<story><title>Kim Dotcom’s first TV interview: ‘I’m no piracy king’</title><url>http://www.3news.co.nz/Kim-Dotcoms-first-TV-interview-Im-no-piracy-king/tabid/817/articleID/244830/Default.aspx</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>rasur</author><text>I think some of the points Kim makes are interesting:&lt;p&gt;- He complies with the DMCA.
- He provides direct &apos;delete&apos; access to his servers for the content companies.
- The content companies that claim to be losing billions, with direct access to his servers so far have failed to file any legal complaint with his lawyers.&lt;p&gt;I&apos;m sure as much as we want to dislike him for his previous flamboyant behaviour, he has some legitimate points and a legitimate company providing a legitimate service (and one that is similarly provided by other companies, some of which are household names).&lt;p&gt;Call me cynical, but this smells of being such a monumental set-up that it makes the farm full of cows just down the road from me seem like a breath of fresh air.</text></comment>
<story><title>Kim Dotcom’s first TV interview: ‘I’m no piracy king’</title><url>http://www.3news.co.nz/Kim-Dotcoms-first-TV-interview-Im-no-piracy-king/tabid/817/articleID/244830/Default.aspx</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>tweak2live</author><text>In my unprofessional legal view, it seems that what the copyright clique is really hoping to gain from this case is a precedent for making website owners responsible for ensuring that content uploaded to their site is copyright kosher.&lt;p&gt;Currently, the copyright holder has to crawl the internet to make sure their copyright isn&apos;t being violated somewhere and if so - file a takedown order. This is very whack-a-mole and when it comes to cyberlockers - intractable, since many external links can resolve to the same file. Locker admins have to only remove the offending link to comply with a takedown request, as it is impossible (without knowing the internal code structure) to prove whether two links resolve to the same file or different copies thereof. The linkers can simply check periodically to make sure their links are current and update as necessary, which can be easily automated.&lt;p&gt;The copyright holders cannot automate the discovery process (not without huge resources, anyway), while the copyright infringing parties can easily automate their side. This inherent unbalance creates a difficult policing problem that copyright holders (naturally) don&apos;t want to be responsible for.&lt;p&gt;It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If UGC site admins become legally compelled to monitor what they are hosting, the overhead will kill most ad-only revenue models. If not, copyright holders will have to hire some sort of copyright police (does it already exist? if not --&amp;#62; startup_idea_masterlist.add() ).&lt;p&gt;Opinion question: what is the &quot;ok/not ok&quot; line for encouraging your users to use your (online) service for illegal activities (esp. copyright infringement)? Paying them to do it seems to be clearly &quot;over the line&quot;, as far as US gov. is concerned. What about publicly announcing that you are not going to police their data?</text></comment>