Hacker News Reader

The charge against Megaupload was not that they hosted copyrighted content but that they knowingly did so and encouraged it through their affiliate program.

Youtube actively does the same thing with people directly making money using 'pirated' content.

Note: They currently remove specific content when requested and even automate the process. But, you can still find plenty of 'pirated' content where the owner has yet to complain.

In what way? This was true when YouTube first launched (I've heard stories that the founders uploaded copyrighted movies and tv shows themselves) but YouTube has a system in place now that removes copyrighted content automatically and it works pretty well (some say too well).

That's not true at all. I can find dozens of full length movies and hundreds of full length albums on YT, all uploaded illegally.

You're not wrong, but it's only because that content hasn't been entered into their system or because the copyright holder isn't actively requesting content be removed.

Type in the search terms "full album" and then tell me their automatic removal of copyrighted material is working pretty well.

It's up to the copyright holder if content is removed. YouTube gives the holder the option to leave content up but take any ad revenue.

"copyrighted" != "cannot be shown"

copyrighted means that the owner of the copyright is the only one with the right to decide when/where/how it gets shown. But if that owner is cool with it being on Youtube, there's no reason for it to be taken down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNd1l7LsxvU

This person covered the entire youtube screen in popups to his other stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDcrGq_fyoE&src_vid=hhHPnT_h...

No, that's not the same thing. The law doesn't say that you can't have any pirated content on your service. It says you can't knowingly have pirated content. Once you learn about a stolen movie on your site, you have to take it down.

When, like Dotcom, you instead actively solicit pirated material, optimize the pirated material on your site for quality, and pay users to put more pirated material on your site using a sliding scale based essentially on how pirated the material is, the DOJ reasonably concludes that you are not a public video site like Youtube, but rather a criminal conspiracy.

Dotcom appeared to have been operating under the misconception that a "notice and takedown" system insulated him from that charge. Dotcom didn't actually read the DMCA, because notice and takedown is only ~half of the responsibility of an online service. The other half, written right into the DMCA, is operating without red flag knowledge of pirated content.

It's a little more nuanced than that. They are aware that for example much foreign TV content is going to be on their site without active intervention. However, they don’t actively protect this content without direct assistance.

Basically, unless you complain we are going to pirate the hell out of your content.

They aren't required to actively protect whole classes of content. They're simply required not to operate with specific knowledge of individual pirated videos on their service.

I don't think it's enough to simply never look at the contents of your database while massive piracy is going on. YouTube goes beyond a simple DMCA request by providing tools to keep content from showing up on their site. And I suspect that's what's deemed sufficient protection where simply complying with each DMCA request is not enough.

You could also interpret Google's behavior there as an attempt to forestall any changes to the law.

If you're curious what was "deemed sufficient" you can read the court opinions from when Viacom sued YouTube/Google (and lost). [1]

As I read it, the only additional "protection" that Google was required to implement was to have a policy of banning "repeat infringers." There is some additional statutory language about accommodating "standard technical measures" that are "used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works," but as far as I can tell no such measures were identified so that didn't constrain Google in any way.

[1] District Court: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1830782936500485... Appeal: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1364457904897559...

What does the DMCA have to do with New Zealand and why should he have read US laws?

I wish that you had received an answer. I have always wondered the same thing.

Presumably because international treaties extend the reach of certain domestic laws.

... Or because the Copyright cartels bribed the NZ gov't to roll over.

We'll never know.

They are protected under the safe harbor porvision of the DMCA which basically says that if someone says "That's my stuff, take it down" they have to take it down. However if no one complains, YouTube can argue that millions of videos are added everyday, they can't possibly screen them against every piece of copyrighted music/film ever made.

Uber runs services despite knowing that they are against local law and waits until courts stop them.

I think the comparison at least has some merits.

Which was illegal under what jurisdiction?

What's your source on Uber and AirBnB actually endagering life and causing damage? I get that you might not like their business plan, which is a totally legit opinion, but a claim like that do need a source.

> Blah blah blah source....

