I've wondered if the outrageous prices paid for these companies might have been due to patents. Why else (other than sheer stupidity) would a company like Yahoo pay billions of dollars for a small website operation with relatively few customers and little to no revenue? And broadcast.com is far from the only one.
While the price for broadcast.com was shocking at the time, to argue that it had relatively few customers and little to no revenue is way off. At the time, broadcast.com really was *the* dominant player in any sort of audio online. You could easily look at it and think it would become something like YouTube today.
And the "real" problem is? DOJ found what it believed was sufficient and then returned full control back to the servers' owners. The reason MU has a problem is because it wants the owners to incur all of the data retention costs. If MU wants continuing retention, then MU should be the one to pay.
You're so full of shit it's not even funny. MU has indicated it is absolutely willing to pay. It just needs the assets unfrozen in order to pay -- and the DOJ has blocked it. It asked specifically for funds to pay for this very thing and the DOJ told the court not to allow it. Because the DOJ wants the exculpatory data destroyed.
Think what you will about Clapper, but at least fairly and objectively consider the propriety of Wyden did
The *propriety of what Wyden did*? That's not even in question. He did exactly what he was supposed to do, being a part of the *oversight* committee, designed to make sure that the NSA is not spying on Americans.
We've gone over your line of bullshit before and it's pure bullshit. If Clapper was afraid of revealing classified information he could have easily said "that's better left answered in a classified session" -- which is the same thing he's said in open hearings both before and after that hearing.
The idea that he had to lie is a lie. We've told you this before. Why do you keep repeating it? The only possible reason is that you are intellectually dishonest.
The DOJ seizes some 3rd party servers used by MU, it secures copies of files on such servers, and then it informs the 3rd parties that it has completed its search for evidence and the servers are once more under the operational control of the 3rd parties.
That's incredibly misleading spin. First, they secured copies of *some* files -- just the ones they wanted, not anything that might be exculpatory. Second, they ALSO seized all of Megaupload's money, meaning that it can no longer pay to keep those servers. You make it sound like they returned them to Megaupload. That's simply misleading.
To say this means the DOJ is countenancing or encouraging the destruction of files residing on those private service is misleading to a fault
No, you're the one misleading to a fault. The DOJ flat out told Carpathia that it should go ahead and destroy the evidence. You can't do that in a criminal case.
Sheesh...the issue of these servers and what they contain is a private matter between the server owners and their former customer MU. If MU deems the information residing on those servers as critical to the pending legal action, then it is up to MU to find a way to pay the bills needed to keep the data residing on the servers.
Easy to say that when the DOJ has also sezied all their assets. You can't honestly believe what you said above.
As for the truly innocent having files that are still resident on those servers and are in no way anything associated with the suit at hand, perhaps they should take a lesson from the fallout associated with the Bernie Madoff saga and other sagas of similar ilk. Be more discriminative with whom you deal and always retain a local backup.
Kyle Goodwin did retain a local backup. And it failed. So when he went to restore it from one of the MOST POPULAR cloud backup solutions out there, the US government shut it down completely, based on a highly questionable indictment.
So, your argument is, once again, completely bullshit.
Since it seems like these debates quickly turn into screaming matches, I just wanted to point to a recent episode of EconTalk which was a very interesting and reasoned debate on the issue of climate change:
when you run your mouth about it, then you deserve the shit you got!
Easy to say. You're not the one facing decades in jail.
Don't be surprised, should Snowden ever come back if he takes a plea deal as well. You DO NOT understand the calculus that goes into the decision -- OR the pressure that the DOJ puts on people to accept a deal.
People who insist that no one should accept a plea deal are people who have never been in that situation.
That'd take a slight variation in language. Make it clear that it's not the posting without permission, but the posting without permission of material that the subjects had a legally recognized expectation would not be made public. So, a photograph taken in a public place where photographs were being taken? The subject has no expectation that photographs wouldn't be made public. Photographs taken in your bedroom when they weren't being taken for public distribution, or where they were taken without your knowledge? That's when the site needs to be careful.
So... Gawker and the Toronto Star would be in *criminal* trouble for posting photos of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack in a private home?
Or... what about Chad Hurley taking a short video at Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's wedding and posting it online. That was a private event.
It might be better to criminalize, not the hosting of such material, but the solicitation of such material.
Still a potential can of worms. How about the celebrity gossip site that solicits photos of celebrities, and some of those show celebrities in a less than flattering light. How do you distinguish that situation?
