TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Court Orders RapidShare to Filter User Uploads

A Higher Regional Court in Germany has ruled that file-hosting service RapidShare must proactively filter thousands of files uploaded by its users. The Court confirmed three separate verdicts by a lower court, in cases that were started by book publishers and a music rights group. RapidShare has yet to decide whether it will appeal the verdicts, and informs TorrentFreak that there’s also positive news to report.

rapidshare logoIn common with every file-sharing service, RapidShare is used by some of its members to host infringing material.

During the past several years the Swiss-based cyberlocker has made tremendous efforts to cooperate with copyright holders and limit copyright infringements. But for some their efforts don’t go far enough. This has resulted in a variety of rightsholders starting legal proceedings against RapidShare, and not without success.

The most recent win came yesterday when a Higher Regional Court in Hamburg confirmed three rulings of a lower court. According to these verdicts, the file-hoster hasn’t done enough to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded to its servers.

The cases, which involve thousands of titles, were started by music rights group GEMA and book publishers De Gruyter and Campus.

The Higher Regional Court in Hamburg reportedly ruled that RapidShare has to monitor user uploads to ensure that none of these titles are put onto their servers, which implies a mandatory filter and monitoring of all user uploads.

While a written copy of the verdict has not yet been made public, the book industry celebrated the outcome as a landmark victory.

“Internet sites can no longer avoid their responsibilities, and profit from copyright infringing uploads of anonymous users,” says Alexander Skipis, chief executive of the German Booksellers Association.

RapidShare is irked by this early celebration, which its spokesman Daniel Raimer describes as unprofessional.

“We consider it as unprofessional to assess a judgement before the written reasons for the judgment are available. Only then you can determine which party can indeed celebrate a verdict as a success,” Raimer told TorrentFreak.

Raimer explains that the copyright holders are leaving out essential details that are actually quite positive for the cyberlocker. Previously the lower court described RapidShare’s entire business as unlawful, but that decision has not been overturned.

“There is a possible reason for the rushed approach, particularly that of the Booksellers Association. In the hearing, the Higher Regional Court indicated that it would deviate from its former position according under which RapidShare’s business model was not tolerated by the legal system.”

“That shows that the release of a ‘jubilation announcement’ by the plaintiffs after the publication of the reasons for the judgment would simply not be possible anymore. We are relaxed and look forward to reading the written reasons for the judgment that are expected to be published within the next few days,” Raimer said.

It’s worth nothing that the German verdicts appear to contradict an earlier ruling by the highest European court. In February the European Court of Justice ruled that hosting sites can’t proactively filter copyrighted content as that would violate the privacy of users and hinder freedom of information.

RapidShare further informed us that they have yet to decide whether they’ll appeal the verdicts. Considering the European Court of Justice ruling, this might not be such a bad idea.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • stopping by

    Awesome!

    • O’lay Pirate

      It seems all the countries just ignore EU’s ruling… why the fuck do we have the EU if we just don’t follow the rules! :@

      Also, Germany? If they are Swiss-base why is Germany telling them what to do? .. If I was Rapidshare I’d move my servers to Switzerland FAST (I assume that’s why Germany is getting involved).

      Switzerland, the land of the free. I rarely hear negative news about Switzerland and it’s a beautiful country (both politicly and visually).

      Oh whilst we’re on the topic of Switzerland, Rest in peace 21 students + bus driver (and teachers if they died as well..).

      • HUMAN

        UE doesnt exist , is just a ilussion ,some riches profit by this to make a lot export and dont pay duty taxes to make more money , nothing more
        UE dont have future and i think is good to dont eb a part of this shit

        UE is just a shit similar to USA – the bigger parasite dictatorial shit of the wolrd

        UE will never work in Europe , becouse people of Europe arent stupid fat dumb americans , we are rally smart , we think and see whats the truth , people of Europe are less manipulated then USA people

        In fact nobody wants to be part of UE , becouse reach country want to dictate and enslave poor counties , becouse these poor countries are a problem for they ,peoples arent so stupid as they expect and make revolutions , poor countries dont want to be a part of this becouse loose everything , rich counties make abuse dont respect laws , want just cheap workers slavers and new markets where to sale theirs shits , they dont want good things ,dont share or help poor countries to be equal with they and UE to be a real union , they want just to make profit and own Europe area markets

        Real union will be just when every people will educate his kids to care about others , to help and ask for help , to have respect for others and for others opinions , to be HUMAN not MONEY ROBOT BITCH , to apreciate real values not money values , to understand what mean and what is family , to have feelings and emotions etc etc ,
        Europe people is not ready for that , the civilizated wolrd is not ready and day by day are more far away form that becouse what happened now is decline of humanity not evolution (maybe evolution of alienation ) , African and Asian people (considered by Europe and USA , like secound world , uncivilizated , wild people etc ) understand very well what is a family , they care about others , still have feelings , even they are poor even they are considerated uncivilizated people . We livin in a alienated world , were people think we are civilizated , but we build and sale weapons to destroy other people and everything , we are arogant , ignorant, hypocrite and very stupid , we sale and eat poison plastik junk food , useless shits etc etc , we waiste resources for nothing , we make huge polution we kill and suicide day by day just to make more money but we fuckin call this “civilizated” …. no we livin in a jungle of money , in a noghtmare build to destroy humans , where some people thinks are gods or masters of the wolrd , very wrong we are just por “bugs” and we cant control nothing , after all humans are just animals even we dont like this therm , and like any other animal we will die and our species will disapear soon or later in one day , we all are numbered but seems we are blind , brainwashed to see and think about that

        Is our fault we build our own nightmare, we accept to suicide little by little everyday

        • Anonymous

          What is this ‘UE’ that you speak of?

        • MAFIAA

          Before uploading a file to RapidShare:

          1) Rename the file;
          2) Rar the file with a PASSWORD.
          3) Upload.

        • CLL

          “UE will never work in Europe , becouse people of Europe arent stupid fat dumb americans , we are rally smart , we think and see whats the truth , people of Europe are less manipulated then USA people”

          Protip: When making comments like this one about the intelligence of the people living in the United States (or anywhere else, for that matter), please consider using proper spelling, punctuation, as well as proper grammar. When trying to make yourself look better than an entire group of people, it’s important to not make yourself out to be the fool.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ValhallaLegend Andrew Lee

          @MAFIAA ZING

        • Guest

          This “UE” his talking about is the “EU” you are thinking about. For those who don’t know in europe we don all speak english, we have our own languages, and only england has english as native language, and other languages have different grammars, so these acronyms may be different for each country as it is in my country. The acronym for european union in my country is also UE. So he probably just forgot to change it for the language he was speaking at the moment. Just stop being a prick and grow up, we all come here as a community who has a common interest and some people just decide to comment on meaningless things.

        • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

          @MAFIAA:

          4) Maybe add some random data (a few kb. JPG or some text), so that the MD5/SHA1 sums differ from the rar’d files’ sums. ;)

        • CLL

          @Guest: Wait, you’re really sticking up for that xenophobic cunt?

      • Tsunku

        heh or just filter the shit out of uploads from german ips.

    • Anonymous

      I can’t see why even you would think that. If it becomes impossible for legal services to carry user-generated content – which this verdict effectively means as no service can afford such overhead – then that part of the internet moves into the darknet.

      Meaning you end up with what used to be “pirate” tools becoming extensively used by legitimate consumers as well, making them the new standard. We’ve already seen this with encryption and alternative DNS.

      I.e. you are effectively moving any and all control of content further away. That migration process will effectively stall only when the internet as a whole can no longer work effectively.

      I don’t know why you and your peers keep on being such retards about this issue. From the days of napster all that’s been done is to ensure that not only piracy keeps on thriving – it’s methods become standardized and engrained within the common citizenry.

      Once again, this move ONLY impacts what you would define as legitimate consumers of cyberlocker services. It has no effect at all on piracy or availability. All collateral damage. As usual. I would even argue that this severely harms any future attempts to assimilate cyberlocker services into a copyright-friendly business model.

      From a pirate perspective, this is a non-issue just as it was with megaupload. From your perspective it’s another coffin nail.

      I’m continually reminded of Einstein’s maxim regarding what constitutes insanity when I see verdicts such as these…

      • Arthurtwoshedsjackson

        I totally agree – If this means Rapidshare has to verify each and every file then the overheads will be astronomical – You would have to employ thousands of people to check each file…. If that file is password protected then what do they do? Do they sit there trying to crack it – which may take months or years… Or do they simply not allow password protected file on their site? If they don’t allow password protected files then you have no way of protecting what you upload… Do you want someone at Rapidshare HQ going through your personal photos?

        As you say – piracy itself remains totally unaffected – it existed way before cyber lockers appeared and it will still exist if you get rid of them…. Will it be harder for the average joe to find the latest film if they’re gone? Well, no… not really. Torrents are still around and there are thousands (and thousands…) of public/private torrents sites…

        +1 for the lawyers.

        -100 for the taxpayer who pays the judges.

        • Anony

          Does the judge have a clue about how file hosts work? What this also does is rob me of using a service like Rapidshare as a LEGAL way to back up my own personal files – most of which are copyrighted – even though I can prove they aren’t shared, and have no intention of sharing them.

          My point is that these services CAN’T mature into a viable legit tech service when they are held to insane standards such as this – there would have been no YouTube, no Google, no Facebook, nothing under today’s regulations. The court needs to consider that too.

    • Anonymous

      How is that awesome you dumb fuck? These services are used by millions to make a backup of their data. Now a delusional German judge has ruled that people are not allowed to make this backup if it contains work published by these three companies

      Further more a service provider is forced to actively censor its own customers even though just weeks prior the EU court deemed this an unlawful breach of privacy and citizen rights.

      Also the credibility of the EU as an institution as well as confusion regarding what the fuck is the EU increases as member countries fail to follow rules of an organization they themselves created or chose to enter.

      Not so awesome in my opinion.

  • Desu75

    Just name the damn thing “Grand Canyon Vacation Pictures.rar”

    • Anonymous

      ok i did.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001772393375 Lia Piera

      hahahahaha
      Custom Google Themes @ http://www.chrome-theme.org

    • Camilo

      You don’t have to – just using initials and a password is ok.

      So for example “V for Vendetta.AVI” becomes “vfv.rar” (and with a password)

  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    I would personally just have Rapidshare block the whole country of Germany and tell them “BYE-BYE BABY, BYE-BYE!”

    There is no way that Rapidshare OR ANY OTHER FILEHOST can do something like this preemptive screening of files. They just cannot, it is too human-intensive.

    Computers cannot do it, because they are stupid and only look for what they are told to look for.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

      Screening of uploads is theoretically possible. Youtube do it.
      But read my other post on the practical problems for rapidshare enforcement.

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        O rly? Rar encryption + password + unrelated name + split files.

        Oh wait, many already do that =)

        • O’lay Pirate

          … then the courts will make it illegal to encrypt files…. then Rapidshare will have to ban rar files etc >.<

        • lol

          @O’lay Pirate

          And how do you detect encrypted files?

          Brotip: you can’t. Not reliably.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          Exactly right. They cannot make it illegal either, because many countries have made it VERY clear that people have the right to encryption if they wish to use it.

        • O’lay Pirate

          “And how do you detect encrypted files?” … can’t you just make your software detect if it’s readable… if it’s not readable for the software (valid codec which it supports) then class it as encrypted? i’m sure it’s possible to detect such a thing… just the matter of making the right script for the job.

        • Anyone

          of course you can detect encrypted files
          you just have no idea what’s in them, that’s the whole point

        • Camilo

          @O’lay Pirate: lol is right. You can’t detect data which is encrypted (unless it has a header, or a “magic number”), and if you just whitelisted formats supported, people would get very upset when their format was not on the list.

          Also, “valid codec”? you don’t realise the problem because you don’t write code. How are you supposed to “implement a codec that detects .txt files”?

        • Anonymous

          @Anyone & O’lay Pirate

          No, you can not detect encrypted files. What you can see is an unreadable file. Said file may be garbage, hopelessly damaged…or, when provided with the magic key, may suddenly turn out to be a copy of “Avatar” or “The Usual Suspects”.

          It’s the same issue as with detecting encrypted VPN tunnels – unless you specifically possess the key all you see are random data streams.

          You might be able to guess that a 4 GB file named “Avatar” is an encrypted DVD ISO. But it might just as well be completely random crap with a file name.

        • Anyone

          if it is .rar and you try to open it it asks for a password
          that is a pretty big indicator that it might be encrypted ;)

          but you are right, without information what kind of file it is supposed to be (for example if it didn’t end in .rar) it is difficult to find out what kind of file it is and if it is encrypted

        • OMGWTFBBQ

          So you want to disallow files with password? So i can no longer share files that are only meant for people with the password? So all files are public? Vacation photos, work files, other delicate files. No password allowed… LOL

          Impossibru.jpg

      • Pianogamer

        youtube videos contains sound and video ready to be analyzed. RAR-files needs to be decrypted, potentially with a password. Happy filtering.

      • stopping by

        You don’t think Content ID posed any practical problems to Google?

        • MadAsASnake

          Of course it does. How reliable do you think this sort of thing is? MAFIAA says it’s so easy, why don’t they do it? It’s their problem.

