And HN gets sucked in to torrentfreak again on this week's episode of Guy Says Something You Like To Hear.
Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
11–20 of 98 posts
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#12From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
"In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal."
Actually, there's "illegal" and there's illegal.
New Zealand authorities sent a special anti-terrorism group, armed to the teeth, to arrest one fat Finnish programmer; that is disproportionate to the alleged crime. Was it just to impress their American friends with some random cowboy action, or were NZ authorities briefed that Dotcom was a dangerous terrorist?
Extradition treaties have clauses; we'll see if Dotcom's actions do actually fall under those clauses or not. The fact that he's been bailed (and his bail was later upheld against the wishes of US authorities) make me think that it won't be a walk in the park. It might even turn out that some overzealous officer or politician, anxious to appease US counterparts for one reason or another, overstepped his authority and launched an unjustified operation. It would be funny to see them with egg in their face, should the judge throw out the case.
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#13From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
"In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal." Actually, there's "illegal" and there's illegal . New Zealand authorities sent a special anti-terrorism group, armed to the teeth, to arrest one fat Finnish programmer; that is disproportionate to the alleged crime. Was it just to impress their American friends with some random cowboy action, or were NZ authorities briefed that Dotcom was a dangerous terrorist? E…
Dude, it's New Zealand. Their couter-terrorist police have to do except deal with a few Maori separatists, and the French Intelligence.
Well, NZ has a fairly low crime rate. And Kim was armed, and had security. And he was a little ... odd. Better safe than sorry.
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#14The issue I see so rarely raised is who exactly is law designed to protect.
We can imagine a world where copyright is enforced they way content producers want and everybody is a proper citizen and pays for music and movies.
We can also imagine a world where only commercial copyright is enforced (and preferably for a limited time), and people are free to share music and movies.
The basic question is, "Which world do we want to live in?". It's a choice... there is nothing fundamentally "right" or "wrong" about either. The discussions about stealing and morality are completely besides the point. It's all about consequences. Will expanding copyright make for a better world, or is it just a reaction of the incumbent industry trying to protect its profits? Will cutting copyright protection (definitely not destroying it) make things easier for the little guy, protect human rights (like free speech and privacy) and ultimately increase creativity, or will it cause a collapse of the entertainment industry and lessen the available content?
We should be free to make this choice, vote on it and suffer the consequences.
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#15From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
"In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal." Actually, there's "illegal" and there's illegal . New Zealand authorities sent a special anti-terrorism group, armed to the teeth, to arrest one fat Finnish programmer; that is disproportionate to the alleged crime. Was it just to impress their American friends with some random cowboy action, or were NZ authorities briefed that Dotcom was a dangerous terrorist? E…
(he's German not Finnish)
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#16From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
But those 400 wouldn't buy a CD. Maybe 40 of them would. People consume a lot more content when it's free/unlimited. Proof of that is the average content consumption on Spotify vs iTunes, and why some artists complain that they make a lot less "per play" from Spotify than they would on iTunes, but they are looking at this in a very wrong way. When people have access to a lot more content for the same price or lower,…
> Maybe 40 of them would.
The point still stands then.
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#17From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
I'm of two minds on this. One part of me agrees with you 100%; artists shouldn't have to "compete" with illegal trafficking of their own content. That's not even fair competition, because it didn't cost the file-sharer anything to create the content. You're trying to "compete" with someone who had no up-front expenses.
The other part of me thinks that there needs to be some force to counter the insane overreach that copyright holders increasingly take in the digital age. For example: 10 minutes of previews that can't be skipped on a DVD/Blu-Ray that you legally bought, DRM that makes it uncertain whether you will continue to have access to your legally-purchased content, or arbitrary restrictions on what devices/software you can use to view your own content. The natural market forces that should work in favor of consumers are greatly diminished by the fact that a single entity has control over every sales channel for a given work. And the DMCA gives legal teeth to whatever technological measures content producers use to implement these arbitrary restrictions and controls.
There are other cases where the government intervenes to restrict this lopsided distribution of power. For example, "compulsory licensing" requires copyright or patent owners to grant licenses for certain uses of a work at predetermined rates that are set by the government. For example, this allows musicians to record "covers" of existing songs without having to get permission from the original song's author (though a royalty has to be paid).
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#18From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
"I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated.""
For a correct analogy, make the Amish a billionaire who makes money by exercising a monopoly. The monopoly is legal, it was even expanded by congress thanks to his lobbying efforts, and the government actually spends taxpayer money to enforce it. And I'm not stealing from the Amish, I just found a more efficient way to distribute copies of his products, copies made at my own cost. And users find my service not only cheaper, but much more convenient: it is not riddled by silly restrictions, and I have a much larger selection. Somehow I make tons of money with it, and all this money would go to the Amish, if he could adapt his business model, because he has a natural advantage to provide the best service: he gets the products first, and with the best quality.
Considering that the monopoly is harmful to cultural exchange, freedom of speech and other essential rights, I see moral value in any contributions to bring it down or transform it into something more morally acceptable and less expensive for society.
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal." Actually, there's "illegal" and there's illegal . New Zealand authorities sent a special anti-terrorism group, armed to the teeth, to arrest one fat Finnish programmer; that is disproportionate to the alleged crime. Was it just to impress their American friends with some random cowboy action, or were NZ authorities briefed that Dotcom was a dangerous terrorist? E…
(he's German not Finnish)
Wikipedia says he's got Finnish citizenship as well, and he has not one but two Finnish passport, so hey, majority rule ;)
Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model
#20From the article comments: "This is the bottom line. Whether or not the business model is out-dated or not has absolutely no effect on whether what Kim was doing was either immoral or illegal. In the Governments eyes, what Kim was doing illegal. I can't just steal something from an Amish person's business because "their business model is out-dated." It doesn't matter. Unless Kim can prove that MegaUpload was actively…
1. It is not stealing. This is well established. Stop using hyperbolic language to hysterically whine and force your moralistic crap down our throats.
2. Your Amish analogy is a strawman.
3. Whether Kim is breaking a law or not is not the point of this dicussion (another strawman here): the discussion is does the (il)leagailty of it make sense? Laws are not permanent nor are they absolute. We theoretically live in a society that is based on the will of the people, so lets talk about what make sense to our society.
4. Amazing improbable thinking does not grant one rights to someone else's pocketbook. Much like people should pay for stuff, by the same token, saying they should then suing them for actions they didn't and may never have taken is absurd. I should get paid $1 per read of this comment, there HN readers owe me a few $K.
5. Wow, I really fed this troll didn't I?