5 ms·

Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view o

Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view of the situation. I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand). It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers. Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to try and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory. The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives. The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech. Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder? Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website? There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are not as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).

bproper 15y ago
The shutdown of MegaUpload was the result of an FBI investigation that took place over the last two years. The idea that an international legal case with multiple extradition arrangements was motivated mostly by a music service launched a month ago is hard to swallow and distracts from the serious debate around online piracy and the future of copyright.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  I agree. My point is two fold: A) That we ought to be aware of the genesis of these conspiracy theories. I believe it's based on the influence of objectivist bias (objectivism being common amongst hackers). By human nature, we perceive the world in a way that agrees with our philosophy. For better or worse, that is called bias. B) That we ought to be singularly focused on the subjects of fair use and free speech.
- wes-exp 15y ago
  Fully five top DOJ officials are former RIAA lawyers. You think they will treat MegaUpload in a "fair and balanced" way? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
  - creativityland 15y ago
    I was not aware of that...but then I'm not surprised.
    - specialk16 15y ago
      Didn't someone at Universal Music said they were taking down Megaupload "just because they can", in response to the whole video they made?
  - mc32 15y ago
    It depends. Attorneys and lawyers can and do take cases representing opposing sides all the time (from one case to the next). It's pretty much a requirement they be able to represent their employer (without personal bias, etc.) It's what allows them to defend indefensible people like, say, murderers --it's not that the lawyer believes in murder, but they are paid by someone to represent the murderer, for example. So, unless we think they are acting as moles in the DoJ, I don't see much issue with it, unless they have a conflict of interest such as being an investor in the industry or the like.
- TheCapn 15y ago
  Police/investigators don't "schedule" take downs in the same sense that a programmer/manager would schedule a project launch. The FBI wouldn't plan to make the takedown they factor it around multiple situations and a big one is that of future "threat". The police gather evidence long enough until they have an open/shut case against the convicted but should intelligence arise that the suspect is planning a major move that puts people in danger they'll act on what they have and try to make it work in the sense that they'll be protecting others. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but actions by the Mega staff may have triggered such a reaction. Its not unheard of for something "in the works" to trigger the takedown.
roel_v 15y ago
"Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way." What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say. Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so. Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand. Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions. I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.
- bradleyland 15y ago
  I should have said "aren't" instead of "won't be". I can't make an argument that this is rent seeking, because I don't believe that it is. I believe, like you, that the MPAA/RIAA are acting in their own interest. Understanding their viewpoint is necessary to hold a productive conversation with them. >I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect. I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior. I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing. I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights. EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458
jeffool 15y ago
I wonder if the rights holders filed DMCA takedown notices before trying to get the site taken down? If they did or didn't, would that affect their role, in your estimation?
nirvana 15y ago
I'm an objectivist and I think this has nothing to do with the RIAA/MPAA. I think its just corrupt politicians flexing their muscles. They raid the MegaUpload people, charge them with a bunch of crimes[1] (that wouldn't stick in any legitimate court) and now all the competing services are in a panic. That panic means those competing services are easy to control. But the real target is the public. You trot someone out, show off his fancy house and his fancy cars, and you go a long way to sell in the media the idea that these people are like drug lords-- making a lot of money doing something criminal. Yet, I'm not aware of megaupload doing anything criminal. (I do believe that IP is legitimate, from a moral standpoint, but I don't consider the current IP laws to be consistent or moral.) MegaUpload was a stand up citizen as far as I can see- they did occasionally host copyrighted content, and when they were made aware of it, they took it down. But as a digital-locker provider, it is not they who are morally responsible for the content of their service, but the people who put things in their digital lockers. Raiding MegaUpload is like seizing every single house in Los Angeles because one of them was a crack den. It makes no sense. I think the MPAA and RIAA don't really have any power, they're just organizations useful to the government. This is all about government power, and the government wanting power over the singular medium of communication that it doesn't already control. You can't run a TV news station in the USA without being controlled by the FCC (and they exercise editorial control, though of course for obvious reasons this isn't made public in the news). Same goes for newspapers, etc. But on the internet, for now, you can say whatever you want. SOPA/PIPA, et. al. are not at all about intellectual property. They're about control. That's why we're going to be seeing them re-introduced with different spins over and over until sometime we're all distracted by something else and they get passed. This is how we got the PATRIOT ACT. That piece of legislation was sitting on the shelf waiting for 9/11. Well, the 9/11 "we can pass whatever we want so long as we call it terrorism related" age has passed. Both Bush and Obama were trying to pass SOPA type internet control under the guise of fighting terrorism, but they weren't able to do it. So, they made an attempt with the claim that it was to fight "Piracy". This claim is obviously bogus. But now a lot of the standard anti-IP types are going on a campaign against the RIAA and MPAA, having been riled up.... which means it might just be easier to pass the legislation to control the internet under some other guise.... maybe attached to the next debt ceiling bill perhaps. I'm not interested, and not going, to engage in a debate about whether the concept of "Intellectual Property" has any moral legitimacy. I think its wholly irrelevant to this discussion. This issue is, as with almost everything the government does, all about control. Piracy, or "terrorism", are only excuses to try and get us to accept their grabbing of more power. [1] Specifically here I mean "Money Laundering", which I've read a legal opinion that says is written in such a way that they can make it stick to anybody, and that this is its purpose. Its the catch all law so that they can always convict. Basically, if you get your paycheck deposited in your checking account, you move some money to your savings account, then you later go and buy something with a credit card, and then pay your credit card bill from the savings account, you've engaged in "money laundering". Apparently the law is completely subjective.

