access? If the law says that any person who set up a web cam, and didn't password or otherwise protect it, has no valid complaint if people who were not specifically authorized recieve the feed, then a substantial portion of those search hints have non-criminal uses, but if it's presumed that tapping any webcam that you were not specifically told was public access is against one or another of the 'anti-hacking' laws, then presumably, the legal uses of that site are now small compared to illegal ones. Substantial non-infringing uses is not really very well defined, either in fair use doctrine or case law - it's more like obscenity - a judge just somehow knows it when he or she sees it.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:53 · Score: 1

Just as there are plenty of legitimate "fair use" purposes for copying or downloading, which would otherwise be infringement.
Fair use only applies to the end-user though -- the distributor is still in the wrong.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Re:It would be a dangerous precedent. by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:59 · Score: 2

Car analogy: A getaway driver is an accessory to a crime. A taxi driver isn't an accessory if he didn't know the fare was fleeing the scene of the crime at the time. There's a lot about "intent" in law....

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by gavron · 2012-08-20 08:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

Re:Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by VortexCortex · 2012-08-20 08:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

Eliminate copyright. Problem solved.
Re:Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 08:49 · Score: 1

No way, our entertainment industry is "too big to fail"!
It's not a service industry otherwise artists would actually make most of their money performing. Instead, they do a little work up front and sit back and wait for the checks.
Re:Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by houghi · 2012-08-20 09:10 · Score: 1

Yeah, bu that would create so much jobs, we would need to eliminate the war on drugs, so people who can do the jobs can get out of prison.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 10:29 · Score: 1

Eliminate copyright. Problem solved.
hear, hear
Well, partially anyway. It wouldn't exactly 'solve' the problem, would it?
People commit murders despite cops chasing after them, jailing some of them, and even killing a few of them every once in a while. "Eliminate laws regarding homicide. Problem solved." - but you'd still have murderers. You might even have more murderers if you find that you can legally get away with it (of course you might get the family/friends of the victim going out to kill you, and they wouldn't be encumbered by laws saying they can't do that either).
Pretending the problem isn't there doesn't make it go away.
The elephant in the room might be "what problem?" - seeing as I can't think of anybody who views copyright infringement as an actual problem except for the special interest groups that are paid to combat it.
( No, not even Joe the Gaffer - they're affected by economic driving forces far greater than what piracy has ever effected. )
But I do agree that copyright should be abolished and instead distribution rights be enforced. This would still target RapidShare, though - so the problem would not be solved for RapidShare.
Re:Rapidshare HAS NOW MADE THEMSELVES the problem by TFAFalcon · 2012-08-20 10:34 · Score: 1

But what makes Rapidshare so different from say Gmail? You can send a big attachment to a 'public' email, then publish the password and user name to a 'link' site. Google will then perform the same function that Rapidshare does. Or how about Googledocs. What if someone posts a copyrighted work there?

But... by Nexion · 2012-08-20 08:28 · Score: 1

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, thenâ¦ wellâ¦ that would be a lot of work!

Let's make it even easier by fustakrakich · 2012-08-20 08:30 · Score: 1

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!”

Re:Let's make it even easier by Urza9814 · 2012-08-20 08:49 · Score: 1

Definitely need a constitutional convection and get rid of the damn thing.
I thought that whole 'Bill of Rights' thing was already long dead and buried?
Re:Let's make it even easier by cheekyjohnson · 2012-08-20 10:28 · Score: 1

I thought so too. Didn't we crumple it up and toss it out around the time that we created the TSA, passed the Patriot Act, allowed warrantless tracking of cars, and came up with the idea of free speech zones? Actually, has there ever been a time when we followed the constitution? Listening to it would allow the communists/terrorists to win, so only a communist/terrorist enabler would do so...

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!

Obligatory "Your post advocates a" checklist by davidwr · 2012-08-20 08:49 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Re:Obligatory "Your post advocates a" checklist by Kalriath · 2012-08-20 17:00 · Score: 1

You missed two Microsoft-related items in the "fails to account for" list. These are required per the checklist protocol. The following would work:
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) Armies of trojan-riddled Windows boxes connected to the internet (X) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Stupidity on the part of some people who do business over the Internet (X) Bing

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:Obligatory "Your post advocates a" checklist by falcon112358 · 2012-08-20 18:48 · Score: 1

Yours seems better than mine, but since I did work up a related checklist some time ago, maybe someone will see fit to cull a few items from it.

