You don't shut down the Post Office if someone sends drugs through the mail - Wozniak on Dotcom
TV3 has published a transcript of John Campbell's interview with Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, in which Woz talks about his recent meeting with Kim Dotcom.
The transcript follows (watch the original interview here).
Wozniak's killer quote is:
If someone commits a crime shipping drugs on the sea, you don't drain the sea and say the sea is the problem. If they are mailing drugs through the post office you don't shut the post office down you try to get the people who are doing the wrong steps.
The internet as a whole, or file sharing services like the late Megaupload and Dropbox in particular, are just conduit. Don't blame it, just as you wouldn't blame NZ Transport if someone robbed a bank, then escaped on State Highway 1.
That's a neat argument (and one often trotted out by Dotcom's US lawyer Ira Rothken), but it's not that simple.
Megaupload wasn't a neutral conduit.
The indictment under which Kim Dotcom and his co-accused were arrested (read page 29), includes a quote from a promotion to Megaupload members::
“Today we are introducing our ground breaking Uploader Rewards.Our new reward program pays money and cash prizes to our uploaders. This makes Megaupload the first and only site on the Internet paying you for hosting your files.Let’s team up!”
In addition, the announcement stated: “You must have at least 50000 downloads within 3 months to qualify” and “You must allow us to list your files & descriptions on our Top 100 pages.” The rewards included “$1 USD Cash per 1000 downloads of your uploaded files”, plus an additional bonus between $50 to $5,000 for Top 100 “Megauploaders with the most downloads” during a three-month period, to be paid through PayPal according to the following ranking:
Rank 1: $5,000 USD Bonus
Ranks 2-5: $1,000 USD Bonus
Ranks 6-10: $500 USD Bonus
Ranks 11-50: $100 USD Bonus
Ranks 51-100: $50 USD Bonus
A later rewards scheme offered up to $US10,000 if your file proved popular.
Megaupload was incentivising users to upload content that would prove popular with other members of the file sharing service (and a lot of that was always going to be copyrighted) - the better for Megaupload to generate more ad revenue (via its proprietary ad-serving system), and more people willing to pay a for a $US10-a-month premium Megaupload account (necessary to watch a full-length movie).
Such a scheme is not inherently evil.
Even before his arrest, Kim Dotcom was proposing to cut artists in on the revenue - a concept he is now refining with his Megabox concept. Even Fortune magazine - part of the Time Warner stable that includes a studio and music label that allegedly suffered at the hands of Megaupload, has suggested he may be showing the way to make money in a post-copyright future (the claim is made in the latest print edition of Fortune; I'm struggling to find it on Fortune.com - anyone feel free to point out a link).
But it's nothing like the mail service. The Post Office never paid you to send a letter.
Meanwhile his new anti-Obama kim.com website, the Megaupload founder will further relish Hollywood liberals backing the US president - not doubt to his delight (though he has also sent a letter to the Hollywood reporter encouraging movie makers to embrace new media and new distribution models. It's worth noting at this juncture that Google-owned YouTube is also taking a progressive stance. If, say, someone posts a clip of their wedding party dancing to a Justin Bieber song and it goes viral, YouTube will approach the copyright holder and offer to split ad revenue as an alternative to a take-down. YouTube also offers a modest share of ad revenue to those whose clips attract more than 15,000 views).
His new song will also rile Hollywood, and fans of the current US president (and I'm guessing Kim is advertently or inadvertently offending some of his fan base with this move). Here's the YouTube clip:
Anyhow, here's Woz on Campbell Live last night:
Steve Wozniak: “I had not really known or followed Megaupload in my life before I meet Kim Dotcom at his house, I went to meet him because he was unable to come to see speak there because of a house arrest and I thought that would be a fair kind of exchange, a nice thing to do for him. And I went in just not knowing how he was going to appear, what kind of person he was, was he a criminal.
Copyrights need to be protected. We have gone through music, and we are struggling a bit. The music studios have got used to the new ways. But basically a lot of performers in music who used to get very good royalty cheques for huge hits of the past see their royalty cheques cut into a10th now, but that is the modern age, distribution is just so easy and free.
Well it is going to hit the movie industry, well it started a long time actually, but movies is a bigger deal maybe because there is so much more money in involved in making a lot of movies and now people can download them for free.
I am totally against people trying to get things for free that were created by creative people. I have close connections in the music industry, most of my best friends have some connection to the music industry. I am involved with film, I am involved with television. Basically their material should not be stolen.
The problem is you have to go after the people that are stealing it. If someone commits a crime shipping drugs on the sea, you don't drain the sea and say the sea is the problem. If they are mailing drugs through the post office you don't shut the post office down you try to get the people who are doing the wrong steps.
In this case I think instead of the studios going after Kim Dotcom who was running a service that was very hugely popular in the world and used by a lot of the people to basically steal movies and the like, instead of going after him they should have probably gone and arrested all the Church leaders that never gave people all the right morals.”
