Forumophilia - 18 Years Online!
RabidSquirrel
Good Poster
yungt33nluvr wrote:
This is per account - so with your 2 accounts you will get 7.32 GB/day (vs 20 GB/day before), and this is exactly what they are going for - getting people to spend more money to get what they want.
And with 95% (or more) of their traffic being illegal files, which they are quite aware of (just see the latest news-item on their site) - this is just commercial piracy at its worst.
I know you also pay for Usenet-access and you pay a premium for higher upload speeds (for torrent usage), but at least they can say that there are also legit reasons for selling that. There are NO reason whatsoever to have a premium account on RS if it's not for illegal filesharing.
I think it all has to do with the fact that Rapidshare has gotten it's ass handed to them each time they have gone to trial with GEMA (Germany's MPAA) - at the last trial the judge ordered them to monitor the uploaded files more dilligently. And he (or she?) specifically said that 6 full-time employees monitoring uploaded files and the hash function they have implemented is NOT enough. So i think what is happening is this: they want to make a last buck before the courts makes them go away.
RabidSquirrel
Is this PER ACCOUNT? What if I have more than 1 or 2 (which I do)? Or will it be going by your IP?
This is per account - so with your 2 accounts you will get 7.32 GB/day (vs 20 GB/day before), and this is exactly what they are going for - getting people to spend more money to get what they want.
And with 95% (or more) of their traffic being illegal files, which they are quite aware of (just see the latest news-item on their site) - this is just commercial piracy at its worst.
I know you also pay for Usenet-access and you pay a premium for higher upload speeds (for torrent usage), but at least they can say that there are also legit reasons for selling that. There are NO reason whatsoever to have a premium account on RS if it's not for illegal filesharing.
I think it all has to do with the fact that Rapidshare has gotten it's ass handed to them each time they have gone to trial with GEMA (Germany's MPAA) - at the last trial the judge ordered them to monitor the uploaded files more dilligently. And he (or she?) specifically said that 6 full-time employees monitoring uploaded files and the hash function they have implemented is NOT enough. So i think what is happening is this: they want to make a last buck before the courts makes them go away.
RabidSquirrel
drolli
Good Poster
RabidSquirrel
Good Poster
drolli wrote:
Do you have any details on this? Such a ruling would set a precedent.
So now any hoster would have to devote manpower to manually check on hosted files? I find that hard...
Here's the link to what Arstechnica has written about it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081001-german-court-says-rapidshare-must-get-proactive-on-copyrighted-content.html
I think they have appealed the decision (cant really find where i read that) but the fact of the matter is that this is the second time time they have lost in a german court - This was in Hamburg - in january they lost in a court in Düsseldorf.
Link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-no-safe-harbor-for-rapidshare-in-copyright-infringement-case.html
So if it's upheld in a higher court, they either has to put measures into effect that could financially cripple the company or just shut down alltogether.
I can't really see how you can check a significantly part of the files uploaded without using enormous amount of time (and therefore money).
You could say that they could just move the servers to countries with a less strict copyright-legislation.
But as the owner of Rapidshare (Christian Schmid) lives in Germany he would have to move too. And maybe he has family & friends he dooesn't want to leave. (This is pure conjecture - I don't know the man but it really isn't that far fetched
)
RabidSquirrel
Do you have any details on this? Such a ruling would set a precedent.
So now any hoster would have to devote manpower to manually check on hosted files? I find that hard...
Here's the link to what Arstechnica has written about it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081001-german-court-says-rapidshare-must-get-proactive-on-copyrighted-content.html
I think they have appealed the decision (cant really find where i read that) but the fact of the matter is that this is the second time time they have lost in a german court - This was in Hamburg - in january they lost in a court in Düsseldorf.
Link: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080129-no-safe-harbor-for-rapidshare-in-copyright-infringement-case.html
So if it's upheld in a higher court, they either has to put measures into effect that could financially cripple the company or just shut down alltogether.
I can't really see how you can check a significantly part of the files uploaded without using enormous amount of time (and therefore money).
You could say that they could just move the servers to countries with a less strict copyright-legislation.
But as the owner of Rapidshare (Christian Schmid) lives in Germany he would have to move too. And maybe he has family & friends he dooesn't want to leave. (This is pure conjecture - I don't know the man but it really isn't that far fetched
)
RabidSquirrel
drolli
Good Poster
nx
Respected Poster
RabidSquirrel wrote:
You could say that they could just move the servers to countries with a less strict copyright-legislation.
But as the owner of Rapidshare (Christian Schmid) lives in Germany he would have to move too. And maybe he has family & friends he dooesn't want to leave. (This is pure conjecture - I don't know the man but it really isn't that far fetched)
RabidSquirrel
He could 'sell off' the company to someone in another country, but stay on the corporate payroll as an 'ouside contractor'. If he's smart enough, he could still effectively be CEO, but on paper, he'll just say he made some very profitable 'offshore investments'.
You could say that they could just move the servers to countries with a less strict copyright-legislation.
But as the owner of Rapidshare (Christian Schmid) lives in Germany he would have to move too. And maybe he has family & friends he dooesn't want to leave. (This is pure conjecture - I don't know the man but it really isn't that far fetched
)
RabidSquirrel
He could 'sell off' the company to someone in another country, but stay on the corporate payroll as an 'ouside contractor'. If he's smart enough, he could still effectively be CEO, but on paper, he'll just say he made some very profitable 'offshore investments'.
drolli
Good Poster
RagingBuddhist
Very Respected Poster
lil_jim
I'm probably spamming
smurfarific
I'm probably spamming
Has anyone ever had any trouble renewing their RS account via paypal?
