ZeroPaid.com » rapidshare

RapidShare Launches Mobile App for iPhone

Jared Moya — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:38:09 +0000

New RapidShare app for iPhone lets you share, upload, or stream content on the go.

File-hosting site RapidShare is expanding its reach to the mobile phone market with the launch of its new iPhone app. RapidShare for iPhone ensures that users always have access to their stores files so that they can manage and send them on the go. Users can share, upload, or even stream virtually every multimedia format with and on the app. Store a couple of movies or playlists of your favorite songs, for example to stream on your iPhone while you're waiting to catch a flight. "The iPhone app expands our supply of services onto the mobile sector," says Alexandra Zwingli, CEO of RapidShare. "This app is only one further step in our process of continuously improving our service in the best interests of our customers.” Features:

File Manager: to manage and download files
Share: send files quickly and easily
Bookmarks: access the most frequently used files directly
Audio: organize files in playlists and play them directly on your mobile device
Instant media: record and save pictures and videos easily
Settings: configure access via Wi-Fi networks

[gallery link="file"] As I mentioned a few days ago in listing alternatives to shuttered file-hosting site MegaUpload, RapidShare allows free users to upload an unlimited of data with no maximum file size that is deleted after 30 days. RapidPro customers get unlimited file storage durations and enhanced download speeds.

The RapidShare for iPhone app is free for RapidPro customers (RapidShare with RapidPro), but costs $3.99 for free RapidShare users (RapidShare for free user). RapidShare adds that a mobile app for the iPad will be released some time in the coming weeks. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com | @jaredmoya

5 Best Alternatives to Megauplaod

Jared Moya — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:43:47 +0000

List of several alternatives to the recently shuttered file-hosting site Megaupload.

Yesterday file-hosting site Megaupload was shuttered by US authorities, and the move left many scrambling for alternatives. The list is long and deep, and so it's just a matter of sorting through them all to find one you like. I've taken the time to do this for you, coming up with a list of the five best alternatives to Megaupload, listing what each file-hosting site has to offer, how much it costs, and what you can expect to get in return.

Minus

My favorite of the bunch. Drag and drop files to share with family and friends free of charge. Store up to 10GB, and add extra space for free by successfully inviting friends that join Minus (1GB per friend up to 50GB). Also offers uploading on the go with Minus apps for both the iPhone and Android. Minus saves all files indefinitely unless deleted by the uploader or if it violates the site's terms of service. You can upload individual files up to 2 GB in size, and hav unlimited downloads and transfers.

MediaFire

Free to join and use, MediaFire offers UNLIMITED data storage. Free users are capped at a 200MB maximum file size, but Pro ($9 p/mo) and Business ($49 p/mo) users get a 4GB and 10GB size file cap respectively. The latter two also enjoy indefinite long term storage while free users data is wiped after about a month.

RapidShare

The grandaddy of all cyberlockers, RapidShare is also one of the most popular. Free users can upload an unlimited of data with no maximum file size, but is deleted after 30 days. RapidPro customers enjoy unlimited file storage durations and enhanced download speeds. Free users have timeout periods for downloads and reduced connection speeds. Prices for pro accounts begin at $12.77 p/mo.

FileSonic

Free users enjoy unlimited file storage, 1GB file size caps, and 30 days of storage time. Pro users get addded unlimited storage time, downloading, and 5GB file size caps at prices that begin at $9 p/mo.

FileFactory

FileFactory offers free users up to 500GB of data storage with a 2GB file size cap. Store up to 50 files. If you upgrade to a Premium account you get unlimited download speeds, bandwidth, and storage space. Price for Premium range from $12 p/mo to $79 p/yr. Premium users also get torrent downloading functionality. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com | @jaredmoya

Perfect 10 Files $5 Million Infringement Suit Against Megaupload

Jared Moya — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:52:28 +0000

Says it sent the cyberlocker 22 takedown notices that "as far as Perfect 10 can determine" most "have not been removed." Megaupload's Bonnie Lam counters that every single one it's reported has been removed "within hours," and that it is preparing a countersuit against the adult media company.