Around here to run a taxi you need several things. One is a commercial vehicle driver's license, which requires training above and beyond the normal license. You also need commercial insurance, to protect yourself, your passengers, and the insurance company (else they would have to raise premiums for everyone to accommodate risky, illicit behaviour). Taxis are required to have cameras, to protect the drivers and passengers. From what I've seen of UberX's 'requirements', they violate in nearly every way, and I don't think I need a 'source' to state why a lack of training, insurance, and safety measures could harm people.

As for AirBnB, imagine you own a condo and someone across from you is running an illicit hotel. These kinds of things affect safety (random people who don't live there constantly coming and going), property value, and hurts legitimate businesses that actually employ people (say, the real BnB or Hotel nearby that follows all the regulations and thus has to pay higher costs). And of course, if you own a condo, are renting is, and your tenants are illegally subletting, the damage is more direct.

Glazier's fallacy blah blah blah more statism blah blah blah remove choice blah blah.

Surely there is a reason these taxi regulations are in place. Or not. In any case, is it fair?

My opinion of Uber was something like "great for competition". But of course they can only compete because they're doing so not quite legally, and to great benefits compared to normal taxi drivers.

A normal taxi company might've gotten this large by releasing a good app with some funding, but I doubt it because of the huge advantage Uber has compared to everyone else.

I agree with what I think your point is. But I think you're getting downvoted because you did a lousy job of expressing it, and you did it in a rather disrespectful manner. We try to aim higher on HN.

You've argued that they're breaking the law, not that they cause significant damage. It's a fair point in and of itself but it's not the one you made two posts earlier and it's not the one you need to defend. Laws are notorious for inefficiently spending large amounts of resources to chase after marginal returns (which often go negative without anyone realizing).

For instance: cameras might not have nearly as good of a value proposition in a situation where the identity of the passenger is recorded up front. Extra training might not be necessary if customers have a functioning mechanism to share their intuitive judgements about dangerous drivers.

To be honest, I could (for lack of interest I didn't) find you sources which show that Uber could be safer than average taxi companies. The reasoning:

- After riding with Uber you get a map sent to you, this could help in proving that a taxi driver tried to rape a woman customer in a dark ally. (this has happened, driver got fired and charged) With a regular taxi it's your word against theirs.

- With Uber you are 100% sure the driver is working for Uber, since you ordered it through the app and the app shows you the license plate. With regular taxis you have to trust that the taxi license is real if you hail a cab on the street.

- With Uber you rate the driver after the ride, which makes sure that bad drivers get detected very quickly. With regular taxis you have to file a complaint, which most people don't because it's too much of a bother.

- With Uber you don't need to have anything representing money on you to get a ride. With regular taxis you need either cash or a credit card on you to pay for the ride, which is a safety issue before, during and after the ride.

I agree with you that there are some issues with a company like Uber just doing whatever they want. However, there are some pretty big issues with the current taxi industry and Uber is doing a prety good job at highlighting them and providing alternatives.

How does a photo of a license plate prove driver identity?

Doesn't that require a photo of the driver?

> After riding with Uber you get a map sent to you, this could help in proving that a taxi driver tried to rape a woman customer in a dark ally. (this has happened, driver got fired and charged) With a regular taxi it's your word against theirs.

stop hailing strange taxis. Call a dispatch. Boom, accountability.

>With Uber you are 100% sure the driver is working for Uber, since you ordered it through the app and the app shows you the license plate. With regular taxis you have to trust that the taxi license is real if you hail a cab on the street.

that's unfair as the comparison is simply outside the scope of what Uber offers. One could also argue that Uber drivers cannot pickup a person hailing them; but no one should make that argument, because Uber does not try to emulate that particular function of the taxi service.

> With Uber you don't need to have anything representing money on you to get a ride. With regular taxis you need either cash or a credit card on you to pay for the ride, which is a safety issue before, during and after the ride.

how is a credit card a risk? Give it to the perpetrator , ensure your safety, claim the losses. If you're talking about material worth, I hope you don't carry any devices with you.

>I agree with you that there are some issues with a company like Uber just doing whatever they want. However, there are some pretty big issues with the current taxi industry and Uber is doing a prety good job at highlighting them and providing alternatives.

