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Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model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

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#71

Post by rprasad »

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…

Assuming that the actually followed the DMCA, they would have recourse in tort law primarily for interference in contract, and malicious prosecution. There are other torts, none of which they would be likely to succeed in pursuing.

In such case, the government would pay (but not the individual prosecutors, as they are acting merely as agents of the government). Damages would be based on economic harm actually proved, i.e., lost business from cancelled customer contracts, lost ad revenue, etc. Future growth potential is not taken into account for damages purposes.

However, note that MegaUpload did not follow the DMCA. Its entire business plan was based on committing illegal activities, and was designed from the outset to maximize the revenue generated by such activities over the revenue generated by the potential legitimate uses of its services.

If you want a role model to follow in the media distribution market, look to BitTorrent.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#72

Post by njs12345 »

batista wrote: post #70
njs12345 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no necessity or moral right behind it, but I fail to see how an action which does not harm others but benefits yourself is immoral --- much piracy has this form; here's a study which says that only 20% of album sales displace sales: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1

If the study is true, 20% is huge (assuming you meant to write: "20% of an albums piracy displaces sales").

There's probably still a net increase in welfare, although of course that's quite hard to measure.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#73

Post by [deleted] »

batista wrote: post #70
njs12345 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no necessity or moral right behind it, but I fail to see how an action which does not harm others but benefits yourself is immoral --- much piracy has this form; here's a study which says that only 20% of album sales displace sales: http://www.nber.org/papers/w10874.pdf?new_window=1

If the study is true, 20% is huge (assuming you meant to write: "20% of an albums piracy displaces sales").

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by ssebro »

batista wrote: post #68
ssebro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.

Those are "first world problems" of the first order. The sense of entitlement and the notion of "harm" contained in the above comment is just unbelievable. How about real bloody issues, like being the only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college?

"first world problems" do matter. As someone from a third world country, I have a keen sense of how much is conveyed and how much is learned from "silly" tv shows. You may not notice it yourself, but they define a large part of culture. Understanding that culture is extremely important to success in a variety of fields.

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

#75

Post by ssebro »

ssebro wrote: post #42
jonhendry wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 sh…

Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.

I think a lot of the replies to my post are missing the point: "harm" isn't as obvious as you think it is, and pain can be inflicted by creating demand that must go unfulfilled.

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

#76

Post by ssebro »

cglace wrote: post #53
ssebro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.

You could also argue that wasting all of your time watching TV shows directly impacts your future. Basically anything we do now directly impacts our future.

It depends on how and why you watch tv. If I didn't watch tv, I probably wouldn't have gotten into Stanford.

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

#77

Post by carsongross »

batista wrote: post #61
blhack wrote: post #37

What is most bizarre about this is that the US Government is going after a German national who is currently living in New Zealand on behalf of a private company [or group of them]. That's...kindof terrifying.

A government protects two things: itself (the bureaucrats and politicians) and their backers, bribers and friends (the private mega corporations). In order to protect itself, though, it has to balance the demands of the second, with what its' voters, the general public, wants. That's why: a) government is problematic b) but it's still better than no/much-less government = big corporations rule directly with their clo…

Another alternative: lots of small, independent governments.

For some reason, the big government schools and the big company media never talk about that one.

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

#78

Post by chc »

J3L2404 wrote: post #65
chc wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not as silly as thinking you have the moral right to control how people use copies of something just because you made the original. To be clear, I'm not arguing against copyright. I think some form of copyright is still a good compromise that serves society well. But I don't see how you can construct a system of human interaction where copyright is more of an inherent moral right than the general right to share…

The software you wrote is good copyright, but the movie you want to watch is bad copyright. I don't see how this is a viable position for someone trying to make a living writing software (assuming you are).

I don't believe I said anything like that. I said that invoking "inherent moral rights" to defend a very artificial compromise like copyright is a losing game.

I outright said, "I'm not arguing against copyright." I definitely think copyright is a kludge, no two ways about it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. I think copyright is a good and necessary compromise, where we temporarily give up some of our natural rights in order to improve society in the long run. But I think some people place it on far too high a pedestal. Violating copyright — even my copyright — does not necessarily make you a bad, selfish person any more than my insistence that I am entitled to this weird privilege called "copyright" makes me a bad, selfish person.

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

#79

Post by georgieporgie »

chc wrote: post #59
georgieporgie wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that's the most entitled and ridiculous position I've ever heard presented on the issue. As if copyright violation is somehow necessary to prevent social maladjustment. Where I grew up, we got two channels. Later, when we erected a huge antennae, we got two more. I didn't know what "Nickelodeon" was. So what did I do? I asked kids about the show they described, and I went to a friends house who had cab…

Was your situation much worse than everyone around you? Because studies have found that past a certain point, people's satisfaction with life tends to be highly relative. If you grew up without TV in a culture where most people didn't have TV, your experience is not comparable to someone who grows up without TV in a culture where a good deal of social interaction is based around TV.

The answer to your question is contained within my previous statement.

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

#80

Post by yummyfajitas »

batista wrote: post #68
ssebro wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Death and physical injury aren't the only ways someone can be harmed. Trust me - if you're the only kid in highscool without cable who isn't able to talk about that show from last night, you miss opportunities to bond. Those missed bonds are worth quite a lot, since they directly impact your future.

Those are "first world problems" of the first order. The sense of entitlement and the notion of "harm" contained in the above comment is just unbelievable. How about real bloody issues, like being the only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college?

"first world problems"...only kid in highschool who's parents can't afford medical coverage? Or sending him to college?

Those are also first world problems.

Post reply on HN