12 ms·

Kim Dotcom is in jail because he thumbed his nose at the US entertainment/enforcement cartel. It's absurd that his file sharing service (which functionally is

by Mikeb85 12y ago

Kim Dotcom is in jail because he thumbed his nose at the US entertainment/enforcement cartel. It's absurd that his file sharing service (which functionally is no different than Dropbox or Google Drive) gets shut down, but start-ups like Uber and AirBnb - which actually endanger people's lives and cause very real damage to property, are allowed to continue operating because their VCs are politically connected. I used to be in the restaurant/hospitality business - you know how awesome it would be if I could just set up a restaurant, hotel or yes BnB in my house without going through the proper permits? In the part of Canada I live in, a BnB requires no fewer than 7 permits (3 municipal, 3 provincial, and 1 federal). Edit - if you're in Canada, here's a useful tool to search for some of the permits and licenses your future business will require: http://www.canadabusiness.ca/eng/search/stp1 http://www.canadabusiness.ca/eng/search/stp1 Here you have 2 US-based businesses thumbing their nose at local laws, as well as the laws of other countries, however because they're connected (and there's a lot of money invested) they get away with it (in the US anyway, and they try their luck elsewhere). To say the Kim Dotcom debacle is anything but political is absurd...

rthomas6 12y ago
Is it expensive to get these permits, or is it just a hassle? Serious question.
- bdcravens 12y ago
  Was in San Diego for RubyConf. While there, took 3 Ubers: 1 bad experience, 1 meh, 1 good. Asked good one about issues re airport pickups/dropoffs, which apparently require permit that almost no Uber don't have (and some cab drivers don't have). He explained to me it's only a few hundred dollars, and requires some classes and paperwork. Hardly a crisis of overbearing regulation. My experience with Uber was that it's merely a way for those who want to be cab drivers to bypass the legal requirements to do so, while Uber turns a blind eye to who is really driving their cars.
chasing 12y ago
"But other people are also breaking the law" isn't a proper defense.
calibwam 12y ago
What's your source on Uber and AirBnB actually endagering life and causing damage? I get that you might not like their business plan, which is a totally legit opinion, but a claim like that do need a source.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  > Blah blah blah source.... Around here to run a taxi you need several things. One is a commercial vehicle driver's license, which requires training above and beyond the normal license. You also need commercial insurance, to protect yourself, your passengers, and the insurance company (else they would have to raise premiums for everyone to accommodate risky, illicit behaviour). Taxis are required to have cameras, to protect the drivers and passengers. From what I've seen of UberX's 'requirements', they violate in nearly every way, and I don't think I need a 'source' to state why a lack of training, insurance, and safety measures could harm people. As for AirBnB, imagine you own a condo and someone across from you is running an illicit hotel. These kinds of things affect safety (random people who don't live there constantly coming and going), property value, and hurts legitimate businesses that actually employ people (say, the real BnB or Hotel nearby that follows all the regulations and thus has to pay higher costs). And of course, if you own a condo, are renting is, and your tenants are illegally subletting, the damage is more direct.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Uber and Lyft are not taxis. They are at most livery cabs. They do not and should not operate under the same rules as taxis. They are much more like the airport shuttle services that have been operating without taxi licenses or medallions for decades. They simply have a novel way to summon the vehicle that does not involve placing a voice call to the company's scheduler and dispatcher. There are more types of vehicle-for-hire services than just taxicabs, and they don't need to follow the same regulations.
    - Mikeb85 12y ago
