Kim Dotcom: US Government Is Protecting An Outdated Monopolistic Business Model

This country....

America practices what's known as a mixed-model economy, combining social and capital elements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

The reason this system seems to be working so poorly now might be that its increasingly difficult to define just what "property" is nowadays.

It's only when the government protects citizens with money or laws, that's it's called "socialism" and evil.

Personally, I find it odd that a US government will protect certain business from natural competition. Isn't that anti-American? Anti-capitalism? Anti-competition? Protectionist?

It was never about a real free market, that's just what it's taught at school. It has always been the case that who has the money makes the rules, and has the government do what he wants, including crushing smaller competition.

The entity that they sue pays, if they win.

So, who do you think that they can sue and on what grounds?

The MPAA didn't shut down their company or arrest them and doesn't have the power to decide whether someone else will do those things, so it will be extremely difficult to hold them liable.

Prosecutors and police are almost never liable.

In such case, the government would pay (but not the individual prosecutors, as they are acting merely as agents of the government). Damages would be based on economic harm actually proved, i.e., lost business from cancelled customer contracts, lost ad revenue, etc. Future growth potential is not taken into account for damages purposes.

However, note that MegaUpload did not follow the DMCA. Its entire business plan was based on committing illegal activities, and was designed from the outset to maximize the revenue generated by such activities over the revenue generated by the potential legitimate uses of its services.

If you want a role model to follow in the media distribution market, look to BitTorrent.

In order to protect itself, though, it has to balance the demands of the second, with what its' voters, the general public, wants.

That's why:

a) government is problematic

b) but it's still better than no/much-less government = big corporations rule directly with their clout

What he did was illegal, but not necessary wrong.

If you think Kim was in the right, then why not Amazon? your cable company? Why does Valve even bother paying Bethesda a share? Etc. File sharing is highly tolerable as a small enterprise, even if it is aggregately large; it's not tolerable as a highly profitable business model.

I see it as increasing efficiency, but others see it as stealing.

It doesn't justify piracy, but it is a way for the media industry to solve the "piracy-issue" themselves. In short: Give the people what they want and they will pay you.

Are you kidding me, no artists gets $5 per sold record. If you sell a lot and have a really good deal you get around $2 (britney spears kinda big).

The records my fathers band have recorded give them about $.5 for all of them (six members). They barely cover their production costs with that...

Actually, I think that the underlying moral principle would be the same for the two. If you are stealing something - it doesn't matter whether it is $5 or $2000; it is still a theft. The scale of it should only govern the punishment if that is the intent was different - which I believe is not. I do not think that one can justify sharing one copy vs sharing 50 copies _morally_; the justification will be economic.

When people have access to a lot more content for the same price or lower, they will consume a lot more content. That doesn't mean they would be willing to pay for each piece of content as much as they would with the old model.

Actually, there's "illegal" and there's illegal.

New Zealand authorities sent a special anti-terrorism group, armed to the teeth, to arrest one fat Finnish programmer; that is disproportionate to the alleged crime. Was it just to impress their American friends with some random cowboy action, or were NZ authorities briefed that Dotcom was a dangerous terrorist?

Extradition treaties have clauses; we'll see if Dotcom's actions do actually fall under those clauses or not. The fact that he's been bailed (and his bail was later upheld against the wishes of US authorities) make me think that it won't be a walk in the park. It might even turn out that some overzealous officer or politician, anxious to appease US counterparts for one reason or another, overstepped his authority and launched an unjustified operation. It would be funny to see them with egg in their face, should the judge throw out the case.

The other part of me thinks that there needs to be some force to counter the insane overreach that copyright holders increasingly take in the digital age. For example: 10 minutes of previews that can't be skipped on a DVD/Blu-Ray that you legally bought, DRM that makes it uncertain whether you will continue to have access to your legally-purchased content, or arbitrary restrictions on what devices/software you can use to view your own content. The natural market forces that should work in favor of consumers are greatly diminished by the fact that a single entity has control over every sales channel for a given work. And the DMCA gives legal teeth to whatever technological measures content producers use to implement these arbitrary restrictions and controls.

There are other cases where the government intervenes to restrict this lopsided distribution of power. For example, "compulsory licensing" requires copyright or patent owners to grant licenses for certain uses of a work at predetermined rates that are set by the government. For example, this allows musicians to record "covers" of existing songs without having to get permission from the original song's author (though a royalty has to be paid).

For a correct analogy, make the Amish a billionaire who makes money by exercising a monopoly. The monopoly is legal, it was even expanded by congress thanks to his lobbying efforts, and the government actually spends taxpayer money to enforce it. And I'm not stealing from the Amish, I just found a more efficient way to distribute copies of his products, copies made at my own cost. And users find my service not only cheaper, but much more convenient: it is not riddled by silly restrictions, and I have a much larger selection. Somehow I make tons of money with it, and all this money would go to the Amish, if he could adapt his business model, because he has a natural advantage to provide the best service: he gets the products first, and with the best quality.

Considering that the monopoly is harmful to cultural exchange, freedom of speech and other essential rights, I see moral value in any contributions to bring it down or transform it into something more morally acceptable and less expensive for society.

2. Your Amish analogy is a strawman.

3. Whether Kim is breaking a law or not is not the point of this dicussion (another strawman here): the discussion is does the (il)leagailty of it make sense? Laws are not permanent nor are they absolute. We theoretically live in a society that is based on the will of the people, so lets talk about what make sense to our society.

4. Amazing improbable thinking does not grant one rights to someone else's pocketbook. Much like people should pay for stuff, by the same token, saying they should then suing them for actions they didn't and may never have taken is absurd. I should get paid $1 per read of this comment, there HN readers owe me a few $K.

5. Wow, I really fed this troll didn't I?

While it's really sad that many lost their jobs breeding horses when automobiles were invented, it was a total net positive to humanity. You can't ignore one of the sides.

While it's sad that some artists may lose their jobs when their cd is pirated. While is true that some potential artists may not have enough incentive to create. You cannot ignore that art will never cease to exist simply because of piracy. You can't ignore that sharing, remixing and freedom to fork and improve the work of others, do have a positive impact in the quality of arts. you cannot deny that better, drm free distribution models are many times a better experience for consumers.

So is it a net benefit at the end of the day? Ill save my opinion, but please do consider both sides of the coin, instead of blindly citing a few of the arguments for one side while ignoring the other.