Is Rapidshare a promoter of e-book piracy?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Do you honestly believe that Rapidshare is offering a legitimate service that has nothing to do with piracy? Do you really believe that they aren't making their money from people paying to quickly download copyrighted material? Do you really believe you have to explicity share a list for others to find it? These are rhetorical questions as I know the answers already.

I do. It is handy to be able to toss files up onto a website and link to that, if they're too big to go through email. I've used it for images I've made, large PDFs I've created, applications I've coded (which most email services now prevent emailing of executables), game mods I've done, etc. All legal content. Just because it can be used for piracy, or even if it mostly is, doesn't make it a bad thing. It still has legitimate uses.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by ahi

Given that you can only make a value judgment about files whose download links have been explicitly shared, I'd be curious how you think one could possibly gauge the statistical significance (i.e.: weight) of anything knowable about RS by outsiders.

In other words, the fact that you are able to identify 100,000 RS download links with pirated materials doesn't mean that legitimate use doesn't utterly dwarf illegitimate use. And while checking all links is certainly not feasible, there's no other method either that is bound to get you accurate data.

- Ahi

Sigh. Let me counter your silly question with a silly overblown counterquestion: Am I saying that the Mafia, when they were asking everybody for protection money, really fleecing everybody, or did they legitimately help some shop owners in cases where they needed help?

Anyway, what's with the really_big_number? Are you trying to say that whatever my sample size it will never be big enough because I can't know what percentage of total files offered?

I.e., We don't know how many wives are beaten in country X, so we can't infer that there is a systemic issue in country X, when we do know that at least 100.000 women a year are beaten in country X?

Absolute numbers do count for something, you know.Also, and furthermore: It is illegal in quite a few countries to make/sell copies of IP content, specifically when done on a commercial scale and with such an intent. RS does more or less that, which is why I don't think much of them. Lastly, parking lot and storage locker analogies are really unconvincing, especially because those goods can only be trafficked once, whereas RS makes its money distributing them many times. (Which is why you have to pay for a premium account if you want files to be downloadable >10x).

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by ahi

Perhaps you are aware of a Rapidshare search engine out there, and I am wrong. To the best of my knowledge, Rapidshare download links are not discoverable unless the uploader provides them (and/or those who were provided by the uploader subsequently pass them on). Do you know this to work differently?

- Ahi

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...&q=rapidsearch

[ahi]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-...&q=rapidsearch

Where do those search sites get their indexes from?

If not from Rapidshare's database directly, they are still only showing publicly shared download links.

- Ahi

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Also, and furthermore: It is illegal in quite a few countries to make/sell copies of IP content, specifically when done on a commercial scale and with such an intent. RS does more or less that, which is why I don't think much of them. Lastly, parking lot and storage locker analogies are really unconvincing, especially because those goods can only be trafficked once, whereas RS makes its money distributing them many times. (Which is why you have to pay for a premium account if you want files to be downloadable >10x).

RS doesn't do that though. They aren't the ones putting the content up. They're no more responsible than your ISP. The laws for copying content protect companies who offer a service that is being misused.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

You are misrepresenting their business model. They don't rent disk space to people and provide code to access it.

Here is what they do. They allow people to load anything they want on their servers for free, and they allow everyone else to download those files for free. However, downloaders can also pay a fee to download the files quicker if they want. That is how they make money. Plus, if you are one of the people that uploads files that other people download a lot then they give you free access to their quicker downloads.

There's nothing illegal about that business model.

I know how their system works because I've used their free service before. I was stealing. I guess I'm just one of those weird people who is dishonest enough to steal, but honest enough to admit it.

You weren't "stealing", but I assume you knew that before you chose that terminology.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Geocities promoted piracy for years by not policing content.

They can't police content if they want to qualify for safe harbor under the DMCA.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Do you honestly believe that Rapidshare is offering a legitimate service that has nothing to do with piracy?

Do you believe that hosting content should be illegal?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Absolute numbers do count for something, you know.

Not according to US law. Yes, I know they don't fall under US law, but that's the only example I have. There is not such thing as an absolute number in the law which says "if a tool allows X (some absolute number) illegal uses, then it is illegal". The law only talks about the significance of the legal vs illegal use. Those are relative numbers.

In order to show that, you need real data. Just making stuff up like "everybody KNOWS it's all illegal content" is meaningless.