Adult media company Perfect 10 is at again this time suing cyberlocker Megauplaod for copyright infringement in the US District Court for the Southern District of California. It claims that between July 23, 2010 and August 8, 2010, it sent Megaupload 22 takedown notices, and that "as far as Perfect 10 can determine, most of these identified infringing works have not been removed." As far as it can determine? Perfect 10 doesn't even seem to know, but Megaupload does, and it says it's removed every single one. "All infringing files Perfect 10 has ever reported to Megaupload have been removed within hours," Mega HQ's Bonnie Lam told me in an email. "We keep track of all DMCA notices and could identify all notifications from Perfect 10 and we have verified that all reported links were disabled within hours." "We also removed a link to content by the artist 'Christina Aguilera;which was reported by the owner of Perfect 10 Mr. Norman Zada. But we doubt that Perfect 10 or Mr. Zada own the rights to works of that artist," she added. Perfect 10 claims that by charging membership fees for increased download speeds and access it is essentially profiting from the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. Perhaps most odd is the claim that everything hosted on Megauplaod is copyright infringing. "Megaupload does not own anything that it sells access to," it adds in the court filing. "Whether or not someone else uploaded the copyrighted material to Megaupload servers does not give Megaupload the right to make copies of, distribute, display, or sell access to those works." But, that's the thing - users distribute the links not Megaupload. It's a cyberlocker that provides online storage and web hosting services, and any attempt to " upload, post, e-mail, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party" violates its terms of service. This isn't the first time Perfect 10 has sued a cyberlocker for infringement. Last year in the same District Court it tried to get a temporary injunction against Rapidshare for engaging in “unfair competition” against “honest providers” such as Perfect 10. The judge refused the application and said that RapidShare cannot be accused of copyright infringement, only its users can. It also took Perfect 10 to task for failing to name a single location where its copyright protected content could be found on the site. The same is likely to happen again to Perfect 10, making for a perfect zero. "We will file a motion shortly to dismiss the case," adds Lam. "Our legal team is confident that we have nothing to worry about and they are working on a counter suit." Wouldn't it be ironic if Perfect 10 wound up having to pay $5 million instead? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Google Begins Filtering Cyberlocker, BitTorrent Search Results

Jared Moya — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 03:02:40 +0000

Follows through on promise it made last month "prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete."

It seems Google is making good on the promise it made last month to “better address” what it calls the “bad apples who use the Internet to infringe copyright.” The search engine giant's four part plan for “Making Copyright Work Better Online” included a pledge to "prevent terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in Autocomplete," and now it has done just that. Unfortunately, it chose terms without any sort of feedback by users nor with any sensible criteria for what should be included. It banned the terms BitTorrent, uTorrent, Rapidshare, and Megaupload for example, but still allows Vuze, Transmission, The Pirate Bay, and Mediafire. In fact, BitTorrent and uTorrent seems to be the sole BitTorrent clients that has been banned from Autocomplete. BitTorrent Inc. rightly finds the filtering overly aggressive, especially since it singles out the company's legally trademarked name of all things. “We respect Google’s right to determine algorithms to deliver appropriate search results to user requests," BitTorrent VP Simon Morris told TF. "That being said, our company’s trademarked name is fairly unique, and we’re pretty confident that anyone typing the first six or seven letters deserves the same easy access to results as with any other company search." He pointed out that there are plenty of likewise legitimate BitTorrent search results and that will be affected by the new Autocomplete filter. As for Megaupload winding up on the wrong side of the filter the cyberlocker is probably rethinking the recent comments it made about Google also being a "rogue site" which users are able to use for copyright infringement. "Google probably hosts the world’s largest index of pirated content," it asked. "What makes them non-rogue?" Rapidshare is certain to find the filtering particularly offensive being that German courts have repeatedly determined that third parties using the service, and not the site itself, are the ones making copyrighted material “publicly available” and therefore guilty of infringement. It even took a page from the playbook of its copyright holder critics and hired a Washington, DC-based lobbying firm to convince members of Congress bent on filtering the site via the proposed Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeit Act (COICA) that it caters mainly to "legitimate interests." Rapidshare may now want to send the same lobbying outfit to Google HQ to plead its case there. In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see where Google goes from here. Now that the search engine giant has established a baseline for preventing terms it believes are "being used to find infringing content" from appearing in Autocomplete when will it add more and what will they be? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Megaupload to Copyright Critics: If We’re “Rogue” So is Google