      Livery cabs around here do need to follow most of the same regulations. In fact, they apply to any situation where anyone is driving a vehicle for commercial reasons (say, a courier, moving service, any sort of taxi/cab, etc...).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
onewaystreet 12y ago
The charge against Megaupload was not that they hosted copyrighted content but that they knowingly did so and encouraged it through their affiliate program.
- sroerick 12y ago
  Which was illegal under what jurisdiction?
- Retric 12y ago
  Youtube actively does the same thing with people directly making money using 'pirated' content. Note: They currently remove specific content when requested and even automate the process. But, you can still find plenty of 'pirated' content where the owner has yet to complain.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    In what way? This was true when YouTube first launched (I've heard stories that the founders uploaded copyrighted movies and tv shows themselves) but YouTube has a system in place now that removes copyrighted content automatically and it works pretty well (some say too well).
    - abroncs 12y ago
      That's not true at all. I can find dozens of full length movies and hundreds of full length albums on YT, all uploaded illegally.
      - onewaystreet 12y ago
        You're not wrong, but it's only because that content hasn't been entered into their system or because the copyright holder isn't actively requesting content be removed.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
powertower 12y ago
You are correct. Selling other peoples work for pennies on the dollar, is a legitimate business model, and not a criminal enterprise. This case had nothing to do with MU hosting other people's work and content, tricking the general public into signing up to a paid account to download it, and generating 400MM of revenue from it at the same time. It had everything to do with the horse carriage industry trying to stop the automobile.
- yebyen 12y ago
  I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcastic or not. It looks like in taking the Devil's advocate position, you just drew a pretty close parallel between what the "other" "real" incumbent entertainment industry companies themselves actually do all day long masquerading as "legitimate enterprise" and what Mega-co the competition is doing. Of course copyright is not actually licensed as FRAND like in the case of a patent accepted by some standards body, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be when the alternative seems to be violent state-sponsored actions against foreign nationals like Kim Dotcom, protecting interests of incumbent super-companies and using various kinds of taxpayer dollars to invoke the police and para-military in the process.
  - anon4 12y ago
    Looks like an ifbywhiskey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
    - yebyen 12y ago
      Huh. I wonder why this is addressed as a fallacy. I was thinking this is poignant. To me it reads more like "can't have your cake and eat it too." Like, if you are selling access to content, the producers are reasonably entitled to a share of your revenue. But if the producers sign their rights away (granting "entity" an exclusive license to sell reproductions) they are entitled to whatever you signed to pay at the dotted line, only. That's how the content industry was run since forever. When those licenses are written as non-exclusive, you might have a gnarly mess of Guitarist and Singer authorize Band authorizes Agent authorizes Advertising Partner authorizes Radio Station authorizes Distribution Company authorizes Pandora/Netflix authorizes Partner, and Friends. If one of those contracts goes south (non-payment or expiration), are all of the subcontracting child parties suddenly violating criminal law and liable for jail time because they're now distributing copyrighted works without authorization? Of course not, they are in breach of contract, or in a contract dispute, or a failure to achieve a meeting of the minds, or whatever. You don't go to jail. Not in any reasonable society, at least I would argue. Not before one of the entitled parties says "cease and desist," and after you fail to comply within a reasonable period of time, and even then certainly not before a judge says so.