Your suggestion advocates a ( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting copyright infringement. 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.) ( ) Analog hole ( ) A file only has to be cracked once ( ) The entire system only has to be cracked once ( ) Playback hardware must contain the decryption key ( ) An IP address is not a person (X) Sneakernet (X) Jurisdictional problems (X) Cannot distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate uses (X) It will stop infringement for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) It is illegal (X) Requires too much cooperation from other bodies ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Users will not put up with it ( ) Apple will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Courts will not put up with it... eventually It may cause the following problems specifically for users of the products in question: ( ) Incompatibility with otherwise working devices they already own ( ) No backups ( ) No timeshifting ( ) No shifting across multiple owned devices (X) No quoting, parody, etc. reuse ( ) SOL if the activation server goes down, internet connection is lost, or the creating company folds ( ) Loss of the right of first sale ( ) Inability to control own devices ( ) Security holes ( ) Inferior product to a pirated version and the following general objections to your argument may also apply: (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (X) The activity in question is not actually copyright infringement (X) You are not willing to be held to this standard ( ) You routinely infringe others' work ( ) You have quietly encouraged infringement of your own work ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of private computers ( ) The Internet is not a series of tubes ( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses ( ) Breaks important standards ( ) You are a rent seeker (X) Anyone with deep pockets for litigation could destroy anyone else's life or business ( ) As above, but without even the need to litigate ( ) Copyright infringement should remain a civil matter (X) Disproportionate penalties (X) It would make it impossible for anybody to safely automatically accept user-generated content (X) It would make it impossible for anybody to safely link to anything (X) People will not bother to check that their recognition tool avoids false positives or that they actually own the material in question ( ) Copyright infringement is not theft ( ) A download is not a lost sale ( ) Some artists do not belong to your cartel ( ) Even within your cartel the artists won't end up with the money Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your headquarters down!

Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 08:49 · Score: 2

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).

Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by ThatsMyNick · 2012-08-20 08:58 · Score: 1

Most uploaders make money of their uploads. Most hosting companies including Rapidshare pay you proportional to the number of times your file is uploaded. If you can pay them you most definitely can exactly pinpoint them.

And if you cannot pinpoint the uploader, bad luck, there is nothing one can do about it. Let piracy happen. The only ones as far as I can see doing something illegal is the uploaders.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by ThatsMyNick · 2012-08-20 08:59 · Score: 1

s/uploaded/downloaded
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 09:18 · Score: 1

And if you cannot pinpoint the uploader, bad luck, there is nothing one can do about it. Let piracy happen.
But then you'd end up in one of the quandaries of my proposal for copyright reform. My proposal is to do away with copyright and instead strictly enforce distribution rights. This would require RapidShare to collect legal information about the uploading party specifically, and exclusively! (though I wouldn't put it past politicians to pervert it), for the purpose of distribution rights enforcement.
So would you agree that RapidShare should collect this information and - if a distribution rights violation has been determined - be presented to the rights holder?
Or would you suggest that RapidShare collect no information whatsoever in order to protect the uploader's right to privacy?
Or something in between?
Because if you're saying "Rights holders: go after the uploaders! Sites: protect the uploaders by making it impossible for the rights holders to after them!", then the whole "go after the uploaders" effectively becomes "go after no-one" by default.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by Shagg · 2012-08-20 09:45 · Score: 1

So if going after the people who actually committed infringement is too hard, that means they should go after easy targets whether or not they are liable?

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 10:04 · Score: 1

So if going after the people who actually committed infringement is too hard, that means they should go after easy targets whether or not they are liable?

(emphasis mine)
Absolutely not - but only regarding the part I emphasized.
I'm certainly not suggesting that if they can't go after the actual murderer, that they should just arrest some random passerby who they reasonably know was there due to cell logs and asking the question "where were you on the night of...".
The question is, of course, whether or not rapidshare can be held liable. That's something for courts to decide - which unfortunately means you have to go after a party of whom you are unsure whether they are liable (you believe them to be, they tend to believe otherwise) first.
Assume the court in the given jurisdiction decides they can't be held liable. Well then the rights holders are f*cked and would have to target something/body else.
But if the court says they can be held liable, then why shouldn't the next rights holder go after rapidshare in the same jurisdiction just as well, rather than trying to find the uploaders?
Yes, they are an easy target - more importantly, they're a target with large impact. At least for a week or so.
I'm not advocating they go after anybody, myself - but if they feel so inclined then hosting sites, followed by link sites, are certainly a more sensible target than individual uploaders under current laws and regulations.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 10:19 · Score: 1

