When booking flights (and probably hotels) use incognito mode. I was booking a flight direct with united.com the other day - found the flight at ~$400 and was entering information. Got sidetracked and the booking session timed out so I started again. New price for the exact same thing: ~$700. Incognito mode (or just clearing cookies as I've heard of this happening but never saw it myself) and it was back to the old price.
Substantial depends on the type of business you want to setup, there is no scale. For an early stage internet company it's certainly possible with 100k
I don't think it's totally unrelated, only having one or two third party life lines for charging customers in a currency other than AUD is fairly dire for the success of any "Silicon Valley" if the startups are planning on making any money from global online sales.
Do the fees that PayPal charge really cross the line from a possible business idea to non-viable one for you?
There may be some sectors which you could say you can't compete in on a global stage from Australia because of payment processing fees but it really wouldn't be many. What is the big deal about setting up a US company to handle it? Why not charge US customers in USD?
There are so many options that to dismiss running a business from Australia because of the extra few % really may be a problem in your business plan and product instead of payment processing options/cost.
I think you found the answer in your question. If I have to setup a US company because I can't get support in Australia to accept USD on my site, what else should I be doing in the US? It's got nothing to do with business plans or PayPal fees, it's about offering a professional solution on a global scale.
Am I in the tiny minority here who thinks that what Megaupload was doing was illegal and should be prosecuted? Ok I get it, the US is trying to apply their laws onto the world and that is a big issue but this seems like the wrong case to get outraged over. Megaupload was built for the purpose of hosting/sharing copyrighted files. You know it and I know it.
What do you mean when you say that "what Megaupload was doing was illegal"? In a civilized world, before there can be punishment for a crime, the crime must be proven. A hunch of illegal activity is not enough. That's the difference between the rule of law and a lynch mob. The government must actually prove that the law was violated. And even before the government is allowed to inconvenience a defendant by search or seizure, the government must have evidence that gives a neutral judge probable cause that a crime has been been committed by the suspect. When government doesn't follow the rules and just uses its enormous power to persecute, then it's the government that is the criminal actor, a much more dangerous criminal actor than any private one. People should be outraged when government actors abuse their power and the abusers should be severely punished. Liberty is too important to tolerate people in government who act lawlessly.
I absolutely see where you're coming from, but let me ask you this:
I go out today and forge a $400 million dollar check from Paul Graham. I put it in at the bank and the teller, who's totally asleep at the wheel, cashes it for me. Now, the government wants to charge me with check fraud, since I signed the check and I'm obviously not Paul Graham. I want to use those $400 million dollars of Paul Graham's money to pay for my own legal defense. Would you say that, since the government hasn't proven that I've done something illegal until the end of the trial, that I should have the right to use all of the money I've stolen to pay for that defense? Or should that account be frozen for the duration of the trial so that, in the event that I am found guilty, the money could be returned to his account?
The first issue I have with your example is that, according to you, "guilty until proven innocent" is acceptable at least in some circumstances - say, when you're really really sure he's done it, you just can't prove it yet.
The second issue is that your example has absolutely nothing to do with the MegaUpload case. If you want to live in a country where the government has the right to seize all your assets and destroy your business without having to justify itself, I won't pretend to understand you, but I'll accept that it's your right. But I refuse to live in a world where that same government has the right to do so to everyone, including people it doesn't actually govern in countries where its laws do not apply.
As I said, I see where you're coming from. The US government is completely in the wrong. It had no jurisdiction over MegaUpload and this case should never even have started.
Additionally, I never argued that the government has the right to seize all assets without justification. First, the government should only have the ability to freeze assets related to the case at hand. I should only lose access to the $400 million in question, not any of my other property. That $400 million should be kept safe, so that it may be returned to me at the end of the trial if I'm found not guilty (another place where the government is failing).
Additionally, I don't believe that the government should be able to do this without needing to explain itself. This should only occur if the government has been able to justify before a grand jury that there is reason to believe that I have committed a crime and that the loss of this money would aggravate the nature of the crime. For instance, in my check fraud hypothetical, the $400 million should be frozen, since my spending it would aggravate the crime. On the other hand, there's no reason for me to be held in prison, since the act is completed. Now, if I'm accused of attempted murder, it is logical that I should be prevented from going near the person I'm accused of trying to kill.
You'll argue that the grand juries are a joke and I'd say that you're right. They are broken and need to be fixed. However, once they are fixed, they should serve as a temporary, provisional guilty in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
I don't particularly care about Megaupload. For me the issue here is that the behaviour of the prosecutor seems far worse than the things they claim Megaupload has done. It seems like the prosecutor in this case does not care the least about the rule of law.
Meanwhile Megaupload might have contributed indirectly to copyright infringement and some of their staff might have copied a file or two themselves. Big deal.
I'm more concerned about the legal system being abused than about something that should have been a civil lawsuit at most. I'm particularly concerned about how they've effectively tried hard to destroy a business before either the business or its principals have even had a chance to defend themselves in court.
Confiscating money; trying to get the data erased. They're acting as if Megaupload and its principals have already been convicted. Meanwhile the case is unravelling more, to the point where the US judged involved has openly questioned whether this will go to trial at all, especially given such "little" issues as whether or not they can even serve criminal charges on a non-US company. Small little issues that the prosecutor should have known very well would be an issue before the arrests and asset seizures.
I can be outraged over the case even while thinking Megaupload probably have engaged in quite sleazy and possibly illegal behaviour.
I don't know how to convey the opposite opinion in a way you've likely not heard before. I'll go to extremes.