        • Anyone

          of course it is a problem
          it identifies singing birds as copyright infringing ffs

          sadly google has to play nice with the MAFIAA since they want their content for Google TV

      • Anonymous

        Yes, but there are some serious problems with Youtube’s filtering as well. For a cyberlocker where what you upload is effectively static material…

    • Anonymous

      It is completely possible to screen files.

      So are you saying that it’s not fair that the a cyberlocker have to filter material on their very own servers, that they control (even though it may amount to millions of links) when there are tools available to do so ?

      but it is fair

      that rights-holders spend time searching for infringements over 1000′s of websites where they have no control, with millions of links and website limitations (private forums etc) ?

      And before you answer, its important to remember that rights-holders range from individuals to multinationals.

      • Anyone

        there are way too many false positives with the filter system to be acceptable.

        and “right holders” can just shut the fuck up
        if they want control over their files they can put in the work themselves and troll the internet to search and remove them, service providers should not be forced to foot the bill for their futile attempts at censoring.

        • Anonymous

          hmmm, didn’t you want to bring a rational counter point to the table ?

          Or was “rights holder can just shut the fuck up” you being rational ?

          Do you just say “shut the fuck up” when anyone has a different viewpoint to your self ?

        • Anyone

          I brought up a counterpoint

          if the rightsholder want to control the content they better pay for it. that could mean hiring people to scan for infringing files or implement a computer system.
          of course both methods have way too many false positives to be reliable or to be even acceptable, but IF (big IF) something like this has to be done the rightsholder should get the bill for it, not the service provider or the customer.

          or you know, they could just go with the times, adapt their business model and stop treating their customers like criminals.

        • Anonymous

          “if the rightsholder want to control the content they better pay for it. that could mean hiring people to scan for infringing files or implement a computer system.
          of course both methods have way too many false positives to be reliable or to be even acceptable, but IF (big IF) something like this has to be done the rightsholder should get the bill for it, not the service provider or the customer.’

          So looking at this with even the most basic example.

          Creator releases some physical only media. A user of that media decides to upload it to a cyberlocker (ticking the box that say “I am the rightsholder and am not infringing anyone’s copyrights blah blah” and then proceeds to publish the link allowing others to make an identical duplicate copy of the materials. And for those people to repeat the exact same thing.

          And all the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the person(s) who had nothing at all to do with it ??

          Of course, one could argue that cyberlockers could have a transparant search function for any rights holder. With multiple search features and instant file removal, probably including a fingerprint style mark system that can be applied to any found files to prevent re-uploading to that system. Of course, there are more solutions that would allow cyberlockers to exist and profit.

        • Danny

          @Peluzer

          You have dodged his main point really. The ‘rights holders’ have caused way too many legitimate files to be taken down (Google claim 65% of all DMCA takedowns are false). How will you stop all these false positives?

          Basically at the end of the day the small rights holders will loose out and the fat cats will win because they have not only stopped anyone sharing anything but also squashed the little guy in the process.

        • Anonymous

          @PelouzeTF

          If rights holders keep demanding impossibilities then, just as is the case with five-year-olds throwing temper tantrums, you can’t counter with rational debate – they simply won’t listen.

          As for a rational counter point, I believe he did make one which apparently you did not understand. Do you mean how a system works with false positives?

          I’ll elaborate. Maybe even you will get it.

          Assume you have a system capable of detecting copyrighted files with a 99% accuracy. Assume a million files on a given system. Assume a thousand of these are infringing on copyright. How many will your automated system detect?

          The answer is that it will detect 990 out of a thousand copyrighted files. Then it will also detect 1% out of the million existing files.

          So you end up with 10990 files identified as infringing and automatically shut down. With a mere 1% error rate on your precious tool you generate 100 false positives for every correct one.
          I.e. you infringe on other people’s copyright to a vastly larger degree than you uphold your own.

          Realizing this obvious fact most filtering tools need manual input and constant monitoring. Even so Google’s official number is that 37% of ALL takedown notices are false. And this is after you’ve presumably culled most of the false positives you’ve generated.

          Using your own arguments about infringement being “theft” what you actually do is justify your own theft of another innocent person’s property as collateral damage when you try to uphold your own. That’s not acceptable.

          There is in this debate one person not being rational. And that’s you.

        • Anonymous

          @ Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “If rights holders keep demanding impossibilities then, just as is the case with five-year-olds throwing temper tantrums, you can’t counter with rational debate – they simply won’t listen.”

          Whats the rational counter debate from your side? Going by TF’s usual posters, its “die in a fire” or “I’ve never paid and am never going to., i’ll pirate what I like”

          “As for a rational counter point, I believe he did make one which apparently you did not understand. Do you mean how a system works with false positives?”

          I didn’t mean anything. The only semblance of a point I read in the initial post, was more of a statement “there are way too many false positives with the filter system to be acceptable.”, followed by “shut the fuck up” and then transferring all the responsibility for what someone else does, onto rights-holders shoulders as the solution.

          “I’ll elaborate. Maybe even you will get it.

          Assume you have a system capable of detecting copyrighted files with a 99% accuracy. Assume a million files on a given system. Assume a thousand of these are infringing on copyright. How many will your automated system detect?

          The answer is that it will detect 990 out of a thousand copyrighted files. Then it will also detect 1% out of the million existing files.

          So you end up with 10990 files identified as infringing and automatically shut down. With a mere 1% error rate on your precious tool you generate 100 false positives for every correct one.
          I.e. you infringe on other people’s copyright to a vastly larger degree than you uphold your own.”

          Assuming 99 to 1 legitimate uploads, in your scenario, those numbers would be correct.

          For the average cyberlocker though – 99 to 1 legitimate ?

          Realizing this obvious fact most filtering tools need manual input and constant monitoring. Even so Google’s official number is that 37% of ALL takedown notices are false. And this is after you’ve presumably culled most of the false positives you’ve generated.

          Using your own arguments about infringement being “theft”

          I haven’t used the word “theft”.

          “what you actually do is justify your own theft of another innocent person’s property as collateral damage when you try to uphold your own. That’s not acceptable”

          Again, I don’t define infringement as theft. And if ISPs are made resposible for filters on their “own” servers, where is my hand in their tools effectiveness to remove without collateral damage?

        • Anonymous

          @PelouzeTF

          “For the average cyberlocker though – 99 to 1 legitimate ?”

          Not hardly. in the case of Megaupload it is estimated that 50 million people are losing access to their own fully legal material.

          You could argue that the existence of 5 billion people using Megaupload (assuming your own 99 to 1 ratio) would then make it reasonable to go ahead and remove the lot.

          That same argument, applied in real life, would also justify one person dying at the hands of the police or be wrongfully imprisoned, as long as you could bust 99 drug dealers.