Also, and furthermore: It is illegal in quite a few countries to make/sell copies of IP content, specifically when done on a commercial scale and with such an intent. RS does more or less that

RS does nothing of the kind.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by ahi

Perhaps you are aware of a Rapidshare search engine out there, and I am wrong. To the best of my knowledge, Rapidshare download links are not discoverable unless the uploader provides them (and/or those who were provided by the uploader subsequently pass them on). Do you know this to work differently?

- Ahi

Go to Google and type in a book or other file you want followed by 'Rapidshare' and you will get tons of listings. There are also sites such as Rapidshare-search and RapidLibrary that obviously have spiders that have crawled Rapidshare's content (but I'm sure Rapidshare knows nothing about this <wink><wink>).

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Are you arguing that Rapidshare is not capable of substantial noninfringing use?

No, that's not my argument. I am arguing that they are purposefully engaged in the distribution of stolen Intellectual Property.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I believe that Rapidshare, like the Sony VCR, has great capacity for copyright-infringing use, but also substantial non-infringing use. And Sony v. Universal established that:

a manufacturer of a product is not liable for contributory
infringement as long as the product is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."

Are you arguing that Rapidshare is not capable of substantial noninfringing use? That it can't be used to share gutenberg ebook collections and creative-commons video movies (like Micheal Moore's documentary, Slacker Uprising)? That it can't be used to share personal self-published collections of writing, art or music?

The issue isn't whether infringers are using Rapidshare--some are. The issue is whether Rapidshare is required to find out who they are and stop them.

Many parking lots are used to purchase illegal drugs. Does that mean the stores are required to hire security guards to patrol their parking lots, and must search each car for drugs or other contraband when they park there?

I'll go back to the Pawn Shop example. If a pawn shop knowingly sells stolen goods they are committing a felony and depending on the circumstances they will be hit by fines and/or prison time. To protect themselves they record the ID and list of merchandise that people sell or pawn them.

Another example is Night Clubs that sell liquor. It is illegal to sell to minors so they check IDs before selling. Just because they sell liquor to adults doesn't permit them to sell to minors.

Businesses that knowingly have drugs sold from their premises get shut down, and business owners that knowingly let this occur often end up arrested. If something like drugs is becoming a problem then businesses routinely higher security to stop it, and also to protect themselves from liability both criminally and civilly.

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I do. It is handy to be able to toss files up onto a website and link to that, if they're too big to go through email. I've used it for images I've made, large PDFs I've created, applications I've coded (which most email services now prevent emailing of executables), game mods I've done, etc. All legal content. Just because it can be used for piracy, or even if it mostly is, doesn't make it a bad thing. It still has legitimate uses.

I don't doubt that a few people would find uses other than the illegal end for Rapidshares service. However, I can't open pawn shop that knowingly sells stolen items, or a liquor store that knowing sells to minors, or an escort service where the escort charges for sex.

[geneven]

FWIW, I have used Rapidshare repeatedly!

As I recall, I was getting free copies of Puppy Linux!

Of course, Puppy Linux is free anyway.

Now, if I was looking for illegal ebook content, I would personally go to the alt.binaries groups on Usenet.

Once upon a time, I actually fell asleep while downloading content from Usenet.

When I woke up and noticed that I had been downloading all night, I discovered that I had many legal copies of things like Sherlock Holmes books, plus illegal books. It was quite accidental.

I might even still have some of those books somewhere.

I used to work for a software company. We basically didn't mind piracy that much, as long as it was more inconvenient for a user to be a pirate than to be a legitimate user. Users tend to get tired of being illegitimate and reform.

I am currently a Kindle user. I could probably get many of the ebooks I buy for free, but the Kindle is more convenient. But if I hadn't learned how nice ebooks are from reading free copies over the years, I probably wouldn't be interested in buying ebooks today.

[ahi]

Are the rapidshare search-engines indexing metadata directly provided by rapidshade for all uploads? If not, you're insinuating nonsense.

Crawling download links made public off-site from rapidshare does not somehow make rapidshade culpable.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

No, that's not my argument. I am arguing that they are purposefully engaged in the distribution of stolen Intellectual Property.

I assume that is just your opinion, or do you have any evidence of this?

I'll go back to the Pawn Shop example. If a pawn shop knowingly sells stolen goods they are committing a felony and depending on the circumstances they will be hit by fines and/or prison time. To protect themselves they record the ID and list of merchandise that people sell or pawn them.

Selling stolen property has nothing to do with copyright infringement, but you probably already know that.