by Mikeb85 12y ago

rthomas6 12y ago

Is it expensive to get these permits, or is it just a hassle? Serious question.

bdcravens 12y ago
Was in San Diego for RubyConf. While there, took 3 Ubers: 1 bad experience, 1 meh, 1 good. Asked good one about issues re airport pickups/dropoffs, which apparently require permit that almost no Uber don't have (and some cab drivers don't have). He explained to me it's only a few hundred dollars, and requires some classes and paperwork. Hardly a crisis of overbearing regulation. My experience with Uber was that it's merely a way for those who want to be cab drivers to bypass the legal requirements to do so, while Uber turns a blind eye to who is really driving their cars.

chasing 12y ago

"But other people are also breaking the law" isn't a proper defense.

calibwam 12y ago

What's your source on Uber and AirBnB actually endagering life and causing damage? I get that you might not like their business plan, which is a totally legit opinion, but a claim like that do need a source.

Mikeb85 12y ago
> Blah blah blah source.... Around here to run a taxi you need several things. One is a commercial vehicle driver's license, which requires training above and beyond the normal license. You also need commercial insurance, to protect yourself, your passengers, and the insurance company (else they would have to raise premiums for everyone to accommodate risky, illicit behaviour). Taxis are required to have cameras, to protect the drivers and passengers. From what I've seen of UberX's 'requirements', they violate in nearly every way, and I don't think I need a 'source' to state why a lack of training, insurance, and safety measures could harm people. As for AirBnB, imagine you own a condo and someone across from you is running an illicit hotel. These kinds of things affect safety (random people who don't live there constantly coming and going), property value, and hurts legitimate businesses that actually employ people (say, the real BnB or Hotel nearby that follows all the regulations and thus has to pay higher costs). And of course, if you own a condo, are renting is, and your tenants are illegally subletting, the damage is more direct.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Uber and Lyft are not taxis. They are at most livery cabs. They do not and should not operate under the same rules as taxis. They are much more like the airport shuttle services that have been operating without taxi licenses or medallions for decades. They simply have a novel way to summon the vehicle that does not involve placing a voice call to the company's scheduler and dispatcher. There are more types of vehicle-for-hire services than just taxicabs, and they don't need to follow the same regulations.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    Livery cabs around here do need to follow most of the same regulations. In fact, they apply to any situation where anyone is driving a vehicle for commercial reasons (say, a courier, moving service, any sort of taxi/cab, etc...).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

onewaystreet 12y ago

The charge against Megaupload was not that they hosted copyrighted content but that they knowingly did so and encouraged it through their affiliate program.

sroerick 12y ago
Which was illegal under what jurisdiction?
Retric 12y ago
Youtube actively does the same thing with people directly making money using 'pirated' content. Note: They currently remove specific content when requested and even automate the process. But, you can still find plenty of 'pirated' content where the owner has yet to complain.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  In what way? This was true when YouTube first launched (I've heard stories that the founders uploaded copyrighted movies and tv shows themselves) but YouTube has a system in place now that removes copyrighted content automatically and it works pretty well (some say too well).
  - abroncs 12y ago
    That's not true at all. I can find dozens of full length movies and hundreds of full length albums on YT, all uploaded illegally.
    - onewaystreet 12y ago
      You're not wrong, but it's only because that content hasn't been entered into their system or because the copyright holder isn't actively requesting content be removed.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

powertower 12y ago

You are correct. Selling other peoples work for pennies on the dollar, is a legitimate business model, and not a criminal enterprise. This case had nothing to do with MU hosting other people's work and content, tricking the general public into signing up to a paid account to download it, and generating 400MM of revenue from it at the same time. It had everything to do with the horse carriage industry trying to stop the automobile.

yebyen 12y ago
I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcastic or not. It looks like in taking the Devil's advocate position, you just drew a pretty close parallel between what the "other" "real" incumbent entertainment industry companies themselves actually do all day long masquerading as "legitimate enterprise" and what Mega-co the competition is doing. Of course copyright is not actually licensed as FRAND like in the case of a patent accepted by some standards body, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be when the alternative seems to be violent state-sponsored actions against foreign nationals like Kim Dotcom, protecting interests of incumbent super-companies and using various kinds of taxpayer dollars to invoke the police and para-military in the process.
- anon4 12y ago
  Looks like an ifbywhiskey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
  - yebyen 12y ago
    Huh. I wonder why this is addressed as a fallacy. I was thinking this is poignant. To me it reads more like "can't have your cake and eat it too." Like, if you are selling access to content, the producers are reasonably entitled to a share of your revenue. But if the producers sign their rights away (granting "entity" an exclusive license to sell reproductions) they are entitled to whatever you signed to pay at the dotted line, only. That's how the content industry was run since forever. When those licenses are written as non-exclusive, you might have a gnarly mess of Guitarist and Singer authorize Band authorizes Agent authorizes Advertising Partner authorizes Radio Station authorizes Distribution Company authorizes Pandora/Netflix authorizes Partner, and Friends. If one of those contracts goes south (non-payment or expiration), are all of the subcontracting child parties suddenly violating criminal law and liable for jail time because they're now distributing copyrighted works without authorization? Of course not, they are in breach of contract, or in a contract dispute, or a failure to achieve a meeting of the minds, or whatever. You don't go to jail. Not in any reasonable society, at least I would argue. Not before one of the entitled parties says "cease and desist," and after you fail to comply within a reasonable period of time, and even then certainly not before a judge says so.