          That is NOT how law is supposed to work, PelouzeTF. We’ve known for centuries that collateral damage at the hands of the law is unacceptable.
          If a suggested enforcement of law means that you have to accept that collateral damage the law does not see fit to grant such enforcement.

          If lack of such enforcement means the undesireable violation of the law cannot be adressed then it won’t be.

          That is why drug problems still exist – despite the fact that you could probably eliminate it if police and the national guard regularly turned every household in the US inside out with a drug hound along.
          Speeding exists since every car does not possess a GPS tracking device calling in where it’s at and how fast it’s travelling.
          Domestic abuse exists since there are no cameras in every room of every household.

          Whatever the proportion is of illegal to legal material is completely irrelevant in itself as long as there actually exists a sizeable portion of legitimate material which will be completely blocked once you implement a regulation which renders this type of service impossible. Let me give you a hint – 50 million people is a VERY sizeable amount of collateral damage

          You can have copyright enforcement once you abolish free speech – or the internet. Technology only ever works to make distribution of information easier – not the other way around.

        • Anonymous

          @PelouzeTF

          “And if ISPs are made resposible for filters on their “own” servers, where is my hand in their tools effectiveness to remove without collateral damage?”

          Gee.
          You say “Unless you perform a miracle right this minute we’ll shut you down”.

          They say “Um. We’re not magicians, we’re technicians. What you ask for can’t be done. Not without hiring thousands of people to manually sift the data of hundreds of million customers”.

          You say “Ok, then we’re shutting you down”.

          Tell you what, why don’t i hold a gun to your head and tell you to levitate. Failure means I pull the trigger. Not my fault you can’t levitate, right?

      • Camilo

        @PelouzeTF: “It is completely possible to screen files.”

        No, it’s not. you don’t know what you’re talking about because you’re not a programmer.

        On Youtube it only did work because:
        a) these are ALL VIDEOS, and you can e.g., get a spectrum of a waveform and compare it to a database. .rar files are not like this, is that simple enough to understand?
        b) Google has some of the best programmers in the fucking universe (and pays them incredibly well). Rapidshare has not.

        • MadAsASnake

          There are clear limits to what you can do. For videos to work on YouTube requires the media to be submitted in an already known format. Cyber lockers don’t have that luxury and saying “YouTube can do it, so can everyone else” would impose a requirement that every file is in an open and known format whatever it’s use or relevance. I don’t care how good and well-paid the Google programmers are, I will bet there is not one that can get through strong enncryption in any realistic or proportionate manner.

      • Guest

        Yeah, it might be possible to screen files.

        It’s impossible to tell if Viacom was the one uploading the files to try and make Youtube/whatever look bad in an attempt to broadbrush filehosters. But you knew that.

      • Anonymous

        1) There are no tools available to do so. As soon as you even compress the files you end up with a demand for more CPU power than even the NSA has at it’s fingertips, for your average cyberlocker.
        The Youtube “content filter” to start with doesn’t work. At least not to the effect desired which means that everything anyone wants to post on youtube will be available on Youtube.

        2) Yes, it is indeed fair that rights holders if they insist on something as retarded as checking that no one makes a copy of a data file, find out for themselves where they have problems. It is quite as impossible for cyberlockers to come up with that overhead as it is for the rightsholders. What you demand is impossible. It’s that simple.

        A cyberlocker acts as a postal service. Intermediaries have for hundreds of years been exempted from liability of their customers simply because there is no way to ensure people do not misbehave in communication without going through EVERYONE’s communication. The right to basic privacy vastly outweighs the need for content filtering én másse. Whatever reason you can dream up.

        It’ll be no skin of any pirates nose if cyberlockers all vanish. That will harm only the legitimate customers. And guess what? They aren’t blaming us. They are quite correctly blaming you.

        There is only one way you can in practice turn the above situation around – by banning free speech and communication altogether. Otherwise the basic demands required for person A to communicate with person B means all the needs for unlimited and untrammeled filesharing is met.

        3) This will have no effect at all on filesharing. As you should know, given previous attempts in the same areas. What happens is that filesharing moves to venues which cannot be reached as long as the internet works at all.
        The end result is therefore NO impact on filesharing. A great deal on legitimate consumers as collateral damage.

        I keep being amazed at how often you shoot yourselves in the foot, harming your own cause like this. But, by all means, keep laughing. Your amusement will last only until reality presents you with facts.

        • MadAsASnake

          I have come to beleive that when the content industry demands someting impossible is imposed on another party, it really means they want that business shut down.

      • OMGWTFBBQ

        No it’s not. Read a book.

        By the way i thought we had the DMCA. Why do we even have that if stuff can be filtered before uploading. (Which is still not possible. Unless you disallow zip rar 7zip ect ect.) And even then you can just rename the avi file to txt or jpg and have the person downloading it rename it back to avi again. You can even put a rar file inside a jpg. And it will actually show as an image.

        One day, and i break whatever filter you you have spend months building. And post solution all over the net as jpg.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          I remember hearing back in the USEnet days that you can just change a filetype to .txt, break it up into as many pieces as you need, and reconstruct on the receiving end before changing the filetype back. No idea if it really works, but if so it’s small work to compile a program that does thta automatically, even if every other form of compression is already off the books.

          That’s off the top of my head. point is if someone can restrict what you’re allowed to do you can find a way around it. there’s no way this will ever stop…especially since the smartest minds are more interested in breaking security than enforcing it.

          It’s a well known fact that anyone can build a system so complex they themselves can’t break it, but no system can be entirely secure. someone will always find a flaw.

        • Anonymous

          @Gene Poole

          “I remember hearing back in the USEnet days that you can just change a filetype to .txt, break it up into as many pieces as you need, and reconstruct on the receiving end before changing the filetype back. No idea if it really works…”

          I hope you’re being ironic? If not, then go google usenet binaries. Yes, the method works, and has for over a dozen years.

          In essence what that means is that just as everything CAN be found on Usenet, blocking it by automation is completely and utterly impossible. Making cyberlocker uploads/downloads the same…well, you end up with what is essentially another usenet service.

        • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

          @Scary_Devil_Monastery

          not being ironic, I just honestly never bothered to try. yEnc came into use like a week after.

  • Someone

    The courts in Hamburg have a history of ignoring reality when it comes to the Internet …

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    Filtering uploads is a futile waste of time.
    Most infringing downloads are initiated from links on 3rd party sites.

    Filters would be based on either suspicious filenames which creates false positives and easy to circumvent by changing the filename of the stored file.

    The other is for rapidshare to store hashes of previously flagged files and stop them being reloaded. Again easy to circumvent by storing the file in an archive along with a padding file that would be changed on subsequent reuploads.

    If the filtering gets too clever and tries to unarchive a file, password protect it and use the password as the filename of the padding file.

    password protected zip and rar files display the filenames so easily obtained for manual extraction.

