Hacker News Reader

these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more?

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more?

There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them.

good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth.

First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.

Then...

Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?

Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews.

And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet.

And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial.

I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.

Fees paid per copy are only one traditional way to compensate creators. Copy fees don't work so well once digital technology becomes ubiquitous, and may be viewed by future generations as barbaric, because such fees may deny minds the education and culture they crave based on an arbitrary monopolistic price, unrelated to the cost of either original production or reproduction.

If per-copy fees were the only way to get necessary creative production, as you seem to suggest, that would be one thing. But your theory doesn't yet seem to be playing out. Rising piracy has loosely correlated, over the past decade-plus, with even more creation of the pirated types of content.

So the siege and retribution mentality -- "never mind due process, line the scum up against the wall and let 'em have it!" -- doesn't make any sense.

Again, this isn't your decision to make. These companies may be acting in a way that you consider counter-productive (and you may be right), but that doesn't give you the right to take their content in a way that they haven't allowed.

It's our decision as a society how much of a monopoly we grant copyright holders, and whether we also grant them the ability to seize property, like domain names, without due process.

Our society is richer because Jobs and Wozniak, before they founded Apple, helped people steal telecommunications services. The world is more connected because Zennstrom and Friis, before they made Skype, behaved like 'scum' in your eyes with file-sharing Kazaa. Our culture is richer because whole genres of music and other creative arts have at times ignored the rules against sampling, collage, and other reuse.

The simple 'always defer to all prior rules' argument isn't welfare-maximizing for either individuals or the world.

And even as we enforce current laws, which I accept as a general necessity, the accused deserve a chance to make their case, and the standards for enforcement need to be clear and applied evenly. A surprise domain-name seizure without notice only makes sense in emergency situations.

> A surprise domain-name seizure without notice only makes sense in emergency situations.

Do you think that the police give the owner of a store filled with pirated DVDs a chance to make their case? No, they seize the stolen property and close the store.

> Our culture is richer because whole genres of music and other creative arts have at times ignored the rules against sampling, collage, and other reuse.

You seem to be picking and choosing here. The subjects of these domain name seizures weren't using this stuff in a fair use manner, they were straight up distributing (and profiting from, through ads) stolen goods and selling counterfeit goods. Our culture isn't being made richer by someone selling counterfeit purses or helping people steal movies, TV shows, and video games.

It's easy to make these statements in vague terms, but imagine if you were an iPhone game developer whose $2 game was being distributed to tens of thousands of people by piracy networks, hurting your already lower-middle-class income. Do you think that's making our culture richer?

Disabling an entire domain name remotely is different from seizing physical counterfeits or evidence -- in its impact on speech rights and other legal activities, for example. We know what was alleged against these sites, but not their possible defenses -- that they were selling designer lookalikes without intent to deceive, for example, or providing DMCA-compliant search and user-contributed content services.

How do you know IP violations don't make our society and culture richer? The USA's greatest period of growth -- over 100 years ago -- and China's more recently were both characterized by lax IP enforcement compared to slower-growing areas.

In your scenario about software piracy, it really depends on whether the pirated copies primarily displaced sales, or went to young/poor/loosely-attached users who wouldn't have purchased at the actual price, anyway. It is not the case that if a wand could be waved and all piracy prevented, every pirated copy would be replaced with a paid copy. Given that, some piracy in OS, office, and even game software is thought to help top publishers by making their titles/franchises more popular. It's not at all the same as 1 copy made, 1 sale lost, someone loses more than the 'pirate' gained. Sometimes it's a boon for the pirate and neutral-to-mildly-beneficial outcome for the rightsholder.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I don't see how you can say Apple and Skype exist because of Blue Boxes and Kazaa. That's like saying "The Pianist" exists because Roman Polanski raped some 13 year old...

"The Pianist" was not a more advanced expression of Polanski's sexual predilections. Those entrepreneurs' later tech ventures were more advanced expressions of the same causes that led to their early ones. Cutting off theif technical and entrepreneurial careers early might very well have created a different world today.

Of course not every crime enables, nor is excused by, later creative output.

But for Jobs/Wozniak, and Zennstrom/Friis, their legally-dubious earlier activities were closely related to the later more-famous and above-board collaborations. They were each hacking together, for fun or profit and arguably against the law, in hardware/software domains similar to their later successes.

