RapidShare Within Legal Limits, But Now Has to Monitor Links

The company prevailed against GEMA, an organization that licenses rights to music in Germany, in a court case in Germany. Other than Megaupload, RapidShare has been much more subtle about its service approach and frequently stated that it is cooperating with copyright holders.

The result of the case, which was filed in June 2009, is not a clear cut decision with both parties claiming victory. RapidShare was not shut down and keep the content it has for now. However, the company now has to monitor incoming links to files and will have to remove content if it is represented by GEMA and owned by at least one of its 64,000 members. Besides music files, RapidShare will also have to monitor digital book content owned by publishers Campus as well as Walter de Gruyter.

RapidShare claims that it hosts about 160 million files maintained by about 42 million users.

Create a new thread in the Streaming Video & TVs forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
13 comments
    Your comment
  • That's no victory, not even a small one. All that does is give added length to the noose that's already been wrapped around there necks. You'd think with all the money these shady "file-sharing" services are offering, whether profiting off illegal content or not, that they'd find some common ground and bind together to lobby governments Internationally. I mean even organized crime finally came to there senses that a politician is worth the extra cost for the benefits you get in return.
    -7
  • bison88That's no victory, not even a small one. All that does is give added length to the noose that's already been wrapped around there necks. You'd think with all the money these shady "file-sharing" services are offering, whether profiting off illegal content or not, that they'd find some common ground and bind together to lobby governments Internationally. I mean even organized crime finally came to there senses that a politician is worth the extra cost for the benefits you get in return.


    because they aren't criminal and don't see the need.

    here let me pose this to you.

    you make, lets say a program, movie, illustration, whatever, and you want to offer it to people
    some file share sites offered you part of the ad revenue that you generate for them to you...
    yes the practice can be abused for copyrighted content, but should lets say youtube be taken down because it can host a copyrighted movie?

    these places comply with dmca laws and take down files, they have to be alerted to it though, and most of the time because the database isn't searchable (legitimately on the sites) you get a harder service to have it taken down.

    you have to look at legitimate uses for these services, and think that if its worth protecting movie and music rights, especially with how messed up their business practices are (star wars on the books has never turned a profit, so they dont have to pay percentages, as an example of one)
    8
  • limited online exploitation laxative
    passes every thing right through
    -2