    Yet another high cost trip to court for zero gain

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      You can encrypt the rar so the file names are invisible. You can also use other formats (free) like 7z.

      The level of fail in this decision is just epic ;)

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

        yes but the whole point of just using password protection was to use the pad file (used to nodify the hash) filename to indicate the password so that the archive can be distributed along with the password.

        Remember the use of archive and passwordis merely to mask the hash of the underlying file and an easy means of modifying the hash for the archive if that gets filtered. The password protection is only to stop automated filter systems unarchiving to check the hash of the underlying file.

        • O’lay Pirate

          … as well as the fact that they could had a user-agent detector and if it’s from a ‘rogue’ (piracy) website then it blocks access to the file… it just depends how far they would take it.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          O’lay Pirate, it’s impossible to do that. One, because many ‘pirate sites’ have legal things on them.

          Two, because that would just make people ‘in the know’ turn off site referral, which is not that hard to do and which many browsers are going to “no site referrers sent”.

          I personally have my browser set up to NEVER send site referrers.

        • Camilo

          You forgot something. RAR (and almost all compressed formats) stores a CRC (which is similar to a hash of the file)

          Remember a CRC32 as used by RAR would only trigger a false positive after more than 4 billion real infringing CRCs.

  • fffff

    So wait no raid or anything? Why didn’t MU get this preferential treatment? :/

    • Anonymous

      RapidShare did not hire UMG musicians. ;-)

    • Anyone

      RS spent money lobbying in Washington, so the FBI is held on a leash

  • Tyler

    People still use Rapidshare?

    • Camilo

      I remember the olden days when the download page was just a logo and little more. It was so prettier.

  • TAP

    Right. And so Germany plans to take on the whole of the EU that just ruled that illegal, do they?

    http://torrentfreak.com/eu-court-bans-anti-piracy-filters-on-hosting-services-120216/

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      I thought EU was owned by a few countries, namely Germany and France. [edit] /joke-or-not

  • Anonymous

    There is an unspoken, imaginary, nonexistent part of DMCA that says:

    “You must filter and police everything your users post. Failure to implement this will mean your site is a rouge piracy haven, and will be immediately shut down. “

    • It’s a fit-up

      Since when does the DMCA apply to Swiss sites.

      • Anonymous

        I’m guessing you didn’t get the memo.

        US laws now apply everywhere!

        • HelloFromEurope

          If you’re from the USA then suck our wieners, and if you’re not.. well suck them anyway because you are kissing they’re asses. US law is law to the USA, not America or the rest of the world.Don’t worry, people are tired of you and you stupidity.

      • Techanon

        That’s the second unspoken, imaginary, nonexistent rule of DMCA: “DMCA rules worldwide. No exeptions.”

    • http://gene-poole.tumblr.com Gene Poole

      God damn rouge pirates, I bet they’re in cahoots with the rouge admins and the rouge squadron.

  • Flyer

    This just one of reasons why you shouldn’t listen to copyright groups’ complaints. They will never be satisfied and come up with more and more oppressive measures. And btw , monitoring users’ files is breaking their privacy and so is wrong /illegal [?]

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      With all the privacy concerns I’d expect this decision to be challenged successfully in Germany.

      And yes, it doesn’t matter how far you go to comply with the MAFIAA. I’ll quote Mr Smith: “MOAR!”

      • Vbmn

        Agent Smith

  • Anyone

    wasn’t there a european court decision that this sort of screening cannot be ordered from companies?

    • http://profiles.google.com/orfetheo Orfeas Theofanis

      Yes, the article mentions it.
      But it seems Germans don’t really care about European laws.

      • Anonymous

        including user privacy.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        As part of the EU, they had better care or they just might find economic sanctions levied against them.

        • OMGWTFBBQ

          HAHAHA good one!

    • Amused

      In my country we are about to be fined 8 million GBP for not complying with a European court ruling to protect reed beds crucial to the survival of certain species of wildlife so I don’t understand why other countries like Germany can simply ignore European court rulings and get away with it.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        They cannot. I am sure that fines will be levied against Germany if they don’t start changing their tune extremely soon.

  • Axel R

    rename and just password/encrypt the files and you are set.. they never know what it could contain

  • Gae

    Rapidshare kneeled down and licked the asshole of the entertainment companies in order to try and offer a legal service but guess what, it was never enough and it never will be enough, no matter how far they bend over to try and please them they will always want more.

    • John

      The publishers and anti sharing groups always want more, this can’t be stressed enough.
      They know that by asking as much as possible and then even more and pretending to have a moral highground plus the power of money they can get anything they want.
      This is the truth because most still avoid standing up against their abuses.
      I really think you don’t negotiate or try to act reasonable with them, get along with society, the lawmakers, the ONG’s but don’t bother ganing the publisher’s favor.

  • Anonymous

    Yes the most important part of this news is the former European Court of Justice ruling in that a site cannot be forced to add a filter at its own expense. Sorry Germany but that one ruling will override every opposing judgement that you ever make.

    One way to avoid that conflict is to bill GEMA the millions for the filter and the millions in extra annual costs for keeping it updated. Want RapidShare to send you the bill GEMA since you asked for it?

    I would say this was a concerning ruling when stopping infringement is impossible and should pirates have the desire then it is all about learning how to bypass their filter using reencodes etc. One way the filter can be bypassed every time all the time is to use encrypted archives.

    As a site like FilesTube proves then in the battle of the DMCA the pirates do a better job keeping files up than the copyright cartels do in taking them down. So why do they exactly think that status would change if filters were used?

    All I see here is rights holders being lazy and not wanting to do their job resulting in such brain dead filters. My point here is if they put their work and trust into the filter then the pirates would just simply slip around them.

    Most ironic in all this is that RapidShare has long been against infringement and is not even a serious hosting target for the pirates. So this is like trying to squeeze the last drops of juice out of a dead horse they previously whipped to death when it comes to infringement.

    • Anyone

      that battle cannot be won.
      on one side there are enthusiastic people that upload and share because it is their passion, on the other side there are workers that do their job with not nearly as much passion

      and if one filehoster proves to be too effective at removing content people just move on to the next one

      but by all means, please send the bill to the GEMA in accordance with the EU ruling, please do, and post their response online, should make for some quality entertainment.

  • Typo?

    Ernesto,
    Not sure if this is a typo?

    Raimer explains that the copyright holders are leaving out essential details that are actually quite positive for the cyberlocker. Previously the lower court described RapidShare’s entire business as unlawful, but that decision has NOT been overturned.

    should read …

    Raimer explains that the copyright holders are leaving out essential details that are actually quite positive for the cyberlocker. Previously the lower court described RapidShare’s entire business as unlawful, but that decision has NOW been overturned.