Paypal works for other sites, but RS says paypal declines the charge. Of course I call paypal and they say the problem is on RS's end. Sent an email to RS support 2 days ago, no response. Sent another one, we'll see what happens
Even tried creating a new account, that didn't work either
Paypal works for other sites, but RS says paypal declines the charge. Of course I call paypal and they say the problem is on RS's end. Sent an email to RS support 2 days ago, no response. Sent another one, we'll see what happens
Even tried creating a new account, that didn't work either
buckstone
Poster
smurfarific wrote:
Way off topic - give me a break. Start a new thread - or just sort your problem out - but don't post your personal problems in this discussion thread.
There are valid arguments here - and some very informed information. R'Share is in a somewhat delicate position. It hosts - files and material that is personal to the poster - who then shares it - and 'others' download the files. That's where the whole legal argument is - the files are NOT IN MOST CASES THE PERSONAL OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OF THE CONTENTS WITHIN.
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
R'share - are not it would seem trying to cover their arse - they are making a commercial decision based on their current trading position. More than likely based on their defence through the courts to host a 'share' facility - that we use - to share files - with content - ...?
This is a no brain'er - get real and accept the fact - that if R'share go down - all others will probably follow - irrespective of server location.
B
Has anyone ever had any trouble renewing their RS account via paypal?
Paypal works for other sites, but RS says paypal declines the charge. Of course I call paypal and they say the problem is on RS's end. Sent an email to RS support 2 days ago, no response. Sent another one, we'll see what happens
Even tried creating a new account, that didn't work either
Paypal works for other sites, but RS says paypal declines the charge. Of course I call paypal and they say the problem is on RS's end. Sent an email to RS support 2 days ago, no response. Sent another one, we'll see what happens
Even tried creating a new account, that didn't work either
Way off topic - give me a break. Start a new thread - or just sort your problem out - but don't post your personal problems in this discussion thread.
There are valid arguments here - and some very informed information. R'Share is in a somewhat delicate position. It hosts - files and material that is personal to the poster - who then shares it - and 'others' download the files. That's where the whole legal argument is - the files are NOT IN MOST CASES THE PERSONAL OWNERS OF THE COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OF THE CONTENTS WITHIN.
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
R'share - are not it would seem trying to cover their arse - they are making a commercial decision based on their current trading position. More than likely based on their defence through the courts to host a 'share' facility - that we use - to share files - with content - ...?
This is a no brain'er - get real and accept the fact - that if R'share go down - all others will probably follow - irrespective of server location.
B
drolli
Good Poster
[quote="buckstone"]smurfarific wrote:
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
Here you have the court ruling - how's your German by the way
http://webhosting-und-recht.de/urteile/Oberlandesgericht-Hamburg-20080702.html
Very short - plaintiff is IBM, their complaint is that Rapidshare allows their (IBM's) copyrighted software to be successfully uploaded to Rapidshare's service even after complaints, and it's not doing enough to address this situation.
Importantly, there has been as of yet no talk of Rapidshare disclosing uploaders' or downloaders' info or IP addresses - IBM did not ask for that and it was not under consideration by the court.
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
Here you have the court ruling - how's your German by the way
http://webhosting-und-recht.de/urteile/Oberlandesgericht-Hamburg-20080702.html
Very short - plaintiff is IBM, their complaint is that Rapidshare allows their (IBM's) copyrighted software to be successfully uploaded to Rapidshare's service even after complaints, and it's not doing enough to address this situation.
Importantly, there has been as of yet no talk of Rapidshare disclosing uploaders' or downloaders' info or IP addresses - IBM did not ask for that and it was not under consideration by the court.
buckstone
Poster
[quote="drolli"]buckstone wrote:
Yep - understood all of that - now i'm off for a cold shower and scrub my back with a wire brush.
IMHO - it will be a testing time for R'sh over the next few months with their implemented changes and membership fall off.
Och aye,
B
smurfarific wrote:
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
Here you have the court ruling - how's your German by the way
http://webhosting-und-recht.de/urteile/Oberlandesgericht-Hamburg-20080702.html
Very short - plaintiff is IBM, their complaint is that Rapidshare allows their (IBM's) copyrighted software to be successfully uploaded to Rapidshare's service even after complaints, and it's not doing enough to address this situation.
Importantly, there has been as of yet no talk of Rapidshare disclosing uploaders' or downloaders' info or IP addresses - IBM did not ask for that and it was not under consideration by the court.
That said - i would love to see a transcript of the case to date - the complainants arguments and the defense case. Who are the complainants? What is the argument - copyright?? Of what? And more importantly - how have the arguments been based - on downloaded content - from R'share - so whos' account/s has/have been accessed to build the case?
Here you have the court ruling - how's your German by the way
http://webhosting-und-recht.de/urteile/Oberlandesgericht-Hamburg-20080702.html
Very short - plaintiff is IBM, their complaint is that Rapidshare allows their (IBM's) copyrighted software to be successfully uploaded to Rapidshare's service even after complaints, and it's not doing enough to address this situation.
Importantly, there has been as of yet no talk of Rapidshare disclosing uploaders' or downloaders' info or IP addresses - IBM did not ask for that and it was not under consideration by the court.
Yep - understood all of that - now i'm off for a cold shower and scrub my back with a wire brush.
IMHO - it will be a testing time for R'sh over the next few months with their implemented changes and membership fall off.
Och aye,
B
tfh
Respected Poster
shaq141
I'm probably spamming
buckstone
Poster