If you’ve ever wondered why multihoster services sometimes have a hard time keeping download support for certain filehosters, in most cases, it’s because of the ongoing battle between these two service providers. A recent and public example of this is the tiff between Linksnappy and Nitroflare. While these battles between multihoster services and filehosting site’s don’t always result in DDOS attacks, nor do they seem to be followed up by mutually-beneficial agreements between filehosters and the services we enjoy here, there is certainly a battle that goes on behind the scenes that leaves many multihoster-service users wondering why X multihoster can’t keep Y filehoster on their list of supported services.
Unauthorized reselling and account sharing
As a general rule, when you purchase a premium account from a filehosting site like Rapidgator, Nitroflare, Keep2share, Datafile or the countless others, you’re agreeing that you won’t share your account with other people. However, this is how multihoster services work: they buy up scores or even hundreds of premium accounts from filehosting sites and manage the downloads in such a way that these multihosters can resell and offer access to those filehosting site premium accounts to other people. Scores, hundreds or thousands of other people. Yes, multihosters like Linksnappy and Putdrive purchase premium accounts, so they are paying for the access they receive, but on the other hand, these companies are also being paid by people like us to gain access to their premium filehoster accounts.
I work for a small ISP. We love it when people setup internet services with us, and we provide bandwidth without any hard or soft data usage caps for most of our packages. It’s essentially ‘unlimited’, as true as that can be in this industry. We try to be fair to our customers, and as I’ve worked in the cable and internet industry across the north eastern USA as a contractor for multiple ISPs, I think we do a really good job, especially compared to these corporate ISP giants. So, while we like it when people buy internet services from us, we really wouldn’t like it if people purchased our currently-unlimited-use data packages and started reselling internet to other people. Sure, we’re still getting paid for the initial account, but even ethics or legality aside, we’re being abused on consumption because we do not impose any data use limits.
On the flip side, if we imposed bandwidth caps, whether those were 10GB per month or 500GB per month, in my opinion, the ethical dilemma would be mitigated. Maybe not the legal side, but if an account has a limited amount of data they can use each month, then we, as the service provider, minimize or even eradicate our losses in the case of account sharing or reselling. This is quite the same with filehosting sites that provide premium accounts with bandwidth limits. As far as I know, many or most premium account filehosters impose download limits to their users. Either by the day or month, even if those limitations aren’t made public. So, from the filehosting site’s point of view, there is a limit to just how much any one premium account can use, and that should be reflected in the pricing of a premium account from their service.
The war that cannot be won… easily
Until or unless multihost providers and filehosting sites come to agreements, there’s always going to be certain filehosters that ‘break’ for multihoster account users. You can look at the problems multihosters like Zevera, Putdrive and Linksnappy have in keeping Nitroflare and Keep2Share going, or the former struggles with Extabit or Rapidgator or the countless others. Filehosters can discover the IPs of the multihoster service’s servers and block those, close a multihoster service’s premium accounts, change the coding of the download page just enough to break download abilities for unauthorized third-party scripts from accessing downloads or a large number of other things. In order for multihoster to “fix” the broken connectivity to a filehoster, they have to reverse engineer changes made by the filehoster and change their own scripts, get new IP addresses or purchase new premium accounts. It is a battle, and one that cannot be won by either side by making enemies of each other. In those situations, not only do the filehosting site and the multihoster service suffer, but users of both services can end up losing out as well.
Which is better: single filehosters or multihoster accounts?
Ever since I discovered multihoster services, which was Zevera back in 2011, I’ve been on the persuasion that if you absolutely need to access a particular filehosting site, it’s almost always better to purchase a premium account directly from them. However, if you’re not picky and have the option of downloading from multiple different filehosters wherever you find your files, multihoster services in general are the best option.
Sure, so long as a multihoster supports downloads from more than 10 sites, there will be times when some filehosters simply won’t work. That’s the nature of the beast. But, when one month premium costs the same to download from one site as it does to download from 30-100 or more sites easily and with good speeds, it just makes so much more sense to purchase a multihoster package. Multihoster services are not and will probably never be perfect, but they are a good value option for a very large number of people.