This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Legal
RapidShare win again in copyright claim
By CMU Editorial | Published on Monday 26 July 2010
So, there was another development last week in the content industries’ long-term legal battle against online file distribution service RapidShare. Where to start on this one? Various content owners – including German songs collecting society GEMA – have accused the digital firm of contributory copyright infringement (or something similar) because their users might use the file distribution service to illegally distribute song or movie files.
At one point, as a result of legal action by GEMA, RapidShare started developing a filter system that would, in theory, try to stop its users from uploading unlicensed content to its servers.
But back in April a German court ruled that RapidShare was not liable for contributory infringement even without a filter system being introduced. Moreover, the court actually criticised the proposed content filtering, because, it said, it might stop users from distributing files legitimately. Either because a filtering system based on file name recognition might incorrectly block legit files (ie other files with the same name; there was a worry some of the copyrighted works that would be listed in such a filtering system would have generic words as titles) or because users might be using RapidShare to distribute a private copy of a copyrighted file to another device, something covered by fair user provisions under German copyright law.
Despite that ruling (and despite being involved in that actual case), movie distributor Capelight Pictures went back to court to accuse RapidShare of copyright infringement once more. I think the distinction between the earlier case and this one was that the names of the movies Capelight accused RapidShare of illegally distributing were longer and therefore, the movie people argued, could be filtered out without any risk of other files being blocked, because it was unlikely other files would have the same name.
But the Dusseldorf court stood by its spring ruling on this matter, not least because Capelight’s new case didn’t deal with the issue of some use of RapidShare to distribute the film firm’s content being covered by fair dealing type rules. All in all, the message seems to be, if you’re a content owner, don’t bother suing RapidShare.
Their legal man Daniel Raimer told reporters: “The ruling is a further step in the right direction. 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”.