John Cambell: “I want to go back to the post office analogy; you don’t shut down a whole post office if someone sends drugs through the mail. It is also illuminating if there are lots of post offices and only one is closed. So, where Megaupload users doing anything that the users of countless other file sharing sites weren’t doing? Were they more predisposed to piracy? And was it, as is being alleged, a site that explicitly encouraged it?”
SW:“That is a good question that gets to the heart of the matter. I think that MegaUpload, well from what I heard it was doing the normal things that other file sharing sites use. I have Dropbox which I have used many a time, I have Apple iDisk that I have used many a time. I don't use it to purloin movies and send movies for free.
If I hear a song or something I might even send it to my son very quickly on the fly so he can get it in time, for free. But what I do I go back and I go buy a copy of the song or copy of the CD. Just to make myself super legal so I can talk about these things and not be on the other side.
If MegaUpload, and I don't know too much about it, was really telling people you know, "here is a way to steal your movies" that is bad and that is wrong, and I would really be against it. But I don't know that it is as much of a crime for a huge raid, shutting down a man's a life, his business, destroying his family, you know hurting his wife and kid and leaving him in limbo, you know sometimes you look for which side is being the most truthful, when I sat down with Kim at his table, he was open, sharing everything, answered every question and I was asking the devil's advocate questions.
I was not coming across like, "yeah yeah yeah like gung ho I am on your side", because I really wanted to know the issues and he was just so open.
And I look at the Government and their phony charges, the fact that they won't let him use his assets to pay his lawyers. They give him a cost of living but not the cost of his legal defence. That is just totally unfair, you want an unfair advantage. You only want an unfair advantage when you know already you are in the right, when you know deep in your heart. You are in the WRONG I mean. That is when you seek the unfair advantage cause you think you need it.
They will probably offer him some plead guilty to a little plea bargain type arrangement in the end and that is just another form of torture, plea bargaining, you can avoid something very horrible going through with us we will actually let you off the hook and let you out now if you just sign this thing saying you are guilty even though you are not.”
JC: That is a uniquely American way of doing business I think. I just want to pick up on a phrase there; ‘phony charges’, ‘The government’s phony charges’ – that’s strong language from a man who could certainly stay well out of this and sit on the sidelines and enjoy all the benefits of being a founder of Apple. Why are you speaking out?
SW: “I am very thankful when well know people speak out on issues, like the early classic rock groups, a lot of them would speak out against the Vietnam war, on issues that matter to a lot to us that are life and death. I personally grew up shy and I do not speak out, I never call the press, I never try make a point about something, but I grew up too honest and I will answer questions when they come my way and I will not lie.
So, it's just that the charges are so weak, I try to come down with... if I could find something really bad or criminal in there boy I would be speaking out that Kim Dotcom should be paying for his crime but I'm just finding like minor things like he parked too long.”
See the full interview on TV3's website here.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions34
Excuse me, but if the owners of "the post office" were knowingly shifting drugs "through the mail", I would expect them to be jumped on every bit as hard as megaupload was.
John you are out of touch with technology and how this service worked... which isnt abnormal given your age. But if you can rationalise the military raid carried out for the alledged crime of copyright then your moral compass if so far out of whack you should get that checked out by a professional, maybe greed has corrupted you so much it is too late
DOH!
Taking other peoples property and on selling it is greed, and it is against the law.
Technology has nothing to do with it, and I wish people who cannot/will not work for a living stop trying to use "technology" to confuse what is pure and simple THEFT.
you clearly have know idea John. a simplistic view for a complex case. but as always your condesending narcissistic mindset isnt out of place in the world of finance and politics today.
May I suggest that you first get an education, then get a real job and become a constructive and contributing member of society.
I have a degree in electrical eng. i am a senior software developer.
but good game John, again your out of touch and your attitude is exactly why society is on the path it is. the sooner you and your old cronies with similar mindsets die off the better the gene pool will be.
So now I understand why you want others software for free.
You can't develop your own!
Poor anonymous.
Still think a refresher course in the English language would help you.
we are legion =)
are you the "has been" cricketer trying to ride the last of your fame into politics via welly city council or some other john?
in any case you're awful condescending, for a guy that played sport for a living and has never made anything =) I guess that is what happens when fame goes to your head though.
"But it's nothing like the mail service. The Post Office never paid you to send a letter."
Maybe not directly, but amex and m/c give points on all my spend at the post office.
just like you had to pay to host files on megaupload to get the premium speed? you didnt get paid....
are all NBR readers technophobic?
Youtube also have an ongoing 'partners' programme where they pay uploaders for popular content, measured the same way (by 1000's of downloads). So do a number of other file storage companies who are not being persecuted...The main difference is that Youtube cut the recording studios in on the spoils.
Yes, that's the key point noted in the story - YouTube offers to pay rights holders a share as an alternative to a takedown.
And while YouTube offers a (tiny) cut of ad revenue if one of your clips gets 15,000 views or more, you have to get hundreds of thousands of views to make more than pocket money, and millions to get a serious cheque.