Jared Moya — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:53:30 +0000

Says that Google is "probably hosts the world's largest index of pirated content" and yet the site is "non-rogue," and that we don't blame Microsoft because people use its OS to transfer and "consume pirated content on a massive scale every day."

Yesterday I mentioned the totally worthless US CHamber of Commerce-funded "report" that claimed RapidShare, Megavideo, and Megaupload, represent 21 billion of the more than 53 billion visits to "digital piracy" sites each per year, and that these traffic statistics prove they are profiting at the "expense" of the American creative industries. Neither the US Chamber of Commerce or MarkMonitor, the anti-fraud firm that compiled the report, seemed able to recognize that traffic visits is no indication of infringing activity. Lots of people use YouTube for example, to find pirated material yet nobody's calling the video indexing site a "rogue site." RapidShare pointed out the same "absurdity" of their logic as I, and said it "reserves the right to take legal action against MarkMonitor" for this defamation of character. Now Megaupload is entering the fray. It writes:

Megaupload is a so-called "cyberlocker" and allows its users to conveniently store and transmit any kind of data from anywhere, to anywhere. As such, it is a dual-use tool, just like an e-mail account, a USB stick, or the Internet as a whole - it can be used for legitimate and illegitimate purposes alike. We provide connectivity between end users and storage capacity in the cloud, but no content - just like e.g. ADSL providers and hard drive vendors. As a matter of fact, most public Internet services, including backbone carriers, could not exist if the law did not protect them from liability for abuse committed by their users, as long as they fulfill specific requirements, such as the timely processing of abuse notices. Furthermore, legal ECPA and technical (encryption, obfuscation) provisions exist that make it both illegal and pointless for a service provider to eavesdrop on the communication traversing their facilities.

This is where Megaupload makes it's strongest defense. Users create a private account to which they upload content, and are forbidden from sharing it unless they have permission from the copyright holder. Violators have their links deleted when notified, and repeat offenders lose their account entirely. If the Megaupload is responsible for the "rogue" actions of a few then why aren't sites like Google and YouTube made to account for user misdeeds? It continues:

They all have to deal with the challenge of online piracy, just like us. Google probably hosts the world's largest index of pirated content. What makes them non-rogue? Why not sue the manufacturers of external USB hard drives or burnable DVDs? They can be used for illegal purposes, too. Microsoft's Windows operating system is the worlds largest enabler of piracy. Windows is used to transfer and consume pirated content on a massive scale every day. Why is Microsoft not rogue?

Exactly. The US Chamber of Commerce suffers from a clear double standard. It wouldn't be such a bad thing in and of itself it weren't for the fact that it's using the report as further justification for filtering the Internet of "rogue sites" like Megaupload. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

RapidShare: “Rogue Site” Claim “Absurd, Libelous”

Jared Moya — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:53:05 +0000

Responds to recent US Chamber of Commerce-funded "report" claiming it receives billions of hits per year, and that this alone is enough to suggest that it is "profiting off the hard work of America’s innovative and creative industries and the thousands of Americans that they employ.”

Earlier today I mentioned how the US Chamber of Commerce had released the findings of a study it funded purporting to show that RapidShare, Megavideo, and Megaupload receive a combined 21 billion visits per year, and that this is evidence of the "staggering scope" of online piracy.

