Is Rapidshare a promoter of e-book piracy?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Huh?

It's quite clear! I've said this several times now: RS use a hash filter which disallows the re-posting of files taken down for copyright violations. The judge's order is to preemitively add a bunch of signatures to said filter.

You assume that a hash filter is an effective method, which is it not. Adding a bunch of signatures to said filter is not going to prevent the sharing of that content. It's a waste of time, but makes the judge feel like they did something useful.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Both of which can be legitimate businesses, and not fronts for prostitution.

While some no doubt are fronts, claiming all are is equivalent to claiming that everything hosted by RapidShare is pirated commercial content of some sort. In short, not true.

???

They're not claiming all. You have it the other way around. One poster was claiming that the Yellow Pages only contains legitimate businesses. The poster you're quoting was pointing out examples of some that are not.

The point is that the Yellow Pages is not responsible for policing the legitimacy of the businesses they list. Neither is RapidShare.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Oh, I agree it won't be effective. But hey, I suspect the publishers and mabe the Judge are the only people involved who think it will be.

Yes. That was the point.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Huh?

It's quite clear! I've said this several times now: RS use a hash filter which disallows the re-posting of files taken down for copyright violations. The judge's order is to preemptively add a bunch of signatures to said filter.

That would be easily circumvented. Most files on rapidshare are in a zip or rar archive. Repack the archive and it now has a new hash. Also, it would arguably remove their safe harbor status, since a selection would be made by the service provider (in this case rapid share) of what is or is not allowed. In order for safe harbor to happen, it has to be fully automatic on the part of the service provider. Maintaining a hash blacklist would not be fully automatic, only using it would be.

(BTW, fixed spelling error)

[zerospinboson]

Good god. Is this still going on? I bet I can go back 5 pages and see the same arguments being made over and over again. What exactly is the point of this?

[Hellmark]

The point is people are stubborn?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You assume that a hash filter is an effective method, which is it not. Adding a bunch of signatures to said filter is not going to prevent the sharing of that content. It's a waste of time, but makes the judge feel like they did something useful.

Um, no? I've never said it'd be effective. In fact, I've said the opposite. But it's quite clear what each side wanted, from what I can see.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

What exactly is the point of this?

I believe it's called a discussion. Participation is not mandatory.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I believe it's called a discussion. Participation is not mandatory.

I believe I pre-empted that response by pointing out that repetition is not the most interesting type of discussion.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I believe I pre-empted that response by pointing out that repetition is not the most interesting type of discussion.

I missed the part where your interest in the type of discussion was required.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Um, no? I've never said it'd be effective. In fact, I've said the opposite. But it's quite clear what each side wanted, from what I can see.

You are correct. I apologize.

It would be more accurate to say "They assume that a hash filter is an effective method..." meaning the judges and companies bringing the suit.

I think we're all in agreement that it's a waste of time.

[raiderkilo]

Another lingual books no possible otherwise obtain