Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model • Hacker News Board

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#91

Post by sophacles » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 3:16 AM UTC

njs12345 wrote: post #72

batista wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention the almost impossible to measure fact that once a work is in the zeitgeist, by wide spread sharing, it also will likely make more money than the same song that didn't get that level of exposure with no piracy.

If this wasn't true, why would the music industry pay to get songs played on the radio?

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#92

Post by trevelyan » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 4:27 AM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #71

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,…

Thanks for the reply rprasad.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#93

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 6:07 AM UTC

jonhendry wrote: post #88

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Affording medical treatment certainly isn't just a first world problem.

Affording US style comprehensive fancy coverage is a first world problem.

The various types of free "low quality" (by US standards) medicine available in the US are far better than what you get in much of the third world.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#94

Post by batista » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 9:19 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #80

batista wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not having medical treatment and not having access to education are very real third world problems.

Despite what the media show in their humanitarian segments, the third world is vast, and third world problems are not just of the kind: no access to water, famine and/or civil war.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#95

Post by batista » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 9:24 AM UTC

carsongross wrote: post #77

batista wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's good too, but you have to have some way to tame big entities, like mega-corps, that have much more power than any independent government.

For example, mega-corp says to the citizens of indi-govr1: "hey, guys, you give me 100% tax break, and the ability to use materials bad for the environment in my factory, or I take my business in another indi-govr".

Without some framework so that such things cannot happen in ANY indi-govr, you are at the mercy of mega-corps...

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

#96

Post by jkn » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 12:34 PM UTC

jonhendry wrote: post #86

jkn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, most people don't think about the immorality of copyright laws when sharing files, but that doesn't make the laws moral. As for sticking it to the man, I was precisely trying to move the analogy from man-centered (the Amish) to the bigger picture: immoral laws preserving a bad business model that impacts the whole society. Quite the opposite of the Amish actually.

"but that doesn't make the laws moral." Doesn't make them immoral, either. Next you'll be saying "property is theft".

"Doesn't make them immoral, either"

Indeed. I was just expressing my point of view.

"Next you'll be saying "property is theft"."

No, this wild extrapolation doesn't reflect my views.

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

#97

Post by GFischer » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 12:46 PM UTC

huggyface wrote: post #38

Zirro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 pirac…

"Today you can buy virtually any media electronically." if and only if you live in the U.S. and Europe (& other first world countries), have an international credit card and a lot of other stuff you seem to take for granted.

I know some people that had a Megaupload account, and they were paying a third party that had a valid internet payment method that set up the account for them. They didn't have any way to legally pay for all those services you're mentioned (and probably didn't have the means either).

A reasonable functioning market would mean that people in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay would pay less than people in the U.S and Europe, but we're still at a stage where it isn't so (I've heard that China and some other Asian countries do have differentiated pricing, I guess they're a more attractive market).

It's not so black-and-white.

I still believe that Kim Dotcom was commiting copyright infringement and he did make millions doing that. I disagree with the means and the punishment.

I also spend hundreds of dollars in media and entertainment (though I will admit to having unpaid copyrighted media), but I'm not representative of the kind of people I see using Megaupload.

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

#98

Post by angersock » Fri, Mar 02, 2012, 5:01 PM UTC

jonhendry wrote: post #85

angersock wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because there couldn't possibly be people who handle their own distribution while still supporting the artists.

Um, what?

You asserted that "Filesharers don't care about anything but their own entertainment."

I would wager that there are fans of artists who donate to artists via concert proceedings or actual online donations while still downloading (for free, from alternate sources) their music. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

In fact, you kind of have to do this if you actually want to bring about positive change--you support the artist, but you deny any money to the middlemen.