German Supreme Court Confirms RapidShare Must Police The Internet And Restrict Anonymous Use

from the good-luck-with-that dept

A post on TorrentFreak updates us on the continuing saga of the file-hosting site RapidShare. The Supreme Court in Germany has apparently confirmed a regional High Court decision that had itself confirmed two earlier verdicts concerning the Swiss company:

The court clarified that RapidShare has no obligation to proactively monitor files that are uploaded by its users. However, the company is required to monitor external sites that link to copyrighted files on RapidShare, and ensure these files become inaccessible to the public.

In addition, the ruling noted that when these measures prove not to be effective enough, the file-hosting site should restrict the opportunity for people to use the site anonymously. RapidShare already logs IP-addresses but to decrease anonymity customers may also have to show proof of identity.

Both of these decisions are highly problematic. It shouldn't be RapidShare's responsibility to ferret out unauthorized copies around the world. And since it's clearly impossible for RapidShare to monitor everything online (that's the NSA's job...), the court presumably expects it to monitor only some of it: the question then becomes: How much? The risk is that the company could find itself being sued by copyright companies for not doing "enough." The second requirement is worrying because it could have ramifications for German whistle-blowers, say, who will be unable to store their documents safely on file-hosting sites like RapidShare. That's because the current decision will be applied much more widely than to just RapidShare, as TorrentFreak notes:

It is expected that the Supreme Court decision will have massive implications. Not only for RapidShare, but also for many other file-hosting services that operate in Germany. More on what will change exactly for RapidShare and its users will become apparent when the full verdict is released a few weeks from now.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, filters, germany, internet, policing
Companies: rapidshare

Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage

from the just-what-the-entertainment-industry-wants dept

We've discussed in the past how broadband bandwidth caps can slow innovation by adding mental transaction costs to basic internet usage. People don't want to have to think about how much bandwidth any particular usage might take. They don't want to have to consider that if they click a particular link it might eat up a significant portion of their monthly allocation. There are some other issues as well. Mathew Ingram tells of his experience bumping up against bandwidth caps in Canada, in which he couldn't figure out what had happened:

I have three teenage daughters who also download music, TV shows and so on. I figured someone had just gone a little overboard, and since it was close to the end of the month, I thought it wasn’t anything to be worried about. The next day, however, I went online and checked my usage (Rogers has an online tool that shows daily usage), and it said that I had used 121 GB more than my allotted amount for the month. In other words, I had used more than 100 GB in less than two days.

I just about spit my coffee all over the computer screen. How could I possibly have used that much? According to Rogers, I owed $181 in overage charges. Luckily there is a maximum extra levy of $50 a month (just think what it would cost if I was subject to usage-based billing).

So he felt forced to go track down what the issue was. At first (with prompting from Rogers tech support), he thought the issue might be his open WiFi, so he closed that down. He asked family members about their usage, and they all insisted they weren't doing much. However, just a few days into April, he was told that his connection had already used up the monthly allocation, leading to a second search, and the eventual discovery that one of his daughters had downloaded some TV shows, but left a file sharing program running in the background, which probably accounted for the extra bandwidth usage.

In other words, he had to become his own local area network cop, to figure out how his own network was being used and for what. Now, I'm sure some will argue this is a good thing. They'll say that you should be responsible for understanding everything that goes through your router. And, of course, those who dislike file sharing will argue that this is a wonderful side benefit to these bandwidth caps. But, it really shows yet another pain in having bandwidth caps. It adds a lot more work to having an internet connection at home -- work that really shouldn't have to be done by someone who just wants to access the internet. Perhaps we'll end up with more sophisticated tools for people to track their home internet usage, but in the meantime, it seems a bit crazy to force everyone to be their own local area network traffic cops.

Filed Under: bandwidth, broadband caps, policing

Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?

from the i-thought-free-was-bad? dept

The RIAA and the IFPI have been going on and on for years about just how ridiculous it is for people to suggest music should be "free." They will go on, at great length, to talk up the "value" of music and how it should be paid for. But, apparently, they don't think that applies to anyone else. They're apparently screaming angry at Google because Google (gasp) responded to their request to provide them tools to help them track down unauthorized copies, by quoting their standard prices for how much it costs to use Google's API. So, RIAA, please explain: why is it sacrilege for you to demand people pay up, but it's even worse if Google asks you to pay to use its resources?

Filed Under: apis, copyright, fees, policing, search engines
Companies: google, riaa