Egads! This a Tech Crunch article based on a Reddit post based on Google+ post. That Google+ post was also on HN last night so I'll just copy/paste my reply to that.
"This is stupid and wrong. The investigation into MegaUpload took two years. This post wants me to believe the US government convinced the New Zealand government to perform a 70+ person raid in two weeks? The government can't give authorization to someone to tie their shoe in under two weeks!
More importantly, this is an opinion piece with zero facts or evidence posted by a freaking high school student. Why in the hell is this nonsense being posted to HN?"
I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.
I think this is reaching quite a bit. The service is not revolutionary or going to "disrupt the music industry" because this is exactly what Grooveshark offer now to independent artists[0]. Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down and they would be an "easy target" if the "corporations" can take down Mega upload.
The only value Megaupload has over Grooveshark (and Spotify I believe offer this too but I'm not entirely sure [1]) is the traffic, but I don't think being popular with this on the way is reason enough to shut them down.
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).
"Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist pirates."
This is not true. While pirates may have been a large share of their customers, many people also used the service to transfer files that are too large to be sent through e-mail, or spread their own content which they've created themselves and chosen to distribute for free.
>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...
While you might be able to make that conclusion about Megaupload (based on some of their internal emails), making that conclusion about file locker services as a whole is complete hogwash. You don't think there's a legitimate reason for a person to be able to upload a large file somewhere for download by someone else? Really?
I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a troll or a paid shill. 5 seconds on google would provide numerous accounts of people who were using Megaupload for distributing their own content who were burned by this crap.
>I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a troll or a paid shill.
Typical response from the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd that dominates these discussions so much.
Sure, people also used the service for legitimate purposes. If you think for one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the userbase (and that's being generous) or that Megaupload and similar services were setup to profit from those legitimate users and not from the pirates then you are simply being delusional. And there is no need for internal emails to reach that conclusion some experience and common sense will suffice.
Is it a valid service to provide server space and linking of files for sharing with other people? Yes it is. That's what would be called a significant non-infringing use (and it's the reason that Rapidshare isn't shut down).
The fact that some people use it to break the law (much with guns, or computers, or any other tool) doesn't really change anything.
>If you think for one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the userbase
Prove it. The onus of proof is on you. Presumption of innocence and all that.
No, MegaUpload was shut down after years of investigation, not because big music companies got wind of their recent plans and bribed the FBI or something.
I'm a bit concerned as to how things went down, but honestly, MegaUpload had it coming. I'm sure there's lots of people who used it legitimately, but I've personally never seen one person or link to a MegaUpload file online that wasn't meant for piracy.
I understand how it could seem that way, but consider the math. If they caused $500M in lost sales, and EVERY illegal download is a lost sale, then with 50M users a day, if everyone was downloading $1 songs, they only had about ten days of piracy. If ever user was pirating one item.
If higher priced materials were pirated, or users pirated more than one item, then we're talking less time. Maybe a week, maybe less, of rampant, constant piracy.
And this site, roughly, was open since when, 2006?
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.
Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view of the situation.
I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand).
It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers.
Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to try and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory.
The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives.
The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech.
Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder?
Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website?
There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are not as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).
The shutdown of MegaUpload was the result of an FBI investigation that took place over the last two years. The idea that an international legal case with multiple extradition arrangements was motivated mostly by a music service launched a month ago is hard to swallow and distracts from the serious debate around online piracy and the future of copyright.
It depends. Attorneys and lawyers can and do take cases representing opposing sides all the time (from one case to the next). It's pretty much a requirement they be able to represent their employer (without personal bias, etc.) It's what allows them to defend indefensible people like, say, murderers --it's not that the lawyer believes in murder, but they are paid by someone to represent the murderer, for example.
So, unless we think they are acting as moles in the DoJ, I don't see much issue with it, unless they have a conflict of interest such as being an investor in the industry or the like.
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.
While the points you make are valid it is naive to believe that the FBI and other major government organizations are not political animals who will consider the political and PR impacts of such high profile raids. Like most things in life this is a very complicated issue with no black and white answers or clear division of sides.
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.
"Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way."
What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say. Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so.
Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand. Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions.
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.
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.
I have no objection to being downvoted, but since this was an attempt at a rational argument as part of a discussion rather than trolling, I would appreciate an explanation of what you think I got wrong.