I had to chuckle when you said 'a few' - I'm pretty sure there's more than 'a few' people who partake in copyright infringement :)
Your right to privacy is also just that - a right, and not necessarily an inalienable one. If you rob a liquor store, do you believe that the camera footage should not be put up in TV broadcasts in an effort to help the police find you? After all, it violates your privacy.
Many would say that, if it's clear that you performed a robbery, you gave up your right to privacy in that matter.
So if you willingly and knowingly partake in copyright infringement, do you not believe that you give up your right to privacy in that matter as well?
You may suggest that by going for data retention (in my suggestion, RapidShare keeping your records on file) your privacy is violated even when you're not partaking in copyright infringement.
But then again, the liquor store's camera setup is also running and storing the feed whether or not you're robbing them.
You know this - or can reasonably know this - before you enter the liquor store. You could know this - or reasonably know this - before you upload at RapidShare (they already have a ToS that says you're not allowed to upload copyrighted materials to which you have no rights to upload it).
Would you label that draconian?
Now, I know I'm drawing parallels between partaking in copyright infringement and a robbery here, but I'm certainly not equating them. I'm also not saying that copyright (or rather, distribution rights) should hold a high priority with government. If anything, it would reduce the burden on government because under my proposal they wouldn't have to care about it at all unless it were to go to the courts (which, depending on jurisdiction, may not technically be an arm of the 'government').
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by TapeCutter · 2012-08-20 10:43 · Score: 1

My proposal is to do away with copyright and instead strictly enforce distribution rights
Copyright is intellectual property law. What's the point of having a license to distribute IP when you have just abolished IP?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 12:20 · Score: 1

No, copyright law is one of various intellectual property laws. Patent law is another one, for example.
Distribution rights are already in existence - film companies license out films for distribution to local marks, for example. But this doesn't mean that the company that took that license has free reign over the content. The copyright holder retains its right to exercise control over it almost completely. That's why copyright holders can (try to) go after downloaders, uploaders, hosts, link sites, etc. etc.
What removing copyright law would do is take away that overly broad reach and leave just the distribution component. Whichever party is actually distributing the content - not just receiving it and not just passing it on - is the liable party.
If you're a downloader, you are not liable for infringing on distribution rights.
A link site, similarly, would be exempt - unless the link site is essentially the 'go to' place for the content. E.g. a site that links to a large range of smaller sites that host just a few files, all as part of link site's essential setup (and often involved or actively encouraging this mode of operation among its users).
An ISP couldn't be targeted either - unless it's hosting the files (think 'news' servers).
Host sites - such as RapidShare - would be valid targets because after you click on a link from a link site that goes to RapidShare, you are getting that file from RapidShare. In this it doesn't matter that RapidShare staff didn't place the file there.. they are the ones distributing it.
Similarly, whoever uploaded it would still be a valid target, because they distributed the content (to RapidShare).
If a friend comes over, borrows a DVD of yours, and makes a copy - neither of you are a valid target (no distribution).
If a friend comes over, sees a DVD, and asks you to make a copy to give to him - you are a valid target the moment you hand over that copy.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Note that there would be a lot of other things in place - both good for 'pirates' and bad, just as well as there would be good bits for distribution rights holders and bad bits. Some bits from the DMCA (as much as people dislike it over its abuse, it's also what keeps sites such as YouTube safe), bits that deal with the public's view on content - reduction of terms, for example.
It would be a major overhaul of the copyright system geared for the future - one in which the casual viewer who downloaded a movie is not a criminal, one in which rights holders can better enforce their rights against those that actually harm them most (insofar as there being any harm.. baby steps, though.. baby steps) while at the same time forcing them to adapt to the market (if it's legal to download, they have to compete on a level playing field by making content available legally - by simply making it a better experience, and charging people for the privilege).
It's unlikely to take hold - copyright holders are too keen on their copyright, while 'pirates' are too keen on 'free stuff!' - but I do honestly believe it is one of the only viable interim steps. That's why I've been writing to interested parties (political, but also content creators) and - where I've managed to get replies - exchanging thoughts. What else am I gonna do? Accept the status quo? Because that won't hold. The balance will tip one way or the other, and neither are desirable, while one of them is downright frightening.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by Shagg · 2012-08-21 07:57 · Score: 1