  • Anon

    Forget RARing, encrypt the uploads and they won’t be able to prove jack shit unless they have the encryption key. Afaik, new password = new encryption = new file hash.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    Reading all the comments so far, I see broad agreement that attempts to use filters as an anti-piracy measure is futile.

    I would go further and say that the only users it will affect and the ‘law abiding’ ones. Files being bounced as false positives (a total pain after uploading a few hundred mb) and those who have no intention of making links public and are just uploading music/video to access remotely on a mobile device.

    Rights holders arnt dumb, they no doubt used the ‘youtube can do it why not you’ argument in court and the judge not comprehending the fundamental differences.

    The filters being futile is not the important part of the judgement to the rightsholders. It is the shift in responsibility in policing network content and that online services serving germany and poss the eu in general must pro actively police their servers – an impossible position

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Actually, Youtube cannot even do it. Their system is known to be RIDDLED with illegitimate takedowns of stuff that are obviously fair usage stuff.

      It’s just time for these ‘rights holders’ to be given the wakeup call with the sledgehammer on the legs and have any DRM, ANY filtering for ANYTHING that is in and of itself illegal at this point (I.E. CP), etc. illegal.

  • Anonymous

    how many times have i said here that it makes no difference what is decided in the EU court, individual countries carry on doing as they like? that means to me that the EU court isn’t worth a toss!
    next point is best of luck to RS in managing to filter all files to the satisfaction of GEMA and all the other copyright organisations. it aint gonna happen, not without loads of legitimate files being blocked and probably plenty of accounts being restricted or shut. that will not matter to those organisations until it’s something of theirs that is affected.
    serve RS and all other file hosting sites and all ISPs rights. instead of having the foresight to see what was happening and how it was gonna end up, everything was poo-poo’d off. now file hosts are stuck with trying to filter, ISPs are being internet police and file sharing is heading further and further down the ‘classed as illegal activity’ path. none of this is costing the entertainment industries a damn thing! customers, however, will be paying for any costs incurred by ISPs and hosting companies but still not able to share stuff. easy to say now it’s too late, but why didn’t these various companies join forces and fight together? now everyone is going to suffer for the stupidity and laziness. there is very little now, internet wise, that isn’t already (or soon will be) under the control of the entertainment industries! what a terrible way for things to end up!

    • Bloaxor

      But one beautiful day, heads will roll once again..

    • MadAsASnake

      Well, they could simply ask GEMA for a list of signatures of the files they need to block.

  • super_glide

    All this over a companies profit margin?

  • Pingback: RapidShare deberá filtrar contenidos

  • Mad

    Rapidshare should just close for good.They won’t let non members download.
    It’s useless.

  • anon

    Goodbye rapidshare! People get the rare shit of rapidshare and start transcoding it to a better hoster…

    • Derp

      transcoding to a better hoster? I’ve never heard that before.
      How does one transcode?

      • Anonymous

        Transcode means to convert from one format to another. I usually use the word with PAL, NTSC and Secam conversions but it applies to digital files as well like with a DVD down to XViD.

  • Pingback: Usenet.info.pl » Czy RapidShare b?dzie filtrowa? uploady?

  • Pingback: RapidShare deberá filtrar contenidos

  • Pingback: RapidShare deberá filtrar contenidos #iMapas

  • Guest

    Testing disqus.

  • Guest

    I’m not surprised with this, not at all. One by one, each site will be forced to close. I guessing our only hope right now is “netkups.com”. Even if they close in the end, the torrents will at least still remain. They can never fully stop that.

  • http://twitter.com/YabbaDabbaTru YabbaDabbaTru

    And all mail must be read as well as all packages searched before being sent. Time to apply to FedEx or UPS for a job as a snoop.It will be nice to read all the packages sent from large corps to make sure nothing illegal is in them.

    • Tsunku

      just wait until ACTA is ratified and the ACTA organization empowered, they’ll have police powers above national and international laws as well as being over the UN. they’ll also have their own forces to search premises for illegal files and whatnot. yet none of this was in the summary they showed to representatives that signed it. worse are the representatives that signed it just to get their photo taken like ron kirk, he’s an idiot, he fucked dallas when he mayor, now he’s fucked the usa too… most of the provisions contained within ACTA violate many articles and amendments of our constitution, yet no one with the power has said wait a second, we can’t let them do this…. idiots.. just idiots… how the hell they ever got into a position of power is beyond me.

    • OMGWTFBBQ

      I want more. I want full body searches before anyone leaves their house.

  • Wodia

    I guess whatever you do, you can never make those assholes happy.
    RIP 2012 – The Death of File Hosting

    • Glib

      If you didn’t read this blog, you’d not think the sky is falling. I always use the litmus test of “do my roommates / brother-in-law still know how to get absolutely everything they want AND are they even remotely afraid of being caught? The answer is still no, so that’s good. The general “pirate” is fully capable of moving services and generally have no loyalty towards anything. Every few months, I hear that some streaming site died, use this instead. Not too hard for someone to post on their Facebook “thepiratebay.se is dead, where do I go now”.

      Admittedly, TPB would be a harsh blow, but their attackers are still too stupid or hindered enough that they can’t do anything notable.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ender-Wiggin/100000885624281 Ender Wiggin

    my response would be “that’s fucking retarded, we’re now blocking all IP’s from your country, get fucked and die screaming”, while offering a chinese proxy as part of the service.

  • Pingback: RapidShare deberá filtrar contenidos | Fans-TV.com

  • Klatu

    Switzerland not being part of the EU might be the reason why you hear so little about it. Am i correct in assuming that only companies with servers based within actual political borders here are targeted, the largest ones with the most money first?
    I think i am.
    They would be stupid not to appeal. I don’t know if they can accurately predict how much revenue would be lost if they choose to scan every single file. What are the criteria anyways? Is this supposed to be like when police holds you up for ‘suspicious behaviour’ ? What is suspicious behaviour exactly?
    I think in most countries there’s a law that prohibits any official from just opening someones snail mail. I also think in most countries these laws still date from over a century ago (approx…) so the updating of laws is seriously going the wrong way.
    Like someone said above : if you are the kind of dangerous war-criminal who uploads a cd or dvd to filesharing services sometimes so the poor buffs at the top can only buy twelve sports cars this year you should never do it from your own ip-adress, and naming the file RecentBlockbusterMovie.-xvid-by-thisisthenicknameiuseeverywhere.rar probably deserves you to be caught.
    The guy from —sec that got caught only made two mistakes from what i can read and it looks like this witchhunt is going after anyone that can be extorted. Caution is not just an option if you’re part of the scene as an active member. Shutting down rapidshare will prove to be as futile as shutting down megaupload. They just know there’s a ton of money they can fine these people and Kim Dotcom was an example they needed to set to instill fear. Just look at how quickly a lot of the major providers complied right after that.
    All they’re gonna do is divert a stream of money from here to somewhere where their laws can’t reach, but why would they care, they just want the money now. x years from now they’re probably no longer in office anyway

  • John

    Besides being against a supreme ruling this is also quite ridiculous.
    Any kind of filter will be easily bypassed, this will just waste time and resources from everyone.
    What will be next? When this fails will they ask to have real people manually checking every file before uploading them to make sure things work this time?
    And why single out file sharing?
    If they want to make someone check everything you upload to the internet so it’s not breaking any laws what about e-mails or facebook? They should have someone checking those too.
    Why is checking for copyrighted material more important than any of the other illegal thingss that happen on the internet?
    Child pornography, cyber bullying, spam, identity theft, credit frauds, etc etc.
    And there are still the problems affecting the real world, the real problems. But they all seem to pale in comparison to protecting the publishers of the horrible potential sale lost.
    And somehow that is all fine. God bless our modern society.