Re: the group effort of invention, I don't see the relevance. One can invent as 'work for hire' in the same way that workers in a pottery factory don't become owners of the pots. The second part, that Rearden Steel was an improvement of 'regular' steel, is not a valid comparison either. 'Steel' is a broad word for purified iron, the methods for doing so being diverse. Rearden Steel was (I'm not sure this was stated explicitly, but can imo be reasonably be derived from the circumstance that were described) a specific alloy, made with a specific production process. That is much more specific than 'steel', and here it turns into a discussion on how specific an invention needs to be for it to be able to be 'intellectual property'. I don't think we're at the stage yet where it makes sense to discuss that - my problem is with the crowd who wants to abolish IP all together, or at least have laws that make any enforcement of it impossible or make the cost/benefit tradeoff of enforcement greater than 1.
I now regret using 'natural rights' without qualifying it because I used it in a broad sense, not specifically in the Aristotelian or any other more 'defined' natural rights definition - just as catch-all term for 'axiomatic rights'. (at least for the purposed of my post - I myself still subscribe to an Objectivist foundation of 'natural rights'). Either way, I don't think it's material to the post; nonetheless I can't help myself but saying that I don't see why when a right was first recognized as a natural right reflects on it actually being a 'natural right'. Before the Enlightenment, there was little to no need for IP rights - it wasn't needed in canonical law because canonical law restricted content so the form of that never turned into an issue; and in common law there were marginally few situations where it was an issue.
Finally, Disney never took a verbatim copy of a work and sold it to cinemas; that's not a valid argument for not having IP rights at all. This line of reasoning is imo straw man reasoning. Yes, creators are influenced, in some cases more than others, by existing works or social contexts. That doesn't make the concept of IP invalid. It's merely an (obvious) observation that leads to the conclusion that there need to be boundaries to when something is 'intellectual property'. As I wrote in a post above, I don't care much for that discussion, as it's way beyond the fundamental issue here. I guess our positions aren't that far from each others'; no, IP rights aren't exactly the same as tangible property rights, but there are large amounts of overlap, especially in the philosophical justifications for it (e.g. large parts of Locke's theories on property can (and imo should) be applied to IP rights). Enforcement of IP rights is lacking, as evidenced by the large amounts of pirated content available online. Legal measures without due process may not be the right solution, but previous measures (e.g. the DMCA, which was vilified as much as SOPA back in the 90's! I guess there aren't that many people left who remember those 'discussions') have proven to be ineffective. Website operators shouldn't bear all the responsibility of enforcing IP rights, but they need to make a real effort, especially in cases where their business stands to profit from infringement (Megaupload, but potentially others, too).
Thank you for the thoughtful response. As you say, I think our fundamental positions are not that far apart, but our ways of reaching there are quite different and we seem to disagree on scope. Just to be perfectly clear, I do support (and indeed rely on) the concept of Intellectual Property, but I believe it needs to be limited in both duration and scope.
Now, to address a couple of your more specific points. Steel is an alloy of iron, not just purified form (although some early forms involved mostly removing impurities and creating the alloy with other impurities naturally present), and while the term steel is somewhat generic I could say something like "440 Stainless Steel" and refer to a very specific composition.
I point out that Rearden relied on it because I believe (it has been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged) Rearden metal used steel as a base. Even if that detail is wrong, it certainly relied on the millenia of metalurgical knowlede developed before Rearden, for which he paid between nothing and very little since only the very most recent developments are patented.
The fact he led a team rather than developping it on his own weakens the clean philosophical argument that it was "earned by the sweat of his brow". He worked with others. Yes, he paid them and has every legal right to claim it as his (actually even that's muddy because he did it through his corporation and it is not entirely clear that he was a 100% owner with no one else having any equity at all). But while that doesn't muddy the legal water, it does muddy the philosophical claim.
When a right was recognized does not change its status certainly, but it does act as evidence against a claim that it is an axiomatic right. One would expect that an axiomatic right would have at least some traces of origins in antiquity and that it would have arisen (even if it took a while) independently in many cultures. This is not true of copyright or patents. Those were extremely modern, created by a legislature and for a very specific purpose. Euclid would likely be shocked by the idea that someone would need his permission to copy his Elements (which he borrowed liberally from others to create). Oddly some of the European Moral Rights, such as the right to be acknowledged as the author, come closer to being axiomatic than actual copyright, even though they aren't recognized in the US in a full form. Euclid probably would have been outraged if the copy you made of his Elements didn't acknowledge him as the writer, but he wouldn't have questioned you making the copy.
As for Disney, again I am not arguing against IP rights, I am all for them. The fact that most of Disney's best movies are openly derivative is an argument for IP rights that are limited in time and scope. That is what I am arguing for, and that is a position which benefits Disney greatly.
