[planetguy]

You do realize that if people like Kim Dotcom ... is that really his name? Fuck him, apparently his name is Kim Schmitz and I don't care what stupid name he changed his name to.

Wait, sorry, I got distracted, let me start my paragraph again.

You do realize that if people like Kim Schmitz win their legal cases it'll just mean a massive push to change the law? If current laws aren't good enough to stamp out things like MegaUpload (which, let's face it, is a massive scale piracy site which exists to make money off other people's IP) then the laws will be changed until they can.

[jat850]

I'm going to throw in my opinion on the name thing. I welcome disagreement, especially in this specific case, but there have been 3 or 4 different occasions lately where I have seen something similar come up.

Kim Dotcom legally changed his name, for whatever purported reasons (publicity, most likely). He willfully has chosen this as his legal name, and while the name (or his reasons) might be silly or frivolous, I think he is owed the due respect of calling him by his chosen name.

Other noteworthy examples of late have been Ron Artest changing his name to "Metta World Peace" and Chad Johnson to "Chad Ochocinco" (which he may have changed back, I cannot recall at this time).

Their chosen names may too be silly or frivolous, and I have seen media examples where they have called it out and said "forget that, I'm calling him Ron Artest/Chad Johnson, I don't care what his legal name is."

In my belief this is patently disrespectful, in the same way that it was disrespectful for people to call Muhammed Ali "Cassius" after he changed his name, and in the same way it would be disrespectful for me to call you by some name that you did not wish to be called by (legally, for religious purposes, or any other personal reason).

I do fully understand your stance and I wouldn't call it "wrong", I just don't agree with it.

[J3L2404]

His name is the least of his problems, as his antics and sleaziness are well documented. He makes a terrible hero, which probably factored into his being singled out.

[planetguy]

>In my belief this is patently disrespectful, in the same way that it was disrespectful for people to call Muhammed Ali "Cassius" after he changed his name

Possibly, but since I don't respect Kimmy, it's appropriate that I should call him by his (sensible) birth name rather than the (ridiculous and embarrassing) name he chose for himself.

I don't respect Cassius Clay much either. Seriously, all that bragging is gauche. Saying you're "the greatest" just because you're pretty good at punching people? Get back to me when you've won a Fields Medal, dude.

[drcube]

How was MU different from any other cloud storage provider, or for that matter, Google?

They let people store data on their servers and access it over the web from their browser. That's it. You might as well say "Fuck Tim Berners-Lee, if current laws aren't good enough to stamp out things like the Web, then the laws will be changed until they can." Which, frankly, seems to be happening, unfortunately.

[tptacek]

MegaUpload operated with foreknowledge of extensive infringing activity on their site, and further willfuly acted to further that activity, for instance by creating an affiliate program that rewarded site members for pushing more copyrighted material to the site.

These assertions were corroborated by MegaUpload's own email.

Again: there are two sides to complying with copyright law to obtain protection under "safe harbor" rules. The side everyone is familiar with is "complying with takedown notices". But the other side, just as important, spelled out in the law, is not operating your service with foreknowledge of infringement. It isn't enough just to wait for copyright holders to send takedowns.

By actively courting piracy, MegaUpload forfeited safe harbor protections.

This question comes up in almost every thread about MegaUpload. The answer is very simple. Even if (in the back of their minds) the operators of Youtube must have known they were a haven for video piracy, so long as they themselves didn't engage with that piracy (and complied with takedowns) they were safe. MegaUpload's staff engaged.

[tzs]

> How was MU different from any other cloud storage provider, or for that matter, Google?

Google, Dropbox, and so on were not founded by people who had been convicted of fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement, and in their entire adult lives only seemed to not be involved in criminal activity when they were still on parole from their previous conviction and so HAD to keep clean to avoid having parole revoked.

That tends to make people, including law enforcement, give Google and the others the benefit of the doubt when they say that any misuse of their service is not intended on their part and they will try to stop it.

[rangibaby]

You do realize that the DMCA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA etc. were dreamed up without Kim Dotcom winning anything, except maybe a free raid on his house?

[FaceKicker]

So we shouldn't take advantage of current laws because then they might get changed and we wouldn't be able to take advantage of current laws anymore? Hm.

[Symmetry]

The Miranda decision didn't lead people to change the law, and that literally lets people get away with murder, not this moral equivalent of mass jaywalking.

[alan_cx]

I agree with your point. However, it will happen anyway. We know they are trying to force draconian laws down our throats already.

As I keep saying, people need to wake up and take some responsibility for allowing our democratically elected governments to treat us the people like their business pawns. Problem is most people dont care because it does not effect them. Never forget the selfish serf serving nature of humans.

Sorry to be biter and negative, but history has left me no option. Government will prioritise business over the rest of us. I mean, banks?

[grecy]

> If current laws aren't good enough to stamp out things like mixed race schools, same sex marriage, The right to privacy of your own information, etc. then the laws will be changed until they can.

FTFY

[J3L2404]

The majority of the HNers believe that there should be no intellectual property at all. Whether this is wise or not hardly matters because changing the law to reflect such a radical position will be virtually impossible. Enforcing the current law is, of course, another matter.

Edit: I could be wrong about the majority of HN but pg clearly feels that way.

[hythloday]

I'm aware that pg believes that intellectual property should enjoy less protection that it currently does (which I'd suggest is the consensus view of HN?). Your claim that he clearly feels that there should be no intellectual property is at odds with what I've read from him. Can you link me to what he's written or said that displays his feelings as you understand them?

[planetguy]

>The majority of the HNers believe that there should be no intellectual property at all.

Most also make their living off producing intellectual property, which is... interesting at the very least.

Also most will totally get onboard the intellectual property train as soon as it's the IP of a sympathetic target (e.g. The Oatmeal) that's being threatened.

Basically the average HNer believes that copyright law should be "I can have whatever I want for free", hasn't thought it through too carefully beyond that.