421–430 of 1001 posts
Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.
Spotify too (allegedly) had bunch of pirated content to bootstrap the service. I guess the difference is that they (and YouTube) tried to pivot away from it, compared to Megaupload which seemed to have leaned into it instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kim's problem apparently was that he didn't bribe Congress. Can you elaborate? Is there concrete evidence of this or just a general feeling that it must have happened?
I'd hope we could be nuanced enough to differentiate lobbying and bribing. "Bribing" is what you do in Russia or Tunisia when a cop pulls you over and you slip him $100 to get him off your tail. Lobbying, while potentially nefarious, has completely non-nefarious uses. Private corporations have a right to be involved in the legislative process. If Congress was considering a federal ban on all electric cars in the Unit…
The problem with that is the lobbyist has a voice proportional to the money spent by the lobbyist's client. If, for example, I wanted to ban electric cars, I wouldn't even be able to get an appointment anywhere near Capitol Hill. Or if I did, nobody would listen. Just a pat on the head and perhaps some gallery passes to watch the legislature. If 1,000,000 of us across the US wanted that, we wouldn't get on Capitol Hill either. But if a car company or $special_interest_lobby wants a meeting -- they get it because those people are contributing millions to campaigns and PACs. Lobbyists even write many bills for congressmen.
If there was consideration on a federal ban for electric cars (or whatever,) then Tesla and the other car companies can write a letter to their congressman and have it ignored like the rest of us. And if they don't like it, then they can vote like the rest of us. They can even run advertisements trying to convince people to agree with them.
Money and lobbyists should not be able to amplify the importance of a particular viewpoint.
Paid lobbying should be illegal. It's one half step away from outright bribery. The other side of that coin is the administrative state official who makes rules favorable to a particular company, then "retire" from public service to take a highly paid, "consultant" role at the very company they helped. Or in Pharma especially, the so-called "Iron Triangle" -- https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3519281-is-there-an-i...
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_return_of_the_...
Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> this is a fight against america playing world police That is how Dotcom wants it characterized. Everyone else sees a fly-by-night website run by an eccentric millionaire making money by playing fast and loose with the law. It is one thing to be an outlaw subverting oppression by distributing free bread to poor people. It is another to be a bootlegger selling vodka under the table and then throwing huge invite-only…
I don't think your point stands. How would US citizens would feel if another country, say China, wanted to extradite a US citizen because he allegedly violated Chinese copyright law? Dotcom is absolutely right in saying that US is playing world police.
Probably how Swedish citizens felt when China 'extradited' Gui Minhai. At least in US you have due process?
See also https://safeguarddefenders.com/en/blog/230000-policing-expan....
> US is playing world police
NZ and US have a bunch of shared laws, trade and extradition agreements and stuff. It's not like US dropped in and snatched Dotcom without any NZ cooperation. Not world police, just boring international justice.
Didn't YouTube get popular on pirated content first? What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? They both went legal later.
> What was the main difference of the initial phase of YouTube and MegaUpload? Kim dotcom didn't go to Stanford and have layers of contacts within the DoJ
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not really, his website was based on hong kong, this is a fight against america playing world police, which i'm on board with they have no business going after just a single man so fervently, he's a foreign national and the websites weren't based in the US
He was predominantly stealing US intellectual property, films, TV shows and music and the like. And unlike say normal use of bittorrent, making a lot of money off it. And being the largest player doing that. I'm not sure about the morals but you can certainly understand financially why they've gone after him.
meanwhile US is losing influence and trust on geopolitical stage, shouldn't that be the bigger issue
edit: im being rate limited so heres my response to comment below:
I didn't say anybody was replacing US, merely they are losing credibility and prestige on world stage and this isn't recent and not slowing down.
I don't think any country will be able to replace US and its freedom of maritime navigation anytime soon.
China is in no position to project as its undergoing internal turmoil. Neither is Russia. BRICS also won't offer much.
One potential non-zero chance scenario is the northern artic sea routes opening up due to rising temperatures melting ice bypassing the need to route through singapore and suez canal which would put Russia back on the power map.
US is a hyperpower and there is no equal.
Maybe a unified Korea with extended northern manchuria territories can fill the vacuum left by China and Russia in the region. I don't really see any other candidates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your opinion why is the submarine deal/F-35 program "totally useless" for Australia? Are you saying it's the wrong equipment? Too expensive? Not needed?
One of our former prime ministers, Paul Keating, came out strongly against the submarine deal. IIRC two important dimensions are that Australia has shallow waters which are not a good fit for the chosen submarine technology and that tactically it makes limited sense for Australia to focus on weapons to be used on our largest trading partner. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/15/paul-... I am not an…
I also know nothing of Australian politics but Paul Keating seems to have some curious views regarding China:
> Keating brushed aside human rights concerns about China by arguing there are “disputes about what the nature of the Chinese affront to the Uyghurs”
> Keating is a noted dove towards China. He has previously labelled Taiwan “not a vital Australian interest” but rather a “civil matter” for China.
> On Wednesday Keating said China “is not the Soviet Union” because it is involved in international institutions and would “fall over themselves to have a proper relationship” with Australia, except that Australia has “manufactured a problem” through its increasing alignment with US.
> Keating said the “great sin” China had committed in the eyes of the west was developing its economy to equal the size of the US
Yikes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the first 5 years videos were limited to 10 minutes. Clips of things were popular and there were things split between many videos, but that's not what I remember the people around me using youtube for.
In my social groups at the time(late highschool, early college) it was exclusively used for watching TV shows. The 10min limit was only a minor annoyance, and more than made up for the fact that it was free fast video hosting at time when that was extremely rare. It was not just a nerd thing either, I remember someone I was dating in the mid 2000s bemoaning that YouTube had cracked down on TV content.
Nowadays even when paying for content, it really feels like extortion, it’s unfair anyway (prices constantly increasing, and you still get ads even if you’re paying… might as well go back to pirating stuff)
I appreciate Kim Dotcom for running MegaUpload and later Mega, in a time when the internet was younger and wilder. Also for his pirate spirit and "stick it to the man" attitude. But everything has a limit, specifically his resistance against the law, even if he hid it behind virtues. I think it's clear for everybody that one cannot get away with this kind of stuff, once governments get involved. Isn't it wiser to sto…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait until you hear how Crunchyroll got to where they did! Plex is on much the same trajectory. Heck, even Google Play Music used the strategy by letting people upload their pirated music libraries to get users. It's a tried and true strategy.
YouTube got big because back in the day you could watch full movies uploaded to it. (pre-Google era)