In this case, RS falls under similar laws to the US's DMCA. I don't know the equivalent laws where RS is, but according to the US they are doing everything legally (as far as I can tell), and would qualify for safe harbor. As long as they honor takedown requests, which they claim to do, then I don't see what the problem is. Do you have evidence that they don't?

If your point is that you want to make hosting sites and ISPs legally responsible for any data that they serve on behalf of their customers, then you're pretty much going to outlaw the internet. The model that it works under now is that hosting sites store/distribute content on behalf of their customers. Whether that material is legal or not is the responsibility of the individual user. If the hosting site is served a takedown request, then they honor it. That's how the system was designed, and that's what the laws say. As far as I know, RS is operating under that system. RS may have a certain reputation, or you may not like them, but you can't decide if what they are doing is legal/illegal based solely on that. You either break the current model (and basically the internet) and say that hosts/ISPs are liable, or you say that the users are liable and hosts/ISPs have to respond to takedown requests when provided.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Daithi

However, I can't open pawn shop that knowingly sells stolen items, or a liquor store that knowing sells to minors, or an escort service where the escort charges for sex.

Good thing Rapidshare doesn't do any of those.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Not according to US law. Yes, I know they don't fall under US law, but that's the only example I have. There is not such thing as an absolute number in the law which says "if a tool allows X (some absolute number) illegal uses, then it is illegal".

Neat assertion. Do back it up fully, if you please.And please prove that you've proven exhaustively that US law under no circumstance judges something as bad based certain tragic cases rather than easily-abused/manufactured statistics. Because, as you might have noticed, they do believe the faulty statistics that the MAFIAA fabricates. What is it that makes you conflate statistics with truth and the supposition of completeness/exhaustiveness? In other words, why do you assume statistics are unbiased and unbiasable? Even when a methodology is sound, it can still ignore other data that should have been incorporated, but was forgotten. The point here is to apply your own insight and try to figure out if you think something rings true. Yes, that is a horribly subjective standard, but in the end it's the only one we have.

RS does nothing of the kind.

You realise "kind" is a relative concept, right, even though you use it in an absolute fashion? And that, by using it, you've just dug yourself into a lovely hole that allows for hundreds of thousands of bad analogies to be drawn? But by all means, defend the position that RS doesn't thrive on hosting illegally uploaded content. To my mind, they're one of the worst websites of the lot, though, specifically because they want to make money off it; but I guess if you can live with yourself for defending them, all the more power to you for your self-rationalization skillz.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In order to show that, you need real data. Just making stuff up like "everybody KNOWS it's all illegal content" is meaningless.

I do? You must not know how the US government is run. Ever noticed how the "think of the children" argument can shut down any reasoned discussion? Anyway, I bore of this. I have nothing against filesharing, but I do have something against RS. If you really feel you gain something from trying to convince me of the fact that because I can't know the total number of files, I'm not allowed to say anything at all, all you are doing is convince me of the fact that you see no shades of grey anymore, and are utterly stuck in an ideological position. (namely, of trying to say that because the Content Industry abuses and outright makes up statistics, nobody is allowed to use them in any context, without being able to present figures that have been replicated 200x by independent researchers. That's just silly. Sure, you can disapprove of a methodology, but, considering I'm not the music industry, I do feel I deserve a benefit of the doubt at least slightly more than that industry and its pet lawyers.)

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The law only talks about the significance of the legal vs illegal use. Those are relative numbers.

[citation needed]. Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass about what US law says. US law invented the DMCA, a need for biometric passports, Free Speech Zones while simultaneously claiming that everyone should have an inalienable right to FOS, And The List Goes On.
It's so riddled with nonsense, partiality and special interest that it's a joke. You get a DMCA because of the power of special interests, the entire bloody world is forced to implement biometric passports and to submit to being humiliated by the TSA because of a single terrorist attack, You have "sexual misconduct" laws that are formulated broadly enough so that everyone who is disliked by a cop can be put on a "sex offender list" for life for being spotted peeing outdoors, etc. Also, US Law allows these things to happen without anyone so much as batting an eye.

My personal conclusion (which, obviously, is not based on what percentage of laws is bad, but solely on the tragic cases I hear about in the 'media'): US law is incoherent and useless as a measure to decide reasonableness with. Furthermore, there is often a lag period between new forms of behavior, and new rules appearing to regulate them. As such, it's small wonder that RS might not be doing anything wrong legally, yet. Looking at intent, however, I can safely say I disapprove of their business practice even while I wholeheartedly support the right to distribute files between end users. And yes, I can happily say that without "knowing" the RS owners at all, without feeling the least presumptive.