We agree, but you missed the point. They are all costs related to obtaining the free product, and has nothing to do with marginal costs. What it means is that the marginal cost model does not work in this situation, because that is not the post of cost. For what it's worth, ISP costs are more like a bread that goes stale, use it or lose it.
Almost nothing in this paragraph makes sense. We only care about the marginal costs in these situations. That's why the book itself is called the zero marginal cost society. The fixed costs are a different issue entirely. No one has ever said the fixed costs go away.
Remember too, those same costs exist on the provider side as well. Your infinite thus free concepts don't seem to be able to handle what happens when the fixed costs are the main driver. What models do you think apply to business that have large fixed costs but little in the way of marginal costs, say like a cloud hosting provider or a software distribution firm?
I've outlined the details for this multiple times. The point is that even when you have large fixed costs, you're almost certainly creating scarcities where you can charge (you leave the infinite free, and charge for the scarce). Generally speaking that often means charging for the *service* but leaving the product free (which is what most cloud hosting firms do already). For software, it depends on the software, but look at firms like IBM and Red Hat who make a shit ton of money giving software away for free, but making money on service.
Many of the business models work only by not adhering to regulations in order to offer a better price point or to offer a service that is otherwise not permitted by law. If AirBnB renters first had to have their premises safety inspected, certified by the city, insured with commercial liability, and licensed as at minimum a bed and breakfast, then the pricing model would be different and thus their competitive advantages lost.
Did you ignore my whole point? Why, yes, you did. First, that's not necessarily true, but even if it was, the point here was that the only reason why you need regulations for safety inspections, commercial liability and licensing is because of the lack of information in the traditional system. However, with AirBnB, where there is tremendous transparency, and a system of clear reviews, it takes care of itself. A place that is not clean or safe gets low ratings and no one is willing to rent it. Information flow and a trust model takes care of the need for regulations, thus making those regulations obsolete for such services.
Protecting the consumer is more than just responding to outrageous situations. I was thinking more along the line of straight rip-offs, injury insurance claims, fire hazards, and the like. Protecting the consumer is as much about protecting them from harm and risk, as it is about answering their problems on the run.
Traditional regulations tend to have little to actually do with that, and a lot more to do with keeping out the competition.
An example would be a pirated download, you still have the cost of your ISP, electricity, wear on your computer, and so on to consider. Most of us can't quantify it, but there is a marginal cost even in the act of piracy.
Those aren't *marginal* costs (with the *possible* exception of electricity). The cost of the ISP is fixed, not marginal. The wear on the computer is fixed, not marginal. People always make this mistake, but *marginal* cost has a meaning and your examples are not marginal. Even the electricity claim is likely not a marginal cost if you assume the computer would likely be on anyway. Then it's a fixed cost.
Most of these companies are examples not so much of disruptive models, as much as models that are predicated on getting around existing laws and restrictions to make things go. AirBnB is currently facing the reality of having to charge and collect hotel room taxes in more and more places. Many of these types if businesses also run without true consideration for the laws in place regarding safety and security, such as not requiring appropriate insurance or certification for the people who provide services. In the US where liability lawsuits fly fast and thick, most of these business models seem only one disaster away from total failure.
That is... unlikely at best. Take for example, the infamous "XXX Freak Fest" story that hit Airbnb a few weeks ago. That's exactly the sort of "disaster" you're talking about. But, all of the evidence suggests that Airbnb responded in a way that has actually *increased* trust.
And that's really why many of these are actually disruptive. They're not routing around regulations because of some great advantage, it's that the regulations themselves were poor proxies for systems where there was inherently less information sharing. These new systems rely on greater information sharing, creating greater levels of trust, which make the regulations appear to be very poor proxies. Instead, the trust systems built up by these services do a MUCH better job protecting consumers and producers alike.
They're also a part of various food-chains, which will fuck up if you wipe them out.
Actually, in that first link (the Radiolab segment) an expert talks about how it's not at all clear that's true, and in searching for such things, she couldn't find any evidence of the importance of mosquitos for *any* system.
I'm all for stopping these law firms from actions like this but to force them to pay back monies they have already collected? The courts only have the ability to stop further collection efforts, not to force Prenda to send back monies already collected.
Their fraud on the court is one thing, it doesn't affect what they are legitimately collecting from filesharing users.
Except the ruling is not about that at all. It was just about whether or not there was fraud on the court. So your analysis makes no sense.