4 ms·

I don't see how this could have ever ended any other way. RapidShare was clearly only popular in the first place because of piracy. Once they started restricti

I don't see how this could have ever ended any other way. RapidShare was clearly only popular in the first place because of piracy. Once they started restricting that they became just another Dropbox/OneDrive/Google Drive competitor.

Karunamon 12y ago
Nah. As mentioned before, they were a great place to store all manner of random files. During their golden age, having a place to put random "stuff", especially large files, was a killer feature. The problem was their new model completely precluded sharing of any kind. Imagine Drive or Dropbox, but without the ability to give links to your files, and you can see how useless the service became. You don't out-dropbox Dropbox. As usual, lawyers ruin everything.
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Lawyers didn't really ruin this, RapidShare banking on piracy to sustain their business model ruined their business.
  - hueving 12y ago
    Well piracy wouldn't have been a problem if it weren't for the lawyers.
    - DangerousPie 12y ago
      Lawyers neither make nor enforce the laws. If you want to blame someone, blame the lawmakers...
bigbugbag 12y ago
Well a file sharing platform got popular due to file sharing taking place, sort of obvious isn't it. Then those who built an industry out of controlling distribution who are threatened by these new ways use their acquired power to shut down the threat by claiming copyright infringement, stuttering history (see 17th century french button makers, 19th century theatrophone, and so on). Thing is sharing is a human trait, a trait required to live in a social group. The internet is about sharing and either the copyright industry will adapt/disappear or the internet will disappear (probable eaten alive by fecesbookians and politicians).
bryanlarsen 12y ago
It worked for YouTube. They got their start with pirated content and pivoted quite successfully.
- pekk 12y ago
  How was Rapidshare supposed to replicate that feat?
- nemothekid 12y ago
  >They got their start with pirated content and pivoted quite successfully. By being bought by Google, then having Google spend 100s of millions of dollars defending YouTube in court.

Karunamon 12y ago

Nah. As mentioned before, they were a great place to store all manner of random files. During their golden age, having a place to put random "stuff", especially large files, was a killer feature. The problem was their new model completely precluded sharing of any kind. Imagine Drive or Dropbox, but without the ability to give links to your files, and you can see how useless the service became. You don't out-dropbox Dropbox. As usual, lawyers ruin everything.

res0nat0r 12y ago
Lawyers didn't really ruin this, RapidShare banking on piracy to sustain their business model ruined their business.
- hueving 12y ago
  Well piracy wouldn't have been a problem if it weren't for the lawyers.
  - DangerousPie 12y ago
    Lawyers neither make nor enforce the laws. If you want to blame someone, blame the lawmakers...

bigbugbag 12y ago

Well a file sharing platform got popular due to file sharing taking place, sort of obvious isn't it. Then those who built an industry out of controlling distribution who are threatened by these new ways use their acquired power to shut down the threat by claiming copyright infringement, stuttering history (see 17th century french button makers, 19th century theatrophone, and so on). Thing is sharing is a human trait, a trait required to live in a social group. The internet is about sharing and either the copyright industry will adapt/disappear or the internet will disappear (probable eaten alive by fecesbookians and politicians).

bryanlarsen 12y ago

It worked for YouTube. They got their start with pirated content and pivoted quite successfully.

pekk 12y ago
How was Rapidshare supposed to replicate that feat?
nemothekid 12y ago
>They got their start with pirated content and pivoted quite successfully. By being bought by Google, then having Google spend 100s of millions of dollars defending YouTube in court.