Rapidshare Fined $34 Million and Ordered to Filter Content

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,604
Reaction score
10,245
Location
District 9
http://torrentfreak.com/rapidshare-fined-34-million-and-ordered-to-filter-content-090624/

The Regional Court in Hamburg, Germany, has ruled that file-hosting service Rapidshare must proactively filter certain content. Music industry outfit GEMA asked the court to ban Rapidshare from making 5,000 tracks from its catalogue available on the Internet. The court obliged and fined Rapidshare $34 million.

Collections society GEMA claims to represent more than 60,000 composers, authors and music publishers worldwide, protecting their copyrights. After a request by the group, The Regional Court in Hamburg has ruled that hosting service Rapidshare is forbidden from making any of 5,000 music tracks from GEMA’s collection available on the Internet.

Rapidshare was also ordered to delete any and all of those same tracks from its servers and ensure that they are not uploaded again by users. Previously Rapidshare had been using file hashes to recognize tracks that were already removed after requests from GEMA, to ensure that they weren’t uploaded again. The court decided that the technique used was ineffective.

The court found Rapidshare guilty of breaches of copyright law and ordered it to pay damages of €24 million ($34 million).

“The decision of the Hamburg Regional Court is a milestone in GEMA’s fight against the illegal use of musical works on the Internet,” said Dr. Harald Heker, Chief Executive Officer of GEMA. “We are confident that in this way we will be able to reduce the illegal use of the GEMA repertoire on the Internet to a negligible level,” he added.

Understandably, Rapidshare sought to downplay the ruling. Bobby Chang, COO of RapidShare, Switzerland, said: “We do not consider the court’s decision to be a breakthrough. As other proceedings in similar disputes with GEMA have shown, there is considerable disparity amongst the individual courts in some cases.”

Noting that the courts of appeal “tend to restrict the scope of the decisions made by the lower courts,” Chang said it would make more sense to offer music fans the right products and services at the right price to “open up a new source of income for music-markets on the Internet.”

So that means they were only hosting about 425 songs at $80,000 each? :D
 
why not sue harddrive manufacturers? coz hard drives also store pirated content. what about cable manufacturers because their cables carry pirated content.
 
why not sue harddrive manufacturers? coz hard drives also store pirated content. what about cable manufacturers because their cables carry pirated content.

Don't give them any ideas... the record companies are just psycho enough to do it.
 
why not sue harddrive manufacturers? coz hard drives also store pirated content. what about cable manufacturers because their cables carry pirated content.

They do not actively facilitate and encourage the distribution of the copyrighted material. Rapidshare were not fined for storing the goods, as per their namesake, storage is not their business...
 
They do not actively facilitate and encourage the distribution of the copyrighted material. Rapidshare were not fined for storing the goods, as per their namesake, storage is not their business...

um, I hate to break this to you... but storage is EXACTLY their business. They are a File Hosting site...

That is the ONLY service they offer.
 
They do not actively facilitate and encourage the distribution of the copyrighted material. Rapidshare were not fined for storing the goods, as per their namesake, storage is not their business...

Exactly but they do store stuff but a lot of it is pirated stuff.
 
um, I hate to break this to you... but storage is EXACTLY their business. They are a File Hosting site...

That is the ONLY service they offer.

Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

Don't know how I could have made such a silly mistake to think that a site called "rapidshare" was about sharing content. My bad.

Stop deluding yourself. I'm not defending the courts' decision here, I'm merely highlighting the difference for the forumite who asked the question. If Seagate were placing the content of all hard-drives online, or even posting them to each other to share, then I could understand the analogy - but as it stands, the analogy is rubbish.
 
why not sue harddrive manufacturers? coz hard drives also store pirated content. what about cable manufacturers because their cables carry pirated content.

they already tried to stop manufacturers from selling VCRs, DVD players, then there is a special TAX on each and every blank DVD disk you buy... so it's all possible.
 
Make it easy and cheap to download legal music. The End.
 
Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:

Don't know how I could have made such a silly mistake to think that a site called "rapidshare" was about sharing content. My bad.

Stop deluding yourself. I'm not defending the courts' decision here, I'm merely highlighting the difference for the forumite who asked the question. If Seagate were placing the content of all hard-drives online, or even posting them to each other to share, then I could understand the analogy - but as it stands, the analogy is rubbish.

doesn't matter what their name suggests - they only provide storage. the links are shared amongst the USERS themselves, and other dodgy websites.

Should "StorageHost.com" also be fined for millions if users abuse the file storage service? they have a nice fitting name?

Should companies leasing storage space be fined when people stack millions of rands worth of drugs in the storage garages?
 
doesn't matter what their name suggests - they only provide storage. the links are shared amongst the USERS themselves, and other dodgy websites.

Bullschit. And you won't change my mind about that one. They're not merely a storage facility - hence why they charge for downloads, or limit concurrent downloads if you're not paying - if it were merely for the user who uploaded it, this wouldn't be necessary...

Should companies leasing storage space be fined when people stack millions of rands worth of drugs in the storage garages?

If they're aware that their facilities are being used for illegal activities and do nothing about it, then yes, they should...
 
doesn't matter what their name suggests - they only provide storage. the links are shared amongst the USERS themselves, and other dodgy websites.

Should "StorageHost.com" also be fined for millions if users abuse the file storage service? they have a nice fitting name?

Should companies leasing storage space be fined when people stack millions of rands worth of drugs in the storage garages?
Their mistake was in charging user to d/l copyright material. At least the torrents were free to use.

(No sympathy)
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X