But anyhow, it is in keeping with my general theme that some file sharing services are not neutral conduits as in Woz's post office analogy.
Chris they are neutral conduits ... just with a different funding model that allows the service to be free to end users.... you will find that the old business model of "Owner and Peasant" is rapidly on the decline as people wake up to the fact that it doesnt have to be this way.
I'm not criticising incentives for uploading popular content. It could be the commercial way of a post-copyright future, as the main article notes.
But it does mean file sharing services are playing a pro-active role, not a neutral role - so they are have to expect to be involved in the legal wars to come.
The operational difference between the PO service and cloud storage systems is that the recipient initiates and pays for the distribution service rather than the sender or content provider.
I don't think that nullifies Wozniak's comparison. The internet has allowed a democratization of content provision to the ordinary individual which formerly was only available to large corporations. Service providers must be allowed to innovate.
"The internet has allowed a democratization of content ........."
Care to elucidate?
Individuals can self-publish.
"Individuals can self-publish."
Yes but they still shouldn't have to watch the likes of MegaUpload take it and use it with impunity. Should they?
Megaupload didn't take it or use it. Some of its customers may have. Just as some PO clients may sent illegal substances via its services.
mmmmm "Megaupload didn't take it or use it".
And therein is the debate, and you may be correct. We will just have to wait and see.
I could say "fencing" is an offence.
But I won't.
Absolutely the internet is democraticising content, in terms of making it more available to people (commercially or non-commercially).
The difference between Google's YouTube and Megaupload is that YouTube cuts artists and labels in on revenue - as well as anyone who uploads a clip that generates 15,000+ views.
Megaupload paid rewards to members, but did not give artists or labels or movie studios a slice of the action (though Kim Dotcom did talk about a service that would hand on revenue to artists, cutting labels out of the picture - something he's now pursuing with his still-on-the-drawing-board Megabox).
I hope music labels and movie studios don't just cheer on the legal action against Megaupload (which hasn't stopped anything - pirated content is still all over the Torrents) but also expand their commercial download efforts. And don't forget about NZ in the process.
Music labels have a lot to lose from democratisation as it enables artists to go straight to the consumer and cut them out. Movie studios somewhat less because of the investments involved in making big movies. However, time will tell whether the big story will remain viable against competition from short, sharp videos. Attention spans are getting shorter.
Chris, it is an innovative way to promote the business without using mainstream media. It is easier to promote to customers ou already have. They have the right to promote their business. And they never condoned piracy in any form. The main point in this Megaupload case is they are 100% protected by US laws which makes this case a farce.
The "Being Paid" thing is an absolute Red Herring. It has no bias on whether the act is legal or illegal. Take murder as an example. Whether someone is paid to murder (professional assassin), or pays to murder (someone with a sick fetish) it is still murder.
I like the analogy with the post office. It is a very good analogy.
The only question for me is why have they not shut down YouTube? Not that I think they should. You can openly see all the copyrighted music videos and movies.... And download them for nothing...
Its called double standards....
Being paid is everything. It makes YouTube and similar services a legitimate commercial distribution channel rather than a drain on copyholders' revenue.
"Being paid is everything."
Correct Mr Keall.
What puzzles me though, is the number of people who seem not to (or not want to), understand such a simple truth.
Should I blame our education system?
Quite obviously it is not everything. You don't get paid if you don't have something to sell and a willingness to sell it for a price someone wants to pay, in a way that is convenient for them and under conditions that are acceptable to them.
Moreover, regulators may control and prevent monopolistic behaviour by sellers. Also, of course, you shouldn't get paid for selling someone else's property. But property rights can be as complex as lawyers and legislators can devise.
In Dotcom's case, one major issue seems to be simply whether the right to remove copyrighted material satisfies the owner's property right and whether that was properly implemented. Getting paid had nothing to do with it.
"Getting paid had nothing to do with it"
I would think that the copyright owners might disagree with that?.
So did they negotiate with Dotcom for payments rather than removal rights? If not, why not?
Hi Alan,
"they" shouldn't have to negotiate, should they? Rather, Megaupload should negotiate with the copyright owners for stuff Mega would like? That's the way I see it?
That's like expecting a bank to authenticate every item a customer puts into its safe deposit boxes - except Dotcom had millions of boxes, not scores.
The Post Office may not pay you for your mail, but it does incentivise bulk mail users (those who send more than an occasional piece of mail ) by way of bulk mail discounts. Surely that is the same thing, conceptually.
The Feds have closed down over 1200 sites in the past 18 months (their own figures) for 'copyright infringement' - interesting that not one of them is based in the USA.
When are people going to understand the difference between ownership and rights??
Anonymous, I would be interested to know why you do not use your real name when signing off your comments.
My personal view is that if one wants to attack anonymously ones character rather than the issues( the latter which I would much prefer to address) then it shows a serious flaw in my humble opinion of a persons character not to publish ones name.