bproper 15y ago

The shutdown of MegaUpload was the result of an FBI investigation that took place over the last two years. The idea that an international legal case with multiple extradition arrangements was motivated mostly by a music service launched a month ago is hard to swallow and distracts from the serious debate around online piracy and the future of copyright.

bradleyland 15y ago
I agree. My point is two fold: A) That we ought to be aware of the genesis of these conspiracy theories. I believe it's based on the influence of objectivist bias (objectivism being common amongst hackers). By human nature, we perceive the world in a way that agrees with our philosophy. For better or worse, that is called bias. B) That we ought to be singularly focused on the subjects of fair use and free speech.
wes-exp 15y ago
Fully five top DOJ officials are former RIAA lawyers. You think they will treat MegaUpload in a "fair and balanced" way? http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
- creativityland 15y ago
  I was not aware of that...but then I'm not surprised.
  - specialk16 15y ago
    Didn't someone at Universal Music said they were taking down Megaupload "just because they can", in response to the whole video they made?
- mc32 15y ago
  It depends. Attorneys and lawyers can and do take cases representing opposing sides all the time (from one case to the next). It's pretty much a requirement they be able to represent their employer (without personal bias, etc.) It's what allows them to defend indefensible people like, say, murderers --it's not that the lawyer believes in murder, but they are paid by someone to represent the murderer, for example. So, unless we think they are acting as moles in the DoJ, I don't see much issue with it, unless they have a conflict of interest such as being an investor in the industry or the like.
TheCapn 15y ago
Police/investigators don't "schedule" take downs in the same sense that a programmer/manager would schedule a project launch. The FBI wouldn't plan to make the takedown they factor it around multiple situations and a big one is that of future "threat". The police gather evidence long enough until they have an open/shut case against the convicted but should intelligence arise that the suspect is planning a major move that puts people in danger they'll act on what they have and try to make it work in the sense that they'll be protecting others. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but actions by the Mega staff may have triggered such a reaction. Its not unheard of for something "in the works" to trigger the takedown.

roel_v 15y ago

"Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way." What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say. Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so. Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand. Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions. I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect.

bradleyland 15y ago
I should have said "aren't" instead of "won't be". I can't make an argument that this is rent seeking, because I don't believe that it is. I believe, like you, that the MPAA/RIAA are acting in their own interest. Understanding their viewpoint is necessary to hold a productive conversation with them. >I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed argument to that effect. I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of "looter" behavior. I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad thing. I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others' work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the enforcement of intellectual property rights. EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas Shrugged: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458

jeffool 15y ago

I wonder if the rights holders filed DMCA takedown notices before trying to get the site taken down? If they did or didn't, would that affect their role, in your estimation?

nirvana 15y ago

I'm an objectivist and I think this has nothing to do with the RIAA/MPAA. I think its just corrupt politicians flexing their muscles. They raid the MegaUpload people, charge them with a bunch of crimes[1] (that wouldn't stick in any legitimate court) and now all the competing services are in a panic. That panic means those competing services are easy to control. But the real target is the public. You trot someone out, show off his fancy house and his fancy cars, and you go a long way to sell in the media the idea that these people are like drug lords-- making a lot of money doing something criminal. Yet, I'm not aware of megaupload doing anything criminal. (I do believe that IP is legitimate, from a moral standpoint, but I don't consider the current IP laws to be consistent or moral.) MegaUpload was a stand up citizen as far as I can see- they did occasionally host copyrighted content, and when they were made aware of it, they took it down. But as a digital-locker provider, it is not they who are morally responsible for the content of their service, but the people who put things in their digital lockers. Raiding MegaUpload is like seizing every single house in Los Angeles because one of them was a crack den. It makes no sense. I think the MPAA and RIAA don't really have any power, they're just organizations useful to the government. This is all about government power, and the government wanting power over the singular medium of communication that it doesn't already control. You can't run a TV news station in the USA without being controlled by the FCC (and they exercise editorial control, though of course for obvious reasons this isn't made public in the news). Same goes for newspapers, etc. But on the internet, for now, you can say whatever you want. SOPA/PIPA, et. al. are not at all about intellectual property. They're about control. That's why we're going to be seeing them re-introduced with different spins over and over until sometime we're all distracted by something else and they get passed. This is how we got the PATRIOT ACT. That piece of legislation was sitting on the shelf waiting for 9/11. Well, the 9/11 "we can pass whatever we want so long as we call it terrorism related" age has passed. Both Bush and Obama were trying to pass SOPA type internet control under the guise of fighting terrorism, but they weren't able to do it. So, they made an attempt with the claim that it was to fight "Piracy". This claim is obviously bogus. But now a lot of the standard anti-IP types are going on a campaign against the RIAA and MPAA, having been riled up.... which means it might just be easier to pass the legislation to control the internet under some other guise.... maybe attached to the next debt ceiling bill perhaps. I'm not interested, and not going, to engage in a debate about whether the concept of "Intellectual Property" has any moral legitimacy. I think its wholly irrelevant to this discussion. This issue is, as with almost everything the government does, all about control. Piracy, or "terrorism", are only excuses to try and get us to accept their grabbing of more power. [1] Specifically here I mean "Money Laundering", which I've read a legal opinion that says is written in such a way that they can make it stick to anybody, and that this is its purpose. Its the catch all law so that they can always convict. Basically, if you get your paycheck deposited in your checking account, you move some money to your savings account, then you later go and buy something with a credit card, and then pay your credit card bill from the savings account, you've engaged in "money laundering". Apparently the law is completely subjective.