I thought the whole point of safe harbor in the DMCA was that the hosting sites were not supposed to be held liable. It sounds like the RIAA wants to ignore that, and go after them anyway.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-22 03:29 · Score: 1

I thought the whole point of safe harbor in the DMCA was that the hosting sites were not supposed to be held liable.
That safe harbor clause comes with a whole bunch of stipulations, though - like having an appointed DMCA contact person, a DMCA complaint processing.. process, adequate and timely response, etc.
I don't know if they ran afoul of, or whether the RIAA/MPAA believe they ran afoul of, any of these stipulations and whether that would be their basis for any case.
Further, I think - but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking - that just following the DMCA won't grant a site that is specifically geared toward 'piracy' any immunity. RS is not a site geared toward 'piracy', but perhaps the RIAA/MPAA want to make the case that of public links, some percentage is 'piracy', which makes RS defacto so. ( They've used that logic before in rhetoric. )
Re:Go after the uploaders how? Honest question. by Shagg · 2012-08-22 04:05 · Score: 1

What is the legal definition of "geared towards piracy"?

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.

Re:Darn you Google! by spazdor · 2012-08-20 08:50 · Score: 4, Funny

OKAY EVERYONE, we just all need to stand in a big circle and each blame the person to your immediate right.

Cops, please follow the chain of blame until you reach the end and find your culprit.

It's the guy who posted the file! No, it's the guy providing hosting for the guy who posted the file! No, it's the blogger who posted the link to the file! No, it's the guy who reblogged the link! No, it's the guy who aggregates blog links! No, it's the guy who wrote a Google custom search which spiders links from those link aggregators! No, it's the guy who figured out that math can be used to obfuscate the "original source" of a data leak! No, it's the guy who came up with a distributed data storage model based on it! No, it's the guy who figured out that the Streisand Effect applies to every piece of published data! No, it's Barbra Streisand herself!

...And there's your culprit. Please go arrest Barbra and sue her for the RIAA's lost wages and in the meanwhile we'll just keep on copying like we always have.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!

Wrong Solution to the Problem by Digital+Vomit · 2012-08-20 08:52 · Score: 2

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.

Kinda makes you wish by OldSport · 2012-08-20 08:52 · Score: 2

that they went after Rapidshare instead of Megaupload.

Re:Kinda makes you wish by Shagg · 2012-08-20 09:53 · Score: 1

Don't worry, they'll get to them.

--
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.

Bad form by JDG1980 · 2012-08-20 08:53 · Score: 4, Funny

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".

Re:Darn you Google! by p0p0 · 2012-08-20 08:53 · Score: 2

Real world examples never seem to translate well online and that one was terrible. It would be more like a fake Rolex in a pile of absolutely everything in a giant bin.
Almost impossible to find by itself, but if someone attached a string to it and told you to pull...

I'm guilty of a crime by pointing at crime? by AaronLS · 2012-08-20 08:54 · Score: 1

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.

Innovation? by sqldr · 2012-08-20 08:54 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Darn you Google! by p0p0 · 2012-08-20 08:54 · Score: 1

Also, every single item in the bin s in an individual box and you can only tell what is inside by opening it or reading the gibberish someone wrote on the box.

The real battle by Shagg · 2012-08-20 08:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

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 by Sparticus789 · 2012-08-20 08:55 · Score: 1

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

Re:So by Hatta · 2012-08-20 10:36 · Score: 1

Under crack house laws, if someone sells drugs at your event the venue can be confiscated. It happened to Camp Zoe.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Crack down on Hollywood Accounting instead by Dan667 · 2012-08-20 08:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

much bigger problem.

agreed by OrangeTide · 2012-08-20 09:18 · Score: 1

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

Re:Darn you Google! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-20 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Sir, I would mod you insightful if I weren't absolutely disgusted by the undercurrent of truth in your words.

As it is, I cannot be positive towards the truth you have unfolded as it would require re-examining my own responsibilities as a potential file-sharer, as well as giving some in-depth thought to more than just a few current business models.

Re:Darn you Google! by sidthegeek · 2012-08-20 09:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think this pretty much sums it up. http://i35.tinypic.com/o9mtf4.jpg

Re:Darn you Google! by jamstar7 · 2012-08-20 09:39 · Score: 2

Yup, why fix the problem when you can fix the blame? It's certainly cheaper to do that than it is to come up with some kind of solution, in this case, fixing the goddamned copyright laws or something.

