Hacker News Reader

Comment by rplnt | Hacker News Reader

I too am glad that someone finally went for the big guys. Rapidshare should be next in my opinion. They only make money on piracy and they know it. On the other hand, I hate when p2p networks are targeted (thepiratebay for example). Sure, they too make some money but nowhere close to paid sites like the megaupload and they don't even host the pirated content.

View on HN

Rapidshare just fought (and won) an antipiracy case not too long ago.

*EDIT

More like a series of cases, actually. German courts seem much more level headed than their US couterparts. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare#Legal_issues

Indeed, when a site built around (partially) illegal content being shared, it's OK with me if they earn just enough not to lose money on operating the site. However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.

"I do not believe you should profit off the content of others."

This is the problem. Distribution is a perfectly legitimate business model, as is hosting. Think, I dunno, Youtube? They don't generate any content; should they not be allowed to make a profit?

Your stance is just strange. Megaupload can have revenue from piracy, just not too much? Once revenue from their illegal content passes operating expenses, they should stop making money off it? I don't understand what you want such a business to actually -do-.

There is a notion that "at some scale, significant quantitative differences are qualitative differences". This drives a lot of legislation around misdemeanors vs felonies and regulations that only apply to businesses/operations of a certain size.

Personal sharing vs mass piracy is a major example. Usually the boundary is drawn at money changing hands, but other boundary lines could be debated.

You might want to see my post below (or above, if the votes move it around). I don't have any issues with distribution as a business model, but essentially due to ideological reasons, I don't believe it should be primarily focused on illegal content, if profit is to be made.

Am I being downvoted because people think you should be able to earn money on pirated content, or because you think they should operate such sites at a loss (if at all)?

I'd think it might be the line "However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.". That's a blanket statement which probably has been misinterpreted as you being against any form of distributor or reseller business model.

Oh, I see. Thank you for pointing that out to me. My intention was to say that I do not believe that you should create a business-model around earning money on only pirated content. Helping artists getting their name and songs out there is a good thing, but without their approval I don't think you should profit off it.

Rapidshare is Swiss based, and it responds to DMCA claims. I doubt it will go down any time soon.

Megaupload is Swizz based, and it went down.

> Megaupload is Swizz based

No, they were Hong Kong based. Rapidshare (Switzerland/Germany) has already been sued there, and won, so their (current) business model, for the time being, is not accessible for american "shock and awe" justice.

No, I think he was joking because Swizz Beats is/was the CEO of MU.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJok...

Elsewhere in the thread, people are saying MU was from Hong Kong.

Where do you see it as Swiss?

It was a bad joke on the fact that a purported owner of Megaupload is the artist "Swizz Beatz".

Good one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com