In Traffic Report: Online Piracy and Counterfeiting, anti-fraud firm MarkMonitor classifies the three aforementioned sites under "digital piracy" because even though "some of these sites do offer takedown processes for pirated content, the action must be initiated by the content owner."

As I mentioned before, the policy is in keeping with standard copyright laws which require website operators to remove infringing material when notified by copyright holders.

For example, on RapidShare users are told that it “will immediately block such [copyright infringing] contents after being notified of them and delete these files after an inspection phase of 14 days.”

These facts don't seem to matter to MarkMonitor or the US Chamber of Commerce (surprise, surprise) which call it a "rogue site" that is "profiting off the hard work of America’s innovative and creative industries and the thousands of Americans that they employ.”

RapidShare isn't taking the charges lightly, and hints that legal action may be in the cards.

"We have read with incomprehension the study of American enterprise brand protection company MarkMonitor which names RapidShare the world’s biggest online piracy platform," it says. "This defamation of RapidShare as a digital piracy site is absurd and we reserve the right to take legal action against MarkMonitor. RapidShare is a legitimate company that offers its customers fast, simple and secure storage and management of large amounts of data via our servers."

Cyberlockers like RapidShare don’t make copyrighted material “publicly available.” Its business model is based on allowing users confidential access to content they upload to the site. Therefore, as German courts have already found, any copyrighted material illegally made available to others is the fault of third parties, not RapidShare.

RapidShare also points out the hypocrisy of MarkMonitor not classifying sites like YouTube under "digital piracy" even though much more copyrighted material likely appears on the popular video-sharing site, and it's daily traffic dwarfs RapidShare's.

"RapidShare offers the exact same take down features to copyright owners as YouTube does," notes RapidShare. "Now, where is the difference?"

It also points out the flaws in the report's methodology, that the number of page visits is in indication of the levels of infringement on the site, as though every visit was for illicit purposes.

"Private customers use RapidShare to share their personal pictures, videos and documents or to make backup copies of their hard drives," it counters. "Business clients rely on our services to exchange large files with colleagues at different sites, with clients or with service providers or to make available free programmes or programme updates to its customers."

I guess the US Chamber of Commerce prefers not to let the truth come between it and a good scare tactic.

How else is it supposed to drum up support for filtering the Net?

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

Atari Loses Infringement Case Against RapidShare

Jared Moya — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 19:53:18 +0000

Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf said that RapidShare does remove copyrighted material when asked by copyright holders as required by law, and that Atari's demands that it filter or prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded to the site is, in RapidShare's words, "unreasonable or pointless."

Swiss-based cyberlocker RapidShare has prevailed once against charges it hasn't done enough to filter copyrighted material illegally uploaded to the site by users. In March of last year, Atari Europe S.A.S.U. convinced the German Dusseldorf Regional Court that RapidShare had failed to properly prevent the illegal distribution of the game “Alone in the Dark” on the site. RapidShare appealed the ruling to the country's Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, and today revealed that it has successfully convinced the court to dismiss the claim. “The ruling demonstrates once again that RapidShare is operating a fully legal range and has taken measures against the misuse of its service which go beyond the level that is legally required," says RapidShare’s lawyer and spokesman, Daniel Raimer. "We are confident that copyright holders will gradually come to accept this conclusion.“ The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf said that RapidShare does remove copyrighted material when asked by copyright holders as required by law, and that Atari's demands that it try to prevent copyrighted material from being uploaded by users in the first place is, in RapidShare's words, "unreasonable or pointless." The court referred to previous rulings that sided with RapidShare on the issue. The first, from May of last year, was an appeal of an earlier decision against RapidShare similar to the current one. In that case the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals found that Rapidshare is not liable for copyright infringement committed by third parties using the service, and that the site itself doesn’t make copyrighted material “publicly available.” Links to copyrighted files are private, and it's the user themselves who make them publicly available in violation of copyright law. As for filtering copyrighted material, a demand also made by Atari in the current case, the court said that filtering is “inappropriate” and “arbitrary," that a keyword isn't a “compelling indicator” that a file contains illegal material. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf agreed, reiterating the implausibility of deleting or filtering files based on a keyword because of the likelihood that legal files would be deleted as well. Manual file inspection was also ruled out for the sheer enormity of staff and man hours it would require. The ruling could be a key test for its possible inclusion again on the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus’ list of the world’s top 6 most “notorious” illegal websites. RapidShare called the claim “outrageous,” and said it couldn’t believe that a caucus of the US Congress would link the site to piracy, especially since courts have repeatedly ruled the site isn't so "notorious" after all. It recently hired a Washington, DC-based lobbying firm to plead its case, but this latest ruling ought to give the site even more legitimacy in the eyes of its critics. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Rapidshare Hires Lobbyists to Convince Congress It’s Legit