  • foff

    Part of the problem is lazy posters. They grab a post from one site and post it on another site so once the file is reported the links are dead for most sites that posted the same links. What anyone who posts should do is add a junk data file and rerar it thus hashing will only work for one site. I have also noticed that once something is deleted if it is re upped it is usually left alone because whoever reported has moved on and does not continue to monitor it.

    Scanning for names is impossible because most good posters now are not putting the whole name in the title if at all. I really don’t see any cause for celebration because as usual the court being apparently ignorant of technology doesn’t realize there is no way to proactively search or monitor uploads. Technically speaking under any ruling no file should be deleted unless it is confirmed that it is an infringing file. Something that would have to be done manually. Not even Rabid share could afford to employ and army to do that. What right does a filehoster have to snoop in your uploaded data. What if all my backed up movies were uploaded to a hoster. This would be perfectly legal and would make any hoster worthless if they could arbitrarily snoop in my data delete my files anytime.

    Of course all deletions right now are done without any type due process. That in my mind makes the cloud or anything like it a tough sell. I hate how the mafiaa can get away with the guilty until proven innocent model on the internet.

    Personally I think there should not be any copyright on digital files for the simple reason once a file hits the net the copyright is no longer worth squat. Any digital file once on the net, if worth anything will be spread far and wide perhaps within minutes. No artificial monopoly law like copyright can protect digital files period. If the courts weren’t in the dark ages and so fucking retarded they would understand this and say the public has decided digital files are public domain and are therefore not subject to copyright. You want to enforce a copyright do it on hard media. You can stop people from selling bootleg disks but forget anything on the net as it is basically already in public domain.

    • Anonymous

      Never going to happen.

      • Anyone

        just you wait

        • Tom

          Things seem to be getting a lot tougher for you guys rather than easier. Looks like those easy days are gone.

        • Anonymous

          @Tom

          “Things seem to be getting a lot tougher for you guys rather than easier.”

          No, things have becoming tougher for LEGITIMATE users and users uploading their own legal material.

          But as you can see, if anything copyright infringement keeps rising.
          Pirates, you see, can keep right on filesharing until some idiot actually breaks the core functionality of the internet. It’s that easy. Information control does not work when people can actually communicate. Even China knows this much.

        • MadAsASnake

          @Tom
          Nope – the pirate stuff is still real easy. It’s just the legitimate stuff that is being made hard.

    • spy9000

      I agree with him 110%. Here we have an older generation screwing with our generation.

  • Pingback: RapidShare deberá filtrar contenidos - La Isla Buscada

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ashley-Lauren/100003481168244 Ashley Lauren

    am from “www pluslover COM” Where provides BBWs and BHMs with a pure land to develop

    friendship, romance, marriage in your area or worldwide.

    I celebrate myself daily.
    I fashion myself glamorously.
    I embrace myself completely.
    I empower myself effortlessly.

    Waiting 4 your hug and kisses.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s how to avoid detection:

    1. Rename your file to holiday_make_love.avi file to hml.exe
    2. Pack it into winrar
    3. Split it into 10 segment of 70 MB.
    4. Password protect your RAR files

    When user extract tell them to rename it to .avi

    Unfortunately there are too many retards on this globe that will understand this, or even utilize this method, but if you want to avoid detection, this is the only way.

    • Desu75

      Why all the steps? Just put your files in a rar and password it.

  • MadAsASnake

    So how are they supposed to tell if the usage is infringing or not? Knowing that a file contains copyright information (hard) doesn’t tell you the usage (impossible). This is about destroying rapidshare with vicarious responsibility. I like the idea of GEMA paying for it. The ISP (and it’s customers) should not be stumping up these costs – and in that scheme we all say, fine, go ahead. GEMA would be out of business when the first bill came in.

    • Guest

      “Knowing that a file contains copyright information (hard) doesn’t tell you the usage (impossible). ”

      Exactly. Almost everything falls under some copyright or the other. If I upload my own code for backup, that code is copyrighted; how is the filelocker supposed to tell whether it is my code and I hold the rights, or that I’m uploading it with the intent of infringement? It’s impossible.

  • RodRussian

    Why don’t the run these services in countries like Russia or Ukraine? MAFIAA does not work there.

    • Pjte

      mafiaa does work there. theres been many raids going on by russian authorities Read up the TF news

  • http://www.facebook.com/ValhallaLegend Andrew Lee

    We just need someone who will tell all of us here in the USA to fuck off. Preferably a place with nuclear weapons.

  • Pingback: Court Orders RapidShare to Filter User Uploads | Emmashare

  • Waseihou

    We need a new solution to this problem. What about making DHT applet for web browser and storing links to encrypted file into it? Every uploader would have his own RSA certificate and public key to verify that it was his virtual indentity that uploaded or changed the record in DHT and also to track the trust into him. Users would be able to manage a list of trusted uploaders to avoid fakes. The uploader would upload file several times and every time compiled with different password Xi. Then he would encrypt (Xi + block of random data) = Bi with relatively short Pi into hidden blocks Hi.
    Hi+1 = encrypt(last encrypted block Hi, password=>Pi) and this would be stored to DHT and signed with his private key. The first block would not be encrypted. Then the users would download it and get the link to file, as it would be delete sooner or later, they will start brute attack on the block and after some time they would get a record for new file which would be replaced in DHT then. This is a way how to force uploaded content to survive some time before someone decrypts the block with new password. It is something like lock with timer, because bruteforcing introduce a delay. Someone should implement this, plugin should be comfortable enough for most users.

    DHT = dynamic hash table

    Waseihou
    The Czech Pirate party registered supporter

  • Pingback: Curtea obliga pe RapidShare sa filtreze fisierele urcate de catre utilizatorii sai | Trackers.ro

  • Pingback: Germania, filtri preventivi per RapidShare? | infropy - information entropy

  • asdf

    EU = Retarded.

