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Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model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

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#81

Post by chc »

georgieporgie wrote: post #79
chc wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your previous comment seems to imply the situation that my answer assumed — that TV wasn't a big part of the culture where you grew up. (I got this from the statement, "Where I grew up, we got two channels.") But I didn't want to flat-out say you didn't know what you were talking about just based on an inference, so I phrased it in the form of a question.

If indeed TV wasn't a big deal where you grew up, replace "TV" with whatever activity dominated the social scene among kids your age. For example, it might just be hanging out and shooting the breeze, or it might be sports, etc.

As a former homeschooled kid, I definitely believe shared experiences and culture are important to socializing.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#82

Post by jonhendry »

ssebro wrote: post #46
jonhendry wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Not true. Please see http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3653006

You're kidding, right?

Privileged person is privileged.

Re: Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

#83

Post by jonhendry »

njs12345 wrote: post #55
jonhendry wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

If I download a small artist's music illegally but then spend the money on going to see them live, how is this any different to buying their music except that I've got something for nothing? What about artists who have become big because of all the free marketing that the Internet offers them? As with many things in the real world, it's a murky situation..

It's only murky if you keep your eyes closed because you like it that way.

If you download the music illegally, then spend money on a concert, guess what? The artist is still out of the revenue of the music you downloaded illegally. Especially if self-published.

And if you could afford going out to a concert, which is typically much more expensive than an album download, you could have also paid for the music.

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

#84

Post by jonhendry »

vibrunazo wrote: post #51
jonhendry wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

How does purposely providing your user with a worse experience does no harm? That goes against any UX lesson or advice I've ever seen.

It does no meaningful harm. The person isn't going to go hungry.

If your biggest problem is waiting through the previews before a blu-ray movie, maybe you should read a book instead. Or take up gardening.

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

#85

Post by jonhendry »

angersock wrote: post #43
jonhendry wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-published artists, with their own labels, don't exactly catch a break. Filesharers don't care about anything but their own entertainment.

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

Um, what?

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

#86

Post by jonhendry »

jkn wrote: post #58
jonhendry wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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".

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

#87

Post by jonhendry »

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.

Sitting at home watching a downloaded video isn't very social.

You know what would be social? Going over to a friend's house to watch that show with them.

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

#88

Post by jonhendry »

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.

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

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

#89

Post by jonhendry »

ssebro wrote: post #75
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.

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.

That's not pain. That's inconvenience.

Get some perspective.

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

#90

Post by sophacles »

batista wrote: post #66
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…

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…

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.

Common usage does not make an argument or term not hyperbolic. Right after 9/11 we were subject to "do this or the terrorists win" language all the time, for many many silly things, yet that was still a hyperbolic argument.

Moreover, this is not an American issue only, and other languages and legislations make no such distinction against "copyright infringement" and "stealing".

Actually they do. Theft is a different class of felony with different laws than copyright. Further, something being illegal does not make it immoral, which the poster I was replying to claimed.

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.

I'm not making a claim to be the definer of the point of the discussion, just paraphrasing what the author of the post wrote, when he claimed not to be against copyright nor for kim, but instead asking if the way the situation was handled was government propping up a monopoly, and whether the laws made sense. To go off on a side rant about how bs it is to defend kim, and how this is obviously not a problem because of existing laws is in fact blatant point missing. To defend such actions because you don't like me vigorously defending a point is disingenuous.

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

No, you trolled on your own.

Not trolling. Pointing out why an argument is bad and irrelevant is a pretty ok response to a bad and irrelevant argument. It isn't trolling, it is making clear that the emperor is naked.

Post reply on HN