Talk:MediaFire

License

The license section on this article provides an inaccurate view of the MediaFire license under its Terms of Service. It surmises that any content uploaded to MediaFire grants MediaFire the right to independently sell and distribute. The policy is clearly limited in scope to the services in which Mediafire directly provides which is done at the direction of the user. This is boiler plate and the misrepresentation should be removed.

Excerpt from the same page referenced in the license section:

"You grant, transfer and assign to MediaFire and its successors, assigns and licensees a fully-paid, royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right and license to publish, distribute, reproduce, transmit, use, translate and archive the Content, FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ENABLING US TO MAKE YOUR CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICE."

Excerpt from Box.net:

"By registering to use the Services, you understand and acknowledge that Box.net and its contractors retain an irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, and publicly display such content for the sole purpose of providing to you the Services for which you have registered."

Excerpt from Dropbox.com

"By placing Your Files in your public folder, you hereby grant all other Dropbox users and the public a non-exclusive, non-commercial, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use and exploit Your Files in your public folder."

Excerpt from YouSendIt.com

"However, by making User Files available through the Service, you grant YouSendIt the non-exclusive, worldwide, transferable right, on a royalty-free basis, with a right to sublicense this right only to third parties assisting YouSendIt in providing the Service, to use, copy, distribute and process User Files on the Sites and through the Service on your behalf and on behalf of your customers solely for the purposes of ensuring secure transfer and delivery of such User Files."

Untitled

This article sounds like it was just copy pasted off of their website, perhaps some independent views would be in order?

Deletion

I just noticed this article was proposed for deletion, but I don't think it should be deleted, unlike it is said in the nomination, it passes WP:WEB, and in 2 requirements, when only one was required:

• The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
• The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization

It is notable, so I don't think it should be deleted... SF007 (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Features

I've outright removed this section for some reasons. It reads like a press release and it borders on promoting the product instead of writing about it in a neutral way. I have no opposition for it being rewritten and restored in some way, but as it stood it was just horribly bad. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The major features and limitations are an important information for the reader, however the planned features should not be listed in detail. --X-Bert (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of features is a click away, presumably on the home page where MF excitely promotes what it has. Can it be rewritten at least? hbdragon88 (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong or bad about the list of major features? If MF lists them in a similar form on their home page, this shouldn't be a reason to delete them here. In my opinion listing several facts is neutral. --X-Bert (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, most specifically, "No discrimination" implies a POV, that other downloaders do discriminate, and it requires a cite. Other file hosting articles, like Fileplanet and FileFront, do not list their specs. Another similar example would be video games in that we do not list the specs required to run the game since the game box does that and there are other sites that list such information. I think this type of information falls under indiscriminate information.

The only time I feelt stats are useful and encyclopedic is when it's compared to all other services, as done in One-click hosting. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"No discrimination" does not necessarily imply POV, but the word discrimination is somewhat worn-out by political correctness, so another formulation could be used. However, a cite wouldn't harm, but it's not so easy to find a good source, how about this? Since the specs of file hosters are very important for the users, I think that they should be clearly represented, especially the limitations, because on the websites of the file hosters they are often somewhat hidden and not presented on the front page (see e.g. the country limitation of Megaupload). In comparison articles the specs are of course presented, but the space in that tables is rather limited, so such a comparison could be the start for somebody who is looking for a file hoster that matches his needs, and then he can look for more details at the separate article for that file hoster. --X-Bert (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maintenance

Mediafire is down right now for maintenance but was supposed to be back up and running 13mins ago at 17:50 GMT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.65.60 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

back up and running again at 18:05 GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.65.60 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone give this guy a barnstar. --58.104.221.107 (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

About resuming downloads

You can resume downloads, but only for 24 hours after the transference started.Vinicius brasileiro (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can't. Despite the site claiming otherwise, if you try to resume a download, you get a html copy of the download page instead and the downloaded data is lost, no matter if you use a download manager or not. -- megA (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just deliberately tried it with GetRight on a ~140MB file (paused around the 55% point for about 2 minutes). The file downloaded just fine, though admittedly I don't know if it will last the promised 24 hours. --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Choosing to upgrade

After recently going through the process of upgrading to a Pro account to host a larger hobby movie I really wish there was something on this page talking about how the upgrading process lead to a default recurring payment which certainly wasn't made terribly obvious in the upgrading process. Parl2001 (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

.ZIP file blocking?

I tried uploading a .zip file and it uploaded fine.71.115.69.43 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, when I looked at the source, it just said that it only affects protected ones71.115.69.43 (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Able to upload encrypted ZIPs?

I just uploaded a few encrypted zip files without any problem whatsoever. Perhaps someone else can verify this? Green caterpillar (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: unlike above editor, these were actually password-protected. Green caterpillar (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Even so, the FAQ states that you can't do it. --Seba5618 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just uploaded a password protected ZIP I made using 7zip. It uploaded fine and I can download it. 82.1.123.114 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias Article

The voice of the writer sounds as someone who was hurt by Mediafire and should be re-written to be non-bias. Neither Pro nor negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.213.61 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

200mb files

Many users have noticed that it is now possible to upload files up until 200mb now, yet mediafire frontpage and FAQ still says that 100mb is the size limit of a file uploaded by a free user. As there is no written evidence of the change yet I think it shouldn't be here. --Seba5618 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Advert

The list of features, I repeat, makes the article seem adverty. This is something I would expect on their website, but on a Wikipedia article. Can someone please rewrite it somehow to make it less this way. Such as, use prose to compare it to other services. See Rapidshare, it does not elaborate on what "free" and "pro" users get. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Competition?

Does this website have any kind of decent competition? That would be important to mention, but I don't know if any exists?--Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

New screenshot?

Made another new screenshot, again with FireShot as their home looks considerably different. I'm no good at the whole Wiki editing stuff so here's [1] the image. Build 18099 out of interest. 81.158.231.208 (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Inactive

Mediafire has been taken down by the RIAA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.168.181 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. That was a rumor started by someone on Tumblr in an attempt at trolling. And with social media, it has spread. Earlier in the day, Mediafire announced scheduled maint until midnight CST. ⇔ EntChickie 01:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's up again. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 05:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)