Jared Moya — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:04:16 +0000

Swiss-based cyberlocker says it's going on the offensive before next's year list of the world's "Most Notorious" sites is compiled. Also likely wants to weigh in on the proposed Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeit Act (COICA) which would give the Justice Dept an expedited process for seizing domain names linked to piracy, as well as the ongoing domain name seizure campaign being conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement which to date has already seized at least one cyberlocker.

Swiss-based cyberlocker Rapidshare is taking a page from the playbook of its copyright holder critics, and has hired a Washington, DC-based lobbying firm to plead its case with the US Congress. Rapidshare was recently included on a list of the world’s top 6 most “notorious” illegal websites that members of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus believe are “overwhelmingly used for the global exchange of illegal movies, music and other copyrighted works.” It called the label "outrageous" and said it couldn't believe that a caucus of the US Congress would link the site to piracy. "Our company caters to our users’ legitimate interests," it said at the time. "Neither does RapidShare copy copyright-protected content, nor does RapidShare make such content publicly accessible.” It's still "not very happy" with that label, and so decided to enlist the help of US lobbyists to help get it removed before next year's "Piracy Watch List" is compiled. "We believe that it's unfair that we're being put on the list," said Daniel Raimer, a spokesman for RapidShare, in an interview with Deutsche Welle. "You can't just take a look at the number of infringing material that you can find on the server. Google has probably millions and millions of links to illegal files. Most people would probably agree that Google is not a bad company." Rapidshare says that copyrighted material makes up only 5% of the total content uploaded on a given day, but the figure makes me suspicious if only because it implies that it's actively monitoring the content users store on the site. It also makes it harder to silence critics who complain the site ignores copyrighted material illegally uploaded to the site if it does indeed have an active monitoring system in place. Courts have frequently ruled the site is not liable for content shared by users, and have only affirmed its obligation to takedown infringing material when properly notified. A German court, in fact, found that third parties using the service, and not the site itself, are the ones making copyrighted material “publicly available” and therefore guilty of infringement. Closer to home, the US District Court of the Southern District of California declined to issue a temporary injunction against Rapidshare over similar complaints by the adult entertainment company Perfect 10. The likely causes for Rapidshare's sudden interest in US politics are the spate of domain seizures by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and the proposed Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeit Act (COICA). So far ICE has seized some 82 domain names including at least one cyberlocker like Rapidshare - ZML.com. The COICA would expedite the process of seizing domain names before trial in order to to prevent US citizens from accessing “rogue websites” that the bill's sponsors say are “engaged in illegal activity, hurting our businesses and costing Americans their jobs.” Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

German Court: Rapidshare Does Not Have to Filter Content

Jared Moya — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:13:53 +0000

Scores another victory against copyright holders trying to hold the site liable for illegal file-sharing.

