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Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model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

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#61

Post by batista »

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 clout

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#62

Post by calloc »

chrisbennet wrote: post #44

Couldn't damages be gauged by comparing the injured party's income stream before and after MegaUpload was shut down? If the parties suing are really losing 13 billion in a 20 billion dollar industry, they should see an obvious upward spike in profits now that that MegaUpload is shut down.

It will be very interesting to see whether or not there is an upward spike in media purchased. Although I have a feeling that there will be none or close to none and that any "spike" will be considered statistical noise.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#63

Post by batista »

alan_cx wrote: 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…

Actually, when the government protects failing business with money or laws, or when the government gives advantages to businesses with money or laws, it's all OK by republicans etc --despite breaking all the supposed "free market" rules.

It's only when the government protects citizens with money or laws, that's it's called "socialism" and evil.

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?

It was never about a real free market, that's just what it's taught at school. It has always been the case that who has the money makes the rules, and has the government do what he wants, including crushing smaller competition.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#64

Post by sophacles »

jonhendry wrote: post #34
sophacles wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

It is not the same as stealing bread to feed a family. That too is hyperbolic. You know what is just plain disingenous though? Framing discussions about how copyright could be different (better for many), as pointless or silly since copyright infringement isn't the same as stealing bread to feed a family. Possibly even in the same hyperbolic way, since "everything is perfect because it is not an extreme" is itself hyperbolic.

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

#65

Post by J3L2404 »

chc wrote: post #57
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…

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).

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

#66

Post by batista »

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…

It is not stealing. This is well established. Stop using hyperbolic language to hysterically whine and force your moralistic crap down our throats

1) Hyperbolic 2) hysterically 3) whine 4)force 5) crap 6) down our throats.

All because he used a common word, that laymen use all the time with respect to copyright infringement, and that even lawyers and judges are known to use occasionally.

Who is hysterical, again?

Not only is the term used extensibly, including by the FBI ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr ), but also in the US legal code, "Criminal infringement of a copyright" is a subcategory of "Chapter 113: Stolen property" ( http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/113 ). So, your pedantic distinction only matters inside a court room, and under very rigid circumstances (for example, lawyers argue all the time using the word "theft" for the issue). Outside of the court room, anyone can use any word he damn pleases, and lots of people choose to use stealing to describe C.I. Moreover, this is not an American issue only, and other languages and legislations make no such distinction against "copyright infringement" and "stealing".

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?

And who exactly are you to define what the exact "point of this discussion" is? The point of the discussion is whatever is relevant to the issue, and both questions are relevant, as are many more.

4. Amazing improbable thinking does not grant one rights to someone else's pocketbook. Much like people should pay for stuff, by the same token, saying they should then suing them for actions they didn't and may never have taken is absurd. I should get paid $1 per read of this comment, there HN readers owe me a few $K.

If you made your comment available only on a per pay basis, on your own platform, you absolutely should. But since you don't control HN and neither it's a pay site, so you don't have the option to do so.

5. Wow, I really fed this troll didn't I?

No, you trolled on your own.

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

#67

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#68

Post by batista »

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.

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?

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

#69

Post by lookelsewhere »

patrickk wrote: post #8
Schmidt wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2000 / 400 = 5 Are you kidding me, no artists gets $5 per sold record. If you sell a lot and have a really good deal you get around $2 (britney spears kinda big). The records my fathers band have recorded give them about $.5 for all of them (six members). They barely cover their production costs with that...

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/ This link always gets mentioned in relation to artists/labels and who gets what, so here it is.

Your link wasn't working for me, but here is what did: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/singleton/?mobile.htm...

Thank you for sharing that, btw. I enjoyed the read...

edit: fixed link

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

#70

Post by batista »

njs12345 wrote: post #56
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…

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").
Post reply on HN