It seems that the frivolous lawsuits over filesharing that once plagued the US never died out, but instead moved overseas. Germany in particular seems the most ready to swing its sword at windmills as it is allowing lawyers to make full use of paragraph 101 of German copyright law, which allows companies to subpoena records such that they essentially become the filesharing police. But recently, it came to light that the popular file hosting service, Rapidshare, is also subject to these subpoenas.
Rapidshare has always been a terrible company; last year, they decided to reduce their subscribers’ daily 10 GB download caps to 2.66 GB, downgrading the service they provide without reimbursing subscribers or giving them an option to leave Rapidshare whatsoever. But Rapidshare should not be keeping logs of what their users are doing. The reason why filesharers, legal or otherwise, use Rapidshare is to have protection against the litigation. As this news spreads around, Rapidshare had better well offer users a way in which they can have at least a portion of their subscription refunded if they opt to leave.
On a macro level, the problem with paragraph 101 and its effects is precedent. If GGMC (Generic German Music Conglomerate) can successfully make a case for why it should have access to records of what you do online, then who’s to say that any other company with a vested interest in prohibiting all sorts of online activities should not be able to see this information? One winds up in the scenario when people are being prosecuted just for visiting TorrentFreak (the providers of the original story).
Rather than sharing their books, websites should just burn them. Swedish ISP Banhoff has set an example by wiping its records as they come in, effectually subverting ridiculous copyright laws. Other potential targets of subpoenas would be wise to follow suit.