And a handgun is made to kill people. But we generally agree there's a limited context in which that is acceptable, so we allow it. If I want to store my files online, copywritten or not, there's nothing illegal about it.
The accusations are that Megaupload was in conspiracy to commit piracy, knowingly working with mass pirates to make large and legally significant amounts of money for themselves, and the indictment presents IM logs and communications that allegedly prove it.
If a file host is like a gun shop, then Megaupload was allegedly like an arms dealer.
Yes, that's the allegation. However, the post I replied to seemed to be saying that "what's the big deal? This service can only be about piracy." I'm saying "no, we don't all agree that this service inherently exists to serve piracy. There are legit uses that exist, and the service is a valid one."
And besides, the best analogy to digital lockers? Actual lockers. Their purpose is "hold stuff". If someone uses them for drugs, it's that person who is in trouble. And to presume the intent of the existence of lockers, even if one bus station does cater to gunmen, is silly.
We should all be able to look at lockers and say "there's nothing wrong with that."
Well, in general if you work with criminals to use X to commit crimes, that's committing a crime, where X is in {file sharing, guns, lockers, most other things...}
The US gov't's actual allegations are not particularly exceptional. If you're of the mind to worry about this case, I think there are other things to worry about in this case.
I'm down voting you because, to be fair, it was me that started it. In the post he replied to I compared it to guns, and file storage (not piracy) to killing. He was going with my analogy.
If the printing shop actively helped in the photocopying and promoted that they would photocopy textbooks, then they are criminally liable. This is why most copy shops make you sign the stupid copyright form when you ask them to copy stuff for you.
Not saying that's what happened here (haven't read the court materials).
No, you go after the paper and ink companies. While we are at it, go after the ISP, sorry, highways authorities. After all the road facilitated your ability to photocopy. How about the electricity supplier?
Legally, yes, sometimes the source of the copying is in fact criminally culpable (the print shop), but usually only if they understood what was going on.
If a print shop in Los Angeles were to serve a high volume of student customers, and the print shop knew they were breaking the law by making copies of textbooks and selling them, the print shop would have a massive liability over its head. It would require proving that the print shop knew what the students were doing.
Yes, that's what's at trial here. But in the post I replied to, I was taking issue with the insinuation that "OF COURSE that's what was happening here!" As if to imply online storage with easy download is inherently about piracy.
Megaupload is a lot like limewire. They did the bare minimum, like honoring the occasional take down request, but make no real effort to minimize file-sharing of copyrighted content. This is clearly unethical. (unless you don't believe that sharing copyrighted content is unethical, which seems to be a popular opinion these days).
Compare this with how Apple sells iPods. iPods and pirated music go together very well, but Apple makes a real effort to get people to pay for music.
Doing the bare minimum to properly follow rules set by someone else is not unethical. They were doing the bare minimum as outlined by the rules. If that's not enough then the rules need to change.
If I gave you a list of twenty things you can do and I state that you only need to do five of them, are you unethical for only doing five? Now add to that where I pay you money on the first five items but then you pay me money for every item completed after that. Are you unethical for only doing five?
You can say that their efforts at doing the bare minimum were making them money and I would respond that's more the reason to change the rules. A business exists to make money and will follow the rules as best as needed to keep making money. Whether the rules concern civil laws, criminal laws, and tax laws. You can see this throughout the business world, it's not a new concept.
If I were to start a file sharing service (or a file hosting service, which I don't believe MU was) it would be my number one priority to have systems in place to stop the sharing of copyrighted material. You know why? Because that is clearly my number 1 risk. The simple fact is MU built their business on it.
You're exactly right about the popular opinion seeming to be that sharing copyrighted content is ok.
Yes. MU was created to share files. It is not illegal.
Were you, back in the day, suggesting BASF, or who ever, should be prosecuted for selling blank cassette tapes? Were they for illegal recordings, or just recordings?
Presumably too, since google can search specifically for torrents and offers a great way to store files, that it too should be shut down, founders arrested and servers seized?
What happens when encrypted RAIDed cloud sharing happens?
Personally I've used Megeupload many times to get entirely legit mods for video games. They were almost certainly engaging in copyright infringement, and if they'd gotten sued for millions of dollars I'd say fair's fair. But that wasn't what happened, instead a frigging SWAT team was sent in to raid their facilities and all their gear was taken, and the they were charged with felonies which they weren't, in fact, guilty of.
Yes they were criminals, but the response was way out of proportion to the crime. Its like some cop is walking down the street, sees someone clearly speeding, and pulls out his gun and tries to shoot out the car's tires. Catching the criminal isn't worth the chance of someone accidentally ending up dead.
I am neither a lawyer nor an American, but if the claims in the article are true, the law wasn't followed. The outrage is over nullification of the constitution.
> Ok I get it, the US is trying to apply their laws onto the world and that is a big issue but this seems like the wrong case to get outraged over.
And what is it that you can do once they do the same for a not-so-wrong case(wrong is your phrasing; I don't think this is the case wrong case to get outraged over). The motives to circumvent the law and go after mega doesn't look altruistic to me. Since for them, it was never about right or wrong, how does your perceptions of morality even matter? You aren't the one making the calls, and the one making the calls aren't doing it because they thought mega business is evil.
> Megaupload was built for the purpose of hosting/sharing copyrighted files. You know it and I know it.
I would be happier in a world where a site for copyright infringement stays in business, compared to a world where a couple of lobbyists can circumvent the law to get what they want.
Youtube is even worse - they have the added convenience of streaming copyrighted HD video, right on their page in your web browser! With their logo and advertising around it. But that's different...