Course, I could be wrong. And severely caffiene-lacking...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:Darn you Google! by Endo13 · 2012-08-20 09:40 · Score: 2

Almost impossible to find? Really? Let me introduce you to this new way of finding things on the internet called a Search Engine.

No, the Rolex example was spot-on. If my non-tech-savvy folks can find illegally shared stuff online in less than fifteen minutes, anyone can do it.

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.

Re:They were shows that were mothballed by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 09:40 · Score: 1

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19253359

Grey's Anatomy has been mothballed? When did that happen?

Admittedly, I read your post's body first and thought you were going to make a good point; e.g. that if the broadcaster (in the case of Grey's, ABC) wanted to make money off of it rather than leave it to the `pirates'` devises they could have made it available for cheap on their site.
But instead you went for something that is demonstrably untrue. D'oh.

Kill the messenger by stevegee58 · 2012-08-20 09:52 · Score: 1

Yeah way to go. Kill the messenger to demonstrate to your constituents you're doing something about the problem.

Re:Darn you Google! by QuasiSteve · 2012-08-20 09:56 · Score: 1

Well, your example is still terrible, of course, because these sites don't present you with the pile at all - just the strings.
Google provides you neither, but you can throw a string into the pile and Google will try to make it hook to whatever item in the pile most closely matches what you want it to hook to. That can be the Rolex, or it can be a picture of a cat - whatever you requested.
There's rarely a string with a picture of a cat at the end of the strings offered by the 'piracy' link sites.

But if you want to give a counter example for the argument given, consider personal information on the person and their family. Sites aggregating that information for easy consumption tend to creep people out (like that app that tied foursquare(?) and facebook profiles together - so people could find pretty girls nearby, essentially).
Sites aggregating 'pirated' content, on the other hand, are to be celebrated :)

Aggregation matters in these cases, and the laws usually provide for dealing with it.
Many jurisdictions do have legislation against sites aggregating personal information, for example - to the point of defending convicted criminals. Similarly, many have legislation against link sites, usually under a 'facilitation' header.

Am I the only one who agrees? by supersloshy · 2012-08-20 09:56 · Score: 1

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

Re:Am I the only one who agrees? by cheekyjohnson · 2012-08-20 10:23 · Score: 1

but realistically
Realistically? Realistically they can never stop these websites. They can shut down a few at most (and if they're host in other countries, that's be difficult) and hope they don't lose the court cases that take place afterwards, but more will spring up in the meantime.
So, yeah, while changing copyright law is unlikely to happen for a while yet, realistically there's no way to stop copyright infringement.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Am I the only one who agrees? by Hatta · 2012-08-20 10:37 · Score: 1

What sounds freaking ridiculous is that you're ready to sacrifice the principle of freedom of speech to make some record execs some extra money.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Am I the only one who agrees? by misexistentialist · 2012-08-20 10:54 · Score: 1

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.

Your logic, it is unquestionable, therefore abdominal.

Re:Darn you Google! by spazdor · 2012-08-20 10:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Quit thinking about business models, and start thinking about models for society and for culture. A world full of piracy may be a shitty place to try and make money as a publisher, but it's a marvelous place to grow up as a child with a love of music or film or literature. No one has ever said that publishing has to be a profitable business in order for a market or a society to thrive, except for publishers.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!

Re:Darn you Google! by hairyfeet · 2012-08-20 11:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Everybody is making jokes when the simple fact is just like the VCR there are plenty of non copyright uses for these sites. lets take myself for example, i have used sites like Rapidshare to send some of my own musical works to someone halfway across the planet so they could load it up and add their own tracks, I've used them to send .reg files for basic fixes like the PITA "Windows no sound device even though the drive is installed" bug, used them to store zip files of family photos so I can send them across the country to distant relatives, plenty of things other than the latest Titney Spears you can use these sites for.

In the end it shouldn't be their job to have to constantly go through everyone's stuff to make the *.A.A happy, we've already seen that doesn't work as you can simply change the name of the files and you are back to square one. No they should be treated no different than Google who takes things down when they get a request. Problem is the *.A.As are lazy bastards and want to pass all the expense to everyone else and they have no problem with bribing officials to write the laws to let them pass on the expense.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.

Re:Darn you Google! by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-08-20 13:24 · Score: 1

Certainly one way, but I think we should simply ban anyone using "a href" in their pages.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

What about the internet itself? by StripedCow · 2012-08-20 21:39 · Score: 1

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.