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:
"I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this theory."
OK, fair enough, but I still think the analogy is a misrepresentation of what really drives people who have strong feelings against intellectual property rights enforcement. There are several camps who can't be lumped together, and whose 'theories' are largely in internal conflict: there are the copyright abolitionists, there is the GPL/FSF crowd, there is the entitled crowd who doesn't really care about reason and just repeatedly says that it's 'unfair' that their 'fair use rights' (of which they have a completely warped view, and which have never existed in the form they imagine in the first place) are being curtailed.
Either way, we disagree on enough other points to continue discussing ;) For example, 'website operators' aren't one group who all deserve indemnification under all circumstances. Megaupload, for example, is a clear case (for the reasonable, non-dogmatic observer) of 'intellectual property infringement facilitation for monetary gain'. Arguably Youtube used to be in its early days. Websites aren't 'press' by definition, and while it's not prima facie reasonable to expect them to be the first conservators of intellectual property laws, they can't just say 'oh it's our users, it's not our responsibility'.
Re: the edit, using that quote in that context makes me angry because it's such a fundamental misrepresentation of what Objectivism and Rand's philosophy stands for and was founded in. Having governments enforce property rights is not the same as what happened in the socialist tyranny that destroyed Rand's family and from which she escaped. Crikes, Rand herself made her fortune from writing screenplays and books, without copyright she would never have been in a position to produce abstract works like her work after The Fountainhead!
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.
Uhm, no it's not, that's such an obviously wrong interpretation and use of the concept as commonly used amongst economists and policy makers that I don't think it's reasonable to expect a 'real' counterargument to you claim.
Re: "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.", I have no idea what you're talking about. Gucci and Prada are some of the most prolific enforcers of their IP rights. Counterfeit designer clothing is a huge problem and an area where IP rights enforcement is stronger than in e.g. the music industry.
Your point of imitation in the law creative industry I don't understand to counter on its content. How do people infringe on others' IP rights in the legal industry? How does one in that industry imitate others, or achieve success when one is imitated?
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?
I wonder if the rights holders filed DMCA takedown notices before trying to get the site taken down? If they did or didn't, would that affect their role, in your estimation?
I'm an objectivist and I think this has nothing to do with the RIAA/MPAA. I think its just corrupt politicians flexing their muscles. They raid the MegaUpload people, charge them with a bunch of crimes[1] (that wouldn't stick in any legitimate court) and now all the competing services are in a panic. That panic means those competing services are easy to control.
But the real target is the public. You trot someone out, show off his fancy house and his fancy cars, and you go a long way to sell in the media the idea that these people are like drug lords-- making a lot of money doing something criminal.
Yet, I'm not aware of megaupload doing anything criminal. (I do believe that IP is legitimate, from a moral standpoint, but I don't consider the current IP laws to be consistent or moral.)
MegaUpload was a stand up citizen as far as I can see- they did occasionally host copyrighted content, and when they were made aware of it, they took it down. But as a digital-locker provider, it is not they who are morally responsible for the content of their service, but the people who put things in their digital lockers.
Raiding MegaUpload is like seizing every single house in Los Angeles because one of them was a crack den.
It makes no sense. I think the MPAA and RIAA don't really have any power, they're just organizations useful to the government.
This is all about government power, and the government wanting power over the singular medium of communication that it doesn't already control. You can't run a TV news station in the USA without being controlled by the FCC (and they exercise editorial control, though of course for obvious reasons this isn't made public in the news). Same goes for newspapers, etc. But on the internet, for now, you can say whatever you want.
SOPA/PIPA, et. al. are not at all about intellectual property. They're about control. That's why we're going to be seeing them re-introduced with different spins over and over until sometime we're all distracted by something else and they get passed.
This is how we got the PATRIOT ACT. That piece of legislation was sitting on the shelf waiting for 9/11. Well, the 9/11 "we can pass whatever we want so long as we call it terrorism related" age has passed. Both Bush and Obama were trying to pass SOPA type internet control under the guise of fighting terrorism, but they weren't able to do it.
So, they made an attempt with the claim that it was to fight "Piracy".
This claim is obviously bogus. But now a lot of the standard anti-IP types are going on a campaign against the RIAA and MPAA, having been riled up.... which means it might just be easier to pass the legislation to control the internet under some other guise.... maybe attached to the next debt ceiling bill perhaps.
I'm not interested, and not going, to engage in a debate about whether the concept of "Intellectual Property" has any moral legitimacy. I think its wholly irrelevant to this discussion.