A third party hopping and skipping over established transportation safety regulation is not doing a good job at providing alternatives; it's simply trying to make money before government regulation radically changes the market or the IPO occurs (which will in turn cause a sudden relaxation of 'boundary-pushing' on Uber's part, relaxing government legal worries and providing customers with a worse product after brand establishment and customers begin to rely on earlier iterations)

Uber and Lyft are not taxis. They are at most livery cabs.

They do not and should not operate under the same rules as taxis. They are much more like the airport shuttle services that have been operating without taxi licenses or medallions for decades. They simply have a novel way to summon the vehicle that does not involve placing a voice call to the company's scheduler and dispatcher.

There are more types of vehicle-for-hire services than just taxicabs, and they don't need to follow the same regulations.

Livery cabs around here do need to follow most of the same regulations. In fact, they apply to any situation where anyone is driving a vehicle for commercial reasons (say, a courier, moving service, any sort of taxi/cab, etc...).

Do I actually get a permit to drive a friend or can he just decide to get into my car like an adult?

It's not a commercial activity. Come on, you should know the difference.

Just like if I have a Barbeque at home and invite my friends it's a different scenario than selling Barbeque and beer out of my backyard...

Logical persons would not make that question, assuming from the start that unlike Uber drivers, your friend knows you.

You are correct. Selling other peoples work for pennies on the dollar, is a legitimate business model, and not a criminal enterprise.

This case had nothing to do with MU hosting other people's work and content, tricking the general public into signing up to a paid account to download it, and generating 400MM of revenue from it at the same time.

It had everything to do with the horse carriage industry trying to stop the automobile.

I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcastic or not. It looks like in taking the Devil's advocate position, you just drew a pretty close parallel between what the "other" "real" incumbent entertainment industry companies themselves actually do all day long masquerading as "legitimate enterprise" and what Mega-co the competition is doing.

Of course copyright is not actually licensed as FRAND like in the case of a patent accepted by some standards body, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be when the alternative seems to be violent state-sponsored actions against foreign nationals like Kim Dotcom, protecting interests of incumbent super-companies and using various kinds of taxpayer dollars to invoke the police and para-military in the process.

Looks like an ifbywhiskey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey

Huh. I wonder why this is addressed as a fallacy. I was thinking this is poignant. To me it reads more like "can't have your cake and eat it too."

Like, if you are selling access to content, the producers are reasonably entitled to a share of your revenue. But if the producers sign their rights away (granting "entity" an exclusive license to sell reproductions) they are entitled to whatever you signed to pay at the dotted line, only. That's how the content industry was run since forever.

When those licenses are written as non-exclusive, you might have a gnarly mess of Guitarist and Singer authorize Band authorizes Agent authorizes Advertising Partner authorizes Radio Station authorizes Distribution Company authorizes Pandora/Netflix authorizes Partner, and Friends. If one of those contracts goes south (non-payment or expiration), are all of the subcontracting child parties suddenly violating criminal law and liable for jail time because they're now distributing copyrighted works without authorization?

Of course not, they are in breach of contract, or in a contract dispute, or a failure to achieve a meeting of the minds, or whatever. You don't go to jail. Not in any reasonable society, at least I would argue. Not before one of the entitled parties says "cease and desist," and after you fail to comply within a reasonable period of time, and even then certainly not before a judge says so.

>You are correct. Selling other peoples work for pennies on the dollar, is a legitimate business model, and not a criminal enterprise.

So, like Spotify?

Spotify is voluntary, any rights holder that wants to can not participate. See Taylor Swift.

A better example of make available for download and ask permission later, which in contrast to MU, was not shutdown by the courts, might be grooveshark.

Is it expensive to get these permits, or is it just a hassle? Serious question.

Was in San Diego for RubyConf. While there, took 3 Ubers: 1 bad experience, 1 meh, 1 good. Asked good one about issues re airport pickups/dropoffs, which apparently require permit that almost no Uber don't have (and some cab drivers don't have). He explained to me it's only a few hundred dollars, and requires some classes and paperwork. Hardly a crisis of overbearing regulation.

My experience with Uber was that it's merely a way for those who want to be cab drivers to bypass the legal requirements to do so, while Uber turns a blind eye to who is really driving their cars.

"But other people are also breaking the law" isn't a proper defense.