Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#21

Post by Hyena »

Even if that's correct, that doesn't mean that what Kim did wasn't illegal or wrong. Kim wasn't simply engaged in "file sharing" he ran a multimillion dollar parallel distribution system. He wasn't sharing, he was basically using file sharers as a Mechanical Turk to scrape the Internet for content which he then monetized at a large scale.

If you think Kim was in the right, then why not Amazon? your cable company? Why does Valve even bother paying Bethesda a share? Etc. File sharing is highly tolerable as a small enterprise, even if it is aggregately large; it's not tolerable as a highly profitable business model.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#22

Post by Karunamon »

benologist wrote: post #11

And HN gets sucked in to torrentfreak again on this week's episode of Guy Says Something You Like To Hear.

And on today's episode of Prelude to a Downvote: How to be snarky and add nothing to the discussion!

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#23

Post by pyre »

benologist wrote: post #11

And HN gets sucked in to torrentfreak again on this week's episode of Guy Says Something You Like To Hear.

The actual interview was already on HN last night, so this is a 'sorta' dupe. In any case, what he has to say is interesting because of the situation that he is in. It perhaps gives us some sort of idea of how he will pursue his defense against these charges.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#24

Post by anamax »

trevelyan wrote: post #2

A question in case grellas or any other brilliant HN lawyers are reading this and care to comment -- assuming that Megaupload actually followed the DMCA as Kim claims and there was nothing illegal about their operations, what sort of remedies are available. I mean... it seems the company is dead. Can they sue for damages? And if so who pays? Do the courts recognize things like growth potential when they value lost da…

> Can they sue for damages? And if so who pays?

The entity that they sue pays, if they win.

So, who do you think that they can sue and on what grounds?

The MPAA didn't shut down their company or arrest them and doesn't have the power to decide whether someone else will do those things, so it will be extremely difficult to hold them liable.

Prosecutors and police are almost never liable.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#25

Post by bryanlarsen »

benologist wrote: post #11

And HN gets sucked in to torrentfreak again on this week's episode of Guy Says Something You Like To Hear.

Downvoted not because I disagree with you but because you failed the "meaningful contribution" test.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#26

Post by pyre »

Zirro wrote: post #5
J3L2404 wrote: post #3

From 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." It doesn't matter." It doesn't justify piracy, but it is a way for the media industry to solve the "piracy-issue" themselves. In short: Give the people what they want and they will pay you.

More like: "The correct business decision is not to moan/groan/complain to the government, but to adapt to your situation." Adapting to the situation is apparently too much for the suits at the major labels to stomach though.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#27

Post by DrJokepu »

sophacles wrote: post #20
J3L2404 wrote: post #3

From 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…

From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html (Hacker News Guidelines):

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#28

Post by learc83 »

wisty wrote: post #13
toyg wrote: post #12

Earlier 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…

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.

Better to escalate the situation and dramatically increase the odds of a violent resolution?

In the US we routinely use SWAT teams to arrest nonviolent criminals because they "don't have anything better to do." The results are numerous preventable civilian casualties (not to mention scores of family pets killed).

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#29

Post by alan_cx »

What I perceive from over here in the UK is that when the US government protects failing business with money, its called "socialist" and evil. However, when it protects failing business with law, that's just fine. Despite the fact that these laws also cost a lot of money.

I would like to see the cost of policing and enforcing these laws over time, compared to bailing out, say, General Motors. In fact, wont GM have to pay that money back over time?

Personally, I find it odd that a US government will protect certain business from natural competition. Isn't that anti-American? Anti-capitalism? Anti-competition? Protectionist?

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#30

Post by vibrunazo »

J3L2404 wrote: post #3

From 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…

Please separate illegal from immoral. And try to consider both sides of the argument, instead of assuming it's either good or bad because there is some good our some bad in it. There's both pros and cons to piracy, so w have to measure both instead of blindly ignoring one side.

While it's really sad that many lost their jobs breeding horses when automobiles were invented, it was a total net positive to humanity. You can't ignore one of the sides.

While it's sad that some artists may lose their jobs when their cd is pirated. While is true that some potential artists may not have enough incentive to create. You cannot ignore that art will never cease to exist simply because of piracy. You can't ignore that sharing, remixing and freedom to fork and improve the work of others, do have a positive impact in the quality of arts. you cannot deny that better, drm free distribution models are many times a better experience for consumers.

So is it a net benefit at the end of the day? Ill save my opinion, but please do consider both sides of the coin, instead of blindly citing a few of the arguments for one side while ignoring the other.

Post reply on HN