This issue is, as with almost everything the government does, all about control. Piracy, or "terrorism", are only excuses to try and get us to accept their grabbing of more power.
[1] Specifically here I mean "Money Laundering", which I've read a legal opinion that says is written in such a way that they can make it stick to anybody, and that this is its purpose. Its the catch all law so that they can always convict. Basically, if you get your paycheck deposited in your checking account, you move some money to your savings account, then you later go and buy something with a credit card, and then pay your credit card bill from the savings account, you've engaged in "money laundering". Apparently the law is completely subjective.
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
The well-connected didn't want the competition, found a suitable offense, and pulled strings to have the competition shut down on before the pretext was eliminated.
I think you only have to look at the indictment to see why they were shut down. Whilst it's an interesting point, and perhaps if the mega empire had attempted to legitimize their business a lot quicker then the indictment would never have been put together, I simply think this falls into the realms of conspiracy theory.
I have posted the full Indictment as a news story, with highlights, for those that are interested in the actual reason for their shut down: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808
The (Hacker News) headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative. The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all.
Edit: The HN headline, not the Techcrunch headline.
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.
The insinuation is that someone from the media giants signaled FBI that it is time to take these people down.
Not saying it is impossible but how would that work? Would they go through a Congressman by paying them? Is there a number you call and can set a bounty for a particular investigation like "investigate this and if you prosecute successfully you get $100k bonus"
I have no idea about anything having to do with the Megaupload case, but private business influences the actions of government agencies all the time. It isn't as simple as a number you can call, or paying a bribe (which I think is rare in the US). It has more to do with relationships and influence, and yes, influence with a Congressman does play an important part in that mix. It isn't that easy to spot when legitimate influence (which all large lobby and business interests have) steps over the line and becomes corruption.
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:
If it happened, it was could be the all the ex-RIAA lawyers the Oboma administration put into the DoJ having dinner with their ex-chronies at the RIAA. Over a few drink, they all talk about how crappy MU is. Next day in the DoJ offices, a few calls go out to the FBI. Cronyism is powerful, and there are a LOT of ex-entertainment folks in the government (and probably some government folks who want to get into the entertainment industry who are more than willing to do favors and pull strings).
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.
This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness (if that's even a word).
Here's the plain fact: if a copyright holder notifies me that their material is being shared on my servers and I do nothing about it, I can get sued by them. If I do this on such a grand scale that there is obviously a blatant amount of copyrighted material and I still do nothing about it, the Feds will probably have to be the ones to shut me down until things get worked out.
This is what Megaupload was doing. This is not a grander problem that will hit Google or Youtube, they tend to remove copyrighted content pretty quickly.
All of this seems very similar to the Gizmondo/Stefan Eriksson deal where things just spiraled out of control into very questionable territory.
Although sometimes the answer can be "yes", because they phrase the ridiculous insinuation the other way. For example, "Do cellphones kill you?" follows Betteridge's law, but the (actual) CNN headline "Are cell phones safe to use?" asks the same question inverted.
Bullshit. To go legit with currently signed artists they'd have to do deals with the big 4 labels and none of them were likely to license their catalog to mega.
They were much more likely to go the grooveshark route an try to hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.
Sensational, yes, but it is possible that being more than just a pr0n collector made Hollywood pay more attention to them as there is some strategic advantage to shut them down. They may have assisted with the investigation to speed things along for whatever reason. I would bet they were more than enough reasons to arrest mr Dotcom but the complexity and the cost might have made it a tough target vs other 'low hanging fruit' law breakers (FBI has limited resources too).
At the risk of being blatantly trollish, let me state for the benefit of the commenters apparently still caught up in it that Ayn Rand's works are to Philosophy what Twilight is to literature.
I wonder if they had a private Github repository or something containing their source for Megabox that wasn't seized. How cool would that be if they open-sourced it?
mmmm looks more of an another "conspiracy theory" to me than something real.
For example this service was announced one month ago, so the whole operation has only been planned for one month by the FBI? Seems highly suspicious, it takes months to years to do something in several countries at the same time...
More proof is needed that just a small coincidence.
"This is stupid and wrong. The investigation into MegaUpload took two years. This post wants me to believe the US government convinced the New Zealand government to perform a 70+ person raid in two weeks? The government can't give authorization to someone to tie their shoe in under two weeks!
More importantly, this is an opinion piece with zero facts or evidence posted by a freaking high school student. Why in the hell is this nonsense being posted to HN?"
I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.