Re:What about the internet itself? by lpq · 2012-08-21 04:28 · Score: 1

No, the internet isn't the storage device -- it is a **link** to the storage device. In the same way that a link to content isn't the content.

Re:Darn you Google! by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-20 22:09 · Score: 1

Try finding a file on RapidShare directly from Google -- you can't. For pirates to use RapidShare to spread warez, they've got to link to it from some external site. There's a whole pile of video streaming sites that are little more than a catalogue of links to RapidShare, MegaUpload (RIP) and the like. Those sites are the ones that are actively spreading the material even though they don't host it themselves. They are the ones that the law should be set up to chase. I've never seen any evidence of RapidShare actively encouraging pirating (unlike MegaUpload, who offered cash incentives to prolific pirates) and I've seen lots of people use RapidShare for legitimate, non-infringing purposes.

If the authorities were to move against RapidShare, who would be next? I can do illegal filesharing from a DropBox account, Live Drive or Google Drive....

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Re:Darn you Google! by mister_playboy · 2012-08-20 23:06 · Score: 2

I've never seen any evidence of RapidShare actively encouraging pirating (unlike MegaUpload, who offered cash incentives to prolific pirates)

This is historical revisionism. RS had a reward program like every other host did, they were just the first to give it up because they were on the legal battlefield first and saw which way the wind was blowing.

Pointing to MU as the exemplar of "pay to upload" hosts is always a clear sign of someone with very little personal filehost experience. MU was one of the choices avoided by uploaders with a focus on making money, because it was way too hard to get paid using them.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will

Re:Darn you Google! by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-21 00:14 · Score: 1

RapidShare's payouts may have encouraged piracy indirectly, but MegaUpload specifically and knowingly targetted pirates with cash payouts.

As I've said elsewhere, I believe the appropriate approach is to establish the difference between a casual user (who the host doesn't need to know anything about) and a major "client", who the host has to perform due dilligence on, as any other business-to-business service would.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Re:Darn you Google! by xenobyte · 2012-08-21 01:19 · Score: 1

Try finding a file on RapidShare directly from Google -- you can't. For pirates to use RapidShare to spread warez, they've got to link to it from some external site. There's a whole pile of video streaming sites that are little more than a catalogue of links to RapidShare, MegaUpload (RIP) and the like. Those sites are the ones that are actively spreading the material even though they don't host it themselves. They are the ones that the law should be set up to chase

But that's just it - Linking is the bread & butter of the Internet. Without links it stops working.

Proposing tougher legislation to fight those linking to pirated stuff, you enter a very slippery slope. You need to make the law so clear that anyone setting up a link will know exactly whether he's doing something illegal or not. Making it fuzzy will make people play it safe and thus we lose some links - a lot actually.

So, now we know that linking to a .mp3 is illegal.
We also know that linking to a page with links to .mp3's most likely is illegal.
But how about linking to a page that links to a page with links to .mp3's?
Or linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to a page with .mp3's?
Or linking to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to a page with .mp3's?

Or linking to Google? - Where you easily can find direct links to .mp3's following a simple query?

Remember that as soon as you link to a page that you do not control, it can be altered. It's impossible to say what was on it when the link was established, so what was clearly legal can quickly become clearly illegal. Are we at the morale of "War Games" here? - "The only way to win is not to play"?

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --

Re:Darn you Google! by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-08-21 04:24 · Score: 2

I distinctly remember reading allegedly leaked emails in which MegaUpload staff discussed selecting specific uploaders to offer financial incentives to upload more, and it was alleged that they knew full well that these uploaders were not quite legit. This is what made MegaUpload the easy target for the copyright litigation lobby. NOT that they're sharing profits, but that they (allegedly) were knowingly and actively complicit in the sharing of infringing goods. If this is proven wrong, fine. But the allegation is that MegaUpload went beyond other hosts.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

+1 to above by lpq · 2012-08-21 04:31 · Score: 1

(see subject)

Re:Darn you Google! by oldmac31310 · 2012-08-21 05:49 · Score: 1

Here is a link to an mp3. It IS legal because it is mine and I want to share it. So now we do NOT know that linking to an mp3 is illegal. http://acetonestudio.com/bigshiny_plasmarock.html

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com

Slashdot Mirror

RapidShare Urges US To Punish Linking Sites and Not File-Sharing Sites

133 of 167 comments (clear)