Live data from Hacker News

Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

torrentfreak.com

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#31
post #29

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…

If even a small portion of the US' population had any idea what socialism actually was, maybe we wouldn't all be going bankrupt from our asinine health care system....

This country....

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#32
post #21

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…

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.

What he did was illegal, but not necessary wrong.

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.

I see it as increasing efficiency, but others see it as stealing.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#33
post #29

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…

Yes, it is anti-capitalistic. But that presumes that America is a 100% capitalist state, which we are not and have never been.

America practices what's known as a mixed-model economy, combining social and capital elements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#34
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…

"Stop using hyperbolic language"

The main perpetrators of hyperbolic language on this topic are the people who act as if there is some necessity and moral right behind downloading some crap CD or movie or TV show, as if that was the same as stealing bread to feed a family.

Guess what, you won't perish if you don't watch that TV show everyone is talking about, or if you have to wait six months for that new movie to show up on Netflix. The "harm" of doing without entertainment is no harm at all.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#35
post #29

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…

Perhaps the difference is that one of the founding principles of the US is that the government should be a strong defender of property rights. This is probably a good thing in the long run. On the other hand the US government does not have a history of ownership or investment in private companies. In the long run this, too, is probably a good thing as it seems that these actions tend to lead to cronyism and corruption.

The reason this system seems to be working so poorly now might be that its increasingly difficult to define just what "property" is nowadays.

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

#36
post #32
post #21

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…

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. What he did was illegal, but not necessary wrong. If you think Kim was in the r…

"What he did was illegal, but not necessary wrong."

He wasn't stealing food to give it to the starving poor, he was helping immature people get access to entertainment when waiting or doing without would do them no harm at all. There's no moral high ground there. What he did was illegal, and wrong.

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

#38
post #5
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.

In short: Give the people what they want and they will pay you.

If only it were so simple. Today you can buy virtually any media electronically. Services like Netflix, Rdio, Spotify, iTunes and others allow for enormous content enjoyment at a very reasonable price, with a couple of mouse clicks. Steam and Origin, App Stores and Android Markets exist with countless software options for incredibly low prices.

Yet piracy is still absolutely rampant. We're being lectured to by thieves who made millions on the other side of the law.

There are some people who are simply selfish and greedy. Who are willing to ignore the law -- if not even twisting reality -- to suit their own selfish desires. Such transparent arguments usually drown out any rational discussions on sites like Reddit, Slashdot, and sadly now HN.

I've spoken against piracy many times (and it is stealing, and arguments to the contrary are baseless. I spend thousands per year on games, movies and music. I have well-paid peers who spend $0, enjoy all the same content, but will still give you the tired "it isn't stealing, no one was deprived" nonsense argument), but it's an argument that just isn't worth having on many online venues. There are simply too many people who contort rationale to defend what gives them the most for the least, everything else be damned.

- at least in the short term. Then, of course, those movies, music and games stop being produced.

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

#39
post #18
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."" 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 efficien…

"For a correct analogy, make the Amish a billionaire who makes money by exercising a monopoly."

Nonsense. People sharing files don't take the status of the content provider into account. It's a pleasant story to tell yourself, that you're just sticking it to the man, but it doesn't reflect the reality of file sharing.

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

#40
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…

"Please separate illegal from immoral."

It does someone no harm to do without watching Transformers 3 for a year. There's no moral high ground in lacking discipline. Therefore, it's immoral and illegal.

Get a new hobby, and some perspective.

Post reply on HN