Was Megaupload Targeted Because Of Its Upcoming Megabox Digital Jukebox Service?

Yes but Megaupload was taken down completely with FBI involvement, grooveshark are only being sued. If "the labels" could have Megaupload taken down like that because "the labels" were scared of this new "industry disrupting" feature why wouldn't they do the same with Grooveshark, why would they do it the "proper" way?

If you have a power drill you don't use a screwdriver, although maybe it can be argued that they didn't want to "show their hand" with Grooveshark and figured it's small enough to sue into oblivion?

And I think that this is the point where a logical person who is somewhat "internet savvy" can deduce for himself why Megaupload and Grooveshark - while both profiting from IP which they do not own - cannot be, at least morally, judged the same way. The way I see it, Grooveshark is a service that is basically trying to force or at least demonstrate to the music industry what it is exactly that people want in an online music service. I am certain that in a bizzaro worlds where music executives have actual working brains they would see it and would offer "legality" to grooveshark without pricing them out of existence. In a world without piracy grooveshark would thrive.

Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist pirates. Without piracy there is no reason for the existence of such a service (and before anyone yells "dropbox!", I don't think I need to explain why these two services are very different).

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.

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/

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.

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

Intellectual property absolutely is rent-seeking. It brings the full weight of government to enforce an artificial monopoly, for the pragmatic end of encouraging the creation of works of art and technological advances.

The idea that one party can prevent another from exploiting a novel idea (which may have been arrived at independently) does not come out of ethics or natural law. It is a (seemingly) useful legal construct which seems to have served us as a society fairly well.

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the idea, however, if it is no longer serving us. For instance, consider fashion and the law -- two creative industries which have no such protection and within which imitation is a measure of your success.

Interesting comments, and well thought out.

Yet, since you bring up Hank Rearden's formula, let's remember that Atlas Shrugged explicitly acknowledged that Rearden was leading a team of scientists and engineers. He was not a solo inventor. Even that team stood on the shoulder of giants, it would have not gotten so far had not previous generations invented steel on which it was based not to mention the metalurgical advances since then that helped.

Also, IP rights are not natural rights. It is hard to find any hint of the idea before Mary I in 1557 and they did not take a form that modern viewers would even recognize until the Statute of Anne in 1709.

And as for "prey[ing] on the creation of others", it might depend on what you mean by that. Almost all of Disney's Masterpieces were based on previous work for which they paid nothing. For that matter, much of Shakespeare's work is based on still earlier works. If IP rights are not limited in time and scope, many of these works would never have been created.

I personally think that an IP rights regime is vital to protecting our creators, but it is not a natural right in the way that owning a physical item is, and I think history has proven that it must be limited in both time and scope if we are to continue creating freely.

The idea of intellectual property itself is the problem in my opinion. It's not property in the way that we create analogies to, i.e. it's not like the car I have sitting outside right now nor the painting I made.

I own the car, it is my property, if you steal it you've deprived me of its use. If you damage it, I have to pay to have it repaired. If I do not maintain it it will no longer work, as well, it will on its own slowly deteriorate over time at which point I must replace it or live without.

Nor is intellectual property like that painting I produced. That painting took serious time to create and only one was created. I imagined it, and I painted it. However, someone can freely re-create something like it for themselves, selling it, however, would be considered forgery if they tried to pass it off as their own idea.

Digital though is a whole new medium. There are no forgeries or deprivation in digital medium. It is an exact replica of the original in every way and is never destroyed. "Piracy" as we use the term on the internet isn't even trying to take ownership of or steal the 'property' only redistribute it. People who are 'pirating' are also not trying to make money off of it (megaupload et al. are making money off of the service the 'pirates' host on not the 'property') but provide it (altruistically?) to others, often with the stipulation of "you like it you buy it".

Intellectual Property laws need to take a new medium into consideration, we can't just think of it in analogies to the physical world. It's not the physical world. Before the printing press we never imagined that books could be distributed en masse. That created a new type of property, however still restricted on production. The internet has created another, free production, and we/those in power need to realise that restructuring the internet in order to maintain a poor analogy is not the solution. We are a society of Remix, the internet allows us to this better than ever before. Why should we be squelching those who only want to continue the remix?

I understand many have heard all this before, but it sometimes feels like no one is listening.

As for MPAA/RIAA being the looters; there is no theft of digital products when looked at objectively---only when comparing to the physical medium and when creating analogies for explanation. We've already determined many file sharers purchase the products in addition to sharing. All throughout history we've traded what we love to each other, now we get to copy it to each other. Anecdotally it seems as though the property that is shared and not paid for wouldn't have been paid for in the first place.

Then here comes a large group of distributors claiming they represent artists (which, at some points they do) playing bully on the soccer field. Finding people who weren't the original distributors of their digital mind-share, turning them up-side-down, and ruining their lives by taking as much money from them as the courts will allow. A file-shared 'property' is not removing money from the pockets of the artist. It may stop money from being placed in their hand initially, however increases their audience. How many artists have people discovered solely because of a shared file?

Who's really depriving others of a livelihood? The MPAA/RIAA with obscene lawsuits with awards that can rarely be paid back or file-sharers increasing the audience of the artist/owner at the expense of direct compensation?

What evidence makes you say that? "Timing" is not going to convince me; that self-referentially uses the fact that prompted the question as its own answer.

You got me--I speculated. However, there is a difference between writing a speculative comment and writing a speculative headline. Everything has its place.

I could have said "Since they behaved like criminals in the past, they will continue to be criminals" but that would a) assume their guilt and b) rule out the ability for people to change their ways.

> > If they are guilty of the charges against them

> And what is that?

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808

That is why I was wondering what would have been the signaling channel in this case. Obviously for FBI to put all this effort into it, they'd have to have some payoff (maybe publicity about how well they did the job was the payoff?). So at some point someone had to suggest this course of action and hint on the expected reward.

One way I can think is through Congress. There are revolving doors around many govt regulatory agencies and industries they regulate but I think a revolving door between FBI and Hollywood is a little harder to imagine.

EDIT: Just thought about it. Can someone donate to FBI? I found:

* FBIAA ( http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/ ) * http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate

Wonder what kind of tricks FBI would do if someone drops $10M in there?

I know. But this is more than just a website take -down. There are individuals being extradited. This involves some actual legwork, not just sending an email to an name registrar or an ISP.

I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Thanks for the link.