Cyberlocker RapidShare AG has won its appeal of a copyright infringement case brought against it last year by movie distributor Capelight Pictures. The Düsseldorf Regional Court had granted Capelight Pictures a preliminary injunction against the site, but the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf has now reversed that decision. The dispute centered around the issue of whether or not RapidShare had undertaken all reasonable measures to counter the illegal distribution of the film Inside a Skinhead, which is distributed by Capelight Pictures in Germany. The court had initially ruled that RapidShare needed to use a word filter however, the court has now decided that such a filter system could prevent people from the legally saving private copies. It also found that RapidShare had no obligation to stop the sharing of download links, and reversed its previous injunction. It said the saving of works that are protected by copyright under their clear work title is admissible for private copies by German law, so that a word filter would also lead to the deletion of lawful private copies. “The ruling is a further step in the right direction," said Rapidshare's attorney, Daniel Raimer. "The previously common practice of copyright holders to sue RapidShare on the off-chance there might be something to be gained from it, misunderstanding the realities it is operating within and showing contempt for its business model, will no longer bear fruit. The newest court rulings in Germany and the USA indicate this very clearly.“ This past April Rapidshare won an appeal of an earlier ruling that it immediately begin blocking the uploading of copyrighted material to the site. The Court of Appeals Düsseldorf found that Rapidshare is not liable for the copyright infringement committed by third parties using the service, and that the site itself doesn’t make copyrighted material “publicly available.” Rather, its business is based on providing confidential access to content. In this case the court determined that a word filter, consisted of descriptive terms taken from the English language, would include the possibility of too high a number of false hits. "We are also pleased with the ruling because it is connected to a claim for compensation of costs," said Christian Schmid, founder and CEO of RapidShare. "Copyright holders should therefore think very carefully in future about whether they wouldn’t prefer to save themselves some time and above all the expense of suing RapidShare for something for which the company cannot be held liable.“ Rapidshare also scored another court victory of sorts this past May here in the US when the District Court of the Southern District of California threw out an application for a temporary injunction against the site that was submitted by the adult entertainment company, Perfect 10.

Feds Seize 7 Linking Websites, 1 Cyberlocker for Infringement

Jared Moya — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:13:07 +0000

Accuse TVSHACK.NET, MOVIES-LINKS.TV, FILESPUMP.COM, NOW-MOVIES.COM, PLANETMOVIEZ.COM, and THEPIRATECITY.OR of providing links to other sites where copyrighted material can be found, and accuses another, ZML.com, of being a Cyberlocker where illegal copies of copyrighted material has been stored.

Federal officials have announced the seizure of seven websites it accuses of being "involved in the illegal distribution of copyrighted movies and television programs over the Internet." The only things is that six of them merely provide links to other sites that host copyrighted material, and the seventh is merely a Cyberlocker where users are the ones responsible for making content available. The United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, says that TVSHACK.NET, MOVIES-LINKS.TV, FILESPUMP.COM, NOW-MOVIES.COM, PLANETMOVIEZ.COM, and THEPIRATECITY.ORG, are linking websites and that ZML.COM is the Cyberlocker. "Criminal copyright infringement occurs on a massive scale over the Internet, and reportedly results in billions of dollars in losses to the U.S. economy," said Bharara. "That translates into lost jobs and real hardships for ordinary working people. That's why we took today's action. If your business model is movie piracy, your story will not have a happy ending." It's a curious set of charges being that six of the sites don't actually host any copyrighted material, only linking to sites that do. Linking to links of copyrighted material has yet to be a criminal offense. The seventh site, ZML.com, is merely a Cyberlocker that so far the courts, at least in Germany, have ruled to be legal. A recent decision there in a case against Rapidshare found that it's the third parties using the service, and not the site itself, that make copyrighted material “publicly available.” Closer to home, the US District Court of the Southern District of California recently declined to issue a temporary injunction against Rapidshare over similar complaints by the adult entertainment company Perfect 10. Bharara is clearly overreaching in both of these cases. Last year the MPAA made illegal video streaming websites a top priority. It began comparing it to physical theft as though there is a finite number of digital copies to that can be streamed. Stay tuned. News Tip? Comment? Suggestion? jared@zeropaid.com