You also shouldn't underestimate the effectiveness of conspiring with someone on something a little naughty to establish a strong trusting working relationship. Perhaps you've heard the expression, 'thick as thieves'?

We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more?

Post ho ergo propter hoc fallacy, there. The technology of making a film/video has become vastly cheaper than it used to be. This has been a far bigger influence on the economics of production than the ability to get copies via unauthorized sharing. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to make your money back than it used to be. File-sharing is partly responsible, but is only one factor among several.

First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum.

Yes, losing your domain is just like being sent to a concentration camp. I'm not asking you to support this (I don't) but let's keep a little sense of perspective here, shall we?

The Niemoller snowclone isn't meant suggest the endgame here is like a concentration camp. (If you complete it in your mind, that's not the last line.)

Rather, that if you cheer this tactic on now, simply because now it's used against 'scum', you shouldn't be surprised if this tactic gets abused more broadly against disfavored groups in the future. Did you fail to file your proper FEC election-expenditure reports for candidate advocacy blogging? Away with your domain name! In a back-tax dispute? Away with your domain name! Are you a troublemaker who's publishing unauthorized video of a TSA checkpoint? Away with your domain name!

The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.

The authorities should have to win a case, rather than just allege wrongdoing, to wipe a website completely from the net.

Leaving aside the fact the website hasn't been wiped, as such, in what sense is ICE's procedure insufficient? They've obtained a valid court order, supposedly, so it's been approved by a judge. And like it not, dealing in certain kinds of merchandise makes both merchandise and assets subject to seizure, using laws which have been on the books a long time (and were thus known to the domain owners). The idea that customs officers have in rem jurisdiction (over things rather than people) in certain circumstances is a very old one.

Here;'s an example of an issued warrant for seizure of domains made earlier this year, along with a (brief) explanation of in rem jurisdiction. http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-14/41-actions-i...

The standards for issuing such a warrant should be higher, and the accused should have a right to dispute the allegations before being blocked from worldwide communication via those domain names.

A domain name is more than just a storefront; it's also the equivalent of a printing press and mailbox. Seizing all those at once, without a hearing where both sides had representation, is the problematic precedent.

Higher than what? From your remarks, It's not clear that you read the second link provided, which addresses such topics. This thread's dead, so my question is rhetorical more than anything else, but you can reach me at gee mail should you so desire.

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance

The problem is not never who blocked but how and why they were blocked.

Freedom speech only means something if it's freedom for those whose speech we dislike.

It's natural that those who are angling for wide-ranging control would start by attacking "the scum of the Internet". In this instance, being able to take down website essentially without due-process means that ICE has a tool which can be used on many other targets.

This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom to sell stolen and counterfeit goods. You're trying to turn this into something it's not.

No. Something it could turn in to without much of a stretch.

It's a good contrarian point, but why downvote? He's not trolling but just stating some good points.

Take a look at the list of sites closed. Last time I checked I don't remember that selling unauthorized content is legal.

   louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
   lv-outlets.com
   lv-outlets.net
   lv-outletstore.com

Or is everyone drinking the same Kool Aid that US is now a police state?

I downvoted it for the uncivil language. Surely it is possible make a contrarian point without peppering one's rant with "scumbags", "idiots", "degenerates", etc.? Maybe that would be acceptable language if we were talking about serial killers or people engaging in torture, but surely we can have a more rational, level-headed debate about file-sharing on all sides?

I consider people who live their lives leeching off the work of others degenerates and scumbags, and those who defend them idiots (especially because, in the long run, they're not acting in their best interest). I use civil language talking to people who I respect.

> What's going to be left? Finance?

Advertising. It seems to me that money from advertising pays for most content nowadays.

Advertising for what? Other content that's also supported by advertising? Someone has to be paying for something at some point in the chain for advertising to make sense.

with sites like "handbagcom.com" I can see your point

But w.r.t content, sites like DaJaz1 or OnSmash were more or less embraced by the industry (industry relevant to their product). Labels would submit content and bloggers would voluntarily with hold music from their reader even with a leak. It was a (relatively) good relationship. It demonstrates how these sites /can/ be embraced.