Talk:RapidShare

Blocked ISP

At the moment rapidshare.de has decided to block most major UK internet service providers, reasons could be for the large use of the service on free basis and to get people to pay them directly. ISP blocked at the moment are BT and NTL.

/// I have contacted them at webmaster@rapidshare.de and they unlblocked it, after a week recieved an email from them saying they are busy at the moment upgrading services and doing other stuff so they will get to unblocking later. At that moment they had reblocked rapidshare.de , in the end to much capital minded all I have to say is everyone just use megaupload.com it is better anyway, forget rapidshare.de

I have seen reports in some forums that BT users in the UK can now access Rapidshare.com but not Rapidshare.de as before - but dont know if this is still the case or how widespread. Rrose Selavy

RapidShare.com now does appear to work under BT Zetetic Apparatchik 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some ISPs also intentionally block sharing sites like Rapidshare to make better use of the bandwidth. It's better from their point of view. -- J7n

It also seems to be working with NTL now despite their transparent proxies, great news :0

As of January 2006 rapidshare.com seems to have become increasingly difficult for UK based users to access, EVEN WITH PREMIUM ACCOUNTS. Check these thinkbroadband.com forum threads:

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bt&Number=2855429&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1

http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ntlhome&Number=2849543&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1

Catwizzle 12:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Similar Sites"

"An abundance of storage servers based on the "advertisement plus subscriptions" business model are active as of mid-2006. The following servers, along with RapidShare, seem to be the most popular:"

"YouSendIt MegaUpload "

I already changed this and I see it's it's been changed back, I'll tell you why. I have changed it again.. "seem to to be the most popular" is far too vague, and without any external verifiable evidence cited , is just your opinion - what criteria are you using to make this statement? The number of registered users? The number of uploads? Or are you just guessing? Rrose Selavy 20:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"queue time"

This article is POV. For one thing, the wait time isn't "queue" time but an enforced wait to encourage people to sign up to the premium service. Unfortunately I don't have a source for this, but it's fairly evident. - Saul

I think, with "queue time" the editor meant exactly that, just didn't care to explain further because it's quite obvious. I.e:

1. The service provider to try to attempt non-paying users to pay for better service.

2. The service provider to provide non-paying users with sufficient bandwidth.

3. The service provider to do the above while maintaining a business or gaining optimum profit.

--LostPacket

Then presumably it can be referred to as "wait time" without any objections. Rufous 10:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get any queue any more. Wtf? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 09:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked into circumventing this queue? User:robd003 —Preceding comment was added at 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging downloads

it seems if i try to download something from rapidshare and am trying to download another file from another website, theres a very high probability that the download will just sort of hang until i cancel it and start it over from the beginning. does anyone else experience this problem?--209.30.231.72 21:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with RS-hangs, but free from them now (5 RS-downloads as I type). You should:

1. Use multiple Firefox processes (crash protection).

2. Use a download manager.

3. Use some Linux distro with optimized network settings.

--LostPacket

Don't you think this article sounds ilke an advert? I'm not sure, if anyone here thinks so, please add the advert tag.Feureau 17:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the article as a whole is no ad, but I have found a sentence which was "RS is well known for being great, yadda yadda, fighting warez" and I deleted it. Inuyasha 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it it kind of like a advert from the fact that in the last 2 categories, RapidShare is referred to as "our" and the fact that I couldn't edit the last 2 parts for some reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.161.242 (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse/Copyright

Should we include an explanation on this page (as well as those of similar downloading sites) of the current legal controversy involving them? It is quite easy to bypass these sorts of download sites and download pretty much anything that you want - the RIAA seems to mostly be focusing on the issue of P2P services but Megaupload or Rapidshare.com are far easier and safer. It that encyclopedic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.131.167.26 (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

in my opinion it's a very interesting information and so you should add it - no matter if it's encyclopedic or not

I don't think that this information should be added - this is no hint site for leeching and it is something like an ad. Inuyasha 15:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GEMA, the german "collection society" has obtained "temporary injunctions" against the owners of rapidshare.de and rapidshare.com Article from Heise Online (in English) Nichlas 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.com and .de are two different companies

After going through the hassle of trying to re-up for an account I was informed that they are actually two seperate companies. .com seems a little more customer focus and will respond to a customer .de isn't and will even ignore emails.

This is part of support@rapidshare.de's automated support email:

RapidShare.de and RapidShare.com are completely different companies. It is not possible to use your login, download files, use folders or collector's accounts from RapidShare.com at RapidShare.de (or the other way around).

I'm not sure the best way to put that into the article so I don't want to start editing and have it removed. Anyone have any thoughts? Rapishare.com has bright future then Rapidshare.de

[Unknow user, Unknow date]

Whois on RapidShare.de the 19/04/07	Whois on RapidShare.com the 19/04/07
Type: PERSON Name: Christian Schmid Organisation: RapidTec Address: Tullastr. 4a Pcode: 79341 City: Kenzingen Country: DE Changed: 2006-12-09T18:01:43+01:00	[owner-c] handle: 9408709 [owner-c] type: PERSON [owner-c] title: [owner-c] fname: Christian [owner-c] lname: Schmid [owner-c] org: RapidShare AG [owner-c] address: Gewerbestrasse 6 [owner-c] city: Cham [owner-c] pcode: 6330 [owner-c] country: CH [owner-c] state: CH [owner-c] phone: +41-41-7487888 [owner-c] fax: +41-41-7487899 [owner-c] email: support@rapidshare.com [owner-c] protection: SSL [owner-c] updated: 2006-11-26 23:36:18
Image:Rapidshare.de-login-19april2007.PNG	Image:Rapidshare.com-login-19april2007.PNG
Google query "site:www.rapidshare.de www.rapidshare.com" provides no relevant result	"site:www.rapidshare.com www.rapidshare.de" provides no relevant result

This should definitely appears clearly on the article and it is not the case right now as we start with "RapidShare is a company". Well this is not true so the article should start right from the beginning with a disambiguation splitting the .com and .de sites as they are officialy incompatible.

It shows that neither company intend to clarify the situation (especially in the FAQs that both websites possess. It could then be logically considered that the ambiguity has been kept on purpose. This ambiguity multiplies paying accounts benifiting for the owner and is a lie by conscious omisson. The 2 companies are legally distincts ( RapidTec and RapidShare AG ) but the owner Christian Schmid behind them is the same and deliberately keeping accounts incompatible (proofs required). As Sorry, wir sind voll (Update) shows with the screenshot RapidShare.de officially proposed to migrate to the RapidShare.com system. The article also suggest that the 2 companies physically host the files in the same location. By "Selber Inhaber, andere Firma" the article also says that the 2 companies have the same owner.

GEMA erwirkt Etappensieg gegen Rapidshare also shows that the 2 companies were suited at the same time for similar reasons.

I propose to rewrite the article explaining the problem. History also should not be part of the head of the article, only an abstract should be here defining clearly what RapidShare.com (or RapidShare.de in it's own article) is. History could come in the beginning of the article to explain the evolution.

Utopiah 06:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article says "On January 19" - a year could be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.70.15.17 (talk) 23:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

can someone get me some info?

i don't know it's eiother just me or the rapidshare site is down, if the site is down, do you think it's something worth writing on this page? -200.159.196.154 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why notability notice?

Who put up a notability notice? A site that Alexa ranks at #11 is certainly notability in itself. :/ Jon914 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]