  • Pingback: Court orders file-sharing site RapidShare to monitor for copyrighted content | Android News

  • Anonymous

    lol, who cares about some German high kangaroo court lol, thats just too funny dude.
    Anon-World.tk

  • Pingback: ??? ????? ?????? RapidShare ???? ??? ???; ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? | TechIT

  • Pingback: RapidShare obligado a filtrar contenido

  • kbx

    I wonder how this can be a achieved on a technical side. I mean what does exactly proactive filter mean?

    • Anonymous

      Means “try to snoop on whatever the customer is uploading first”. Meaning you need to hire thousands of people to perform that duty…or trust a script which will generate thousands of false positives to somehow get it right (not likely).

  • Pingback: Court orders file-sharing site RapidShare to monitor for copyrighted content [updated] | AVORAH - Geek Lifestyle Reviews And Views - TECH, GADGETS, STYLE.

  • Klaoao

    “It’s worth nothing that the German verdicts”
    You meant “It’s worth noting”, right ?

  • Pingback: RapidShare Under Court Order To Filter User Uploads – All Of Them

  • Pingback: Hu23##On action » Blog Archive » RapidShare condamné à filtrer les fichiers uploadés

  • Pingback: RapidShare under fire: court orders filtering of user uploads | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics

  • Pingback: RapidShare devra filtrer les fichiers transférés sur leurs serveurs - Chez Mat

  • Pingback: German court forces file hosting site RapidShare to monitor for illegal content | It's All Tech

  • Pingback: ?? Rapidshare ?? ??????????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ???

  • Pingback: ?? Rapidshare ?? ??????????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ??? – - LastNews.grLastNews.gr

  • Skei

    filter this! 5xfwuv1sccin8tk6.vnbz (compressed/stored and encrypted) 7zip file with my favorite a tv serie.

  • Pingback: Duitse rechter: Rapidshare aansprakelijk voor auteursrechtinbreuk | Techcube

  • Pingback: Court Orders RapidShare to Filter User Uploads | Gizmaestro

  • Pingback: ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? | ????? ??? .??

  • Destry

    I assume that “… but that decision has NOT been overturned” should read “…but that decision has NOW been overturned”.

  • Pingback: Piracy Debate | Pearltrees

  • Pingback: Corte alemana obliga a RapidShare a filtrar el contenido que suben sus usuarios - FayerWayer

  • Pingback: Corte alemana obliga a RapidShare a filtrar el contenido que suben sus usuarios

  • Rtete

    What kind of bullshit is that? If Rapidshare is reading my files, that act is illegal by german law… so wtf is that court talking about?

    Sorry but some people should just get shoot to prevent the German race form getting dumber than apes.

  • Pingback: Corte alemana obliga a RapidShare a filtrar el contenido que suben sus usuarios | Tecnomize.net ! – Programacion , Telefonia , Informatica en General y Mucho Mas

  • Pingback: Rapidshare obligado a filtrar los archivos subidos por sus usuarios

  • Pingback: Corte alemana obliga a RapidShare a filtrar el contenido que suben sus usuarios « Tecnología « -| Hoy Lo Leo |

  • http://www.techflashed.com/ Tech Flashed

    It will be impossible to track all the uploads

  • Pingback: Rapidshare obligado a filtrar los archivos de usuarios | Tecnologiaweb.com

  • Pingback: RapidShare Has Been Asked To Proactively Filter Users Uploads For Copyright Check - I2Mag

  • Pingback: RapidShare Diarah Untuk Mengawal Kandungan Yang Dimuat-Naik Kepadanya | HatiBlogger [dot] Com

  • Pingback: Privacy versus copyright filters make the RapidShare ruling a catch-22 | Techi.com

  • Pingback: RapidShare Diarah Untuk Mengawal Kandungan Yang Dimuat-Naik Kepadanya | Amanz

  • Pingback: Rapidshare b?dzie musia? sprawdza? wgrywane pliki. To nie mo?e si? uda? (moje przygody z iTunes) | Gazeta RSS

  • Devnull

    It is sad how European countries have draconian laws severely restricting legitimate domestic companies only to please foreign media companies.

  • Pingback: RapidShare Urteil vom Hamburger Oberlandesgericht - NETZWELT

  • Paul Arnote

    If I copied and sent a DVD or music CD through the U.S. mail, does that make the USPS a copyright infringer? Using the same rules as these morons, it does. So are we next going to ban mail? Or make the various postal services of the world start opening up mail and checking its contents?

    This whole thing has gotten completely ludicrous!

  • Pingback: Pirataria: RapidShare vai ter que aumentar controle sobre arquivos hospedados, diz Corte – Blog MK Informática

  • Pingback: ?????????????? RapidShare ?????????????????????????????????????? | Magento-Thailand.com | Magento, ????????????? Magento, ???????????????????? ???????? e-commerce, Online Shopping, ???????????????, ?????????????? ??????????? ??????????

  • Pingback: Corte alemana obliga a RapidShare a filtrar el contenido que suben sus usuarios | No a la ley SOPA

  • Pingback: German court orders Rapidshare to filter user uploads : Information Technology Leader

  • Pingback: Rapidshare Diminta Untuk Memonitor Semua Konten Yang Di-upload | Gamexeon.com

  • Pingback: Today’s Links March 20, 2012

  • Pingback: German Court Orders RapidShare to Filter all User Uploads | RapidShare Filtered in Germany

  • Pingback: RapidShare estará obligada a revisar y filtrar todos los archivos que aloje

  • Pingback: CaymanSecurity.com Introduces Secure Cloud Hosting Services

  • Pingback: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist | TorrentFreak

  • Pingback: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist | Best Seedbox

  • Pingback: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist | We R Pirates

  • Pingback: RapidShare estara obligada a revisar y filtrar todos los archivos que aloje

  • Pingback: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist | OzHouse Alt News

  • Pingback: German Court Ruled Out RapidShare As Legal

  • Pingback: Rapidshare Declared Legal (Again) In Germany, But With A Bizarre Requirement To Monitor Other Sites « waweru.net

  • Pingback: Allemagne : le fonctionnement de Rapidshare déclaré Légal par le tribunal. | VavekProd.com – Journal, Actualité informatique et multimédia – VavekProd

  • Pingback: RapidShare Declared Legal In Court, With a Twist | Emmashare

  • Pingback: German court rules that RapidShare is legal | MyCE – My Consumer Electronics

  • Pingback: Rapidshare Diminta Untuk Memonitor Semua Konten Yang Di-upload | Gamexeon.com

  • Pingback: “Rapidshare” and the future of file-hosting :: Salvador Ferrandis & Partners: full service in IP

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.