9 ms·

At the risk of megadownvoting here... Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. T

At the risk of megadownvoting here... Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. The site paid people (users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular content. It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips,and then charge $10 a month for access then no wrong has been committed. But I think most right-minded people would say that is wrong - otherwise we'd all be doing it. Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money over a five to seven year period doing this. But the risk that came with that was that eventually he'd face serious jailtime. I cannot believe that Megaupload is being touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild. It is, pure and simple, a piracy site full of pirated material. I'd be astounded [see update] if anyone here uses it for anything other than pirating. But let's not pretend it's Dropbox - it isn't. I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. What was its business? Was it being used to distribute Wikipedia archives? To host videos of people's kids singing? No - it was hosting pirated content. Not torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS. [Update: It seems some people below did use it for sending big files. Colour me astounded. I've never had to do this so it's new to me. I guess the fact remains that they had to subsidise this activity somehow - and that they made their money off popular content. They have to hope this is enough to cover their asses.]

rplnt 15y ago
I too am glad that someone finally went for the big guys. Rapidshare should be next in my opinion. They only make money on piracy and they know it. On the other hand, I hate when p2p networks are targeted (thepiratebay for example). Sure, they too make some money but nowhere close to paid sites like the megaupload and they don't even host the pirated content.
- Zirro 15y ago
  Indeed, when a site built around (partially) illegal content being shared, it's OK with me if they earn just enough not to lose money on operating the site. However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    Am I being downvoted because people think you should be able to earn money on pirated content, or because you think they should operate such sites at a loss (if at all)?
    - MortenK 15y ago
      I'd think it might be the line "However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.". That's a blanket statement which probably has been misinterpreted as you being against any form of distributor or reseller business model.
      - Zirro 15y ago
        Oh, I see. Thank you for pointing that out to me. My intention was to say that I do not believe that you should create a business-model around earning money on only pirated content. Helping artists getting their name and songs out there is a good thing, but without their approval I don't think you should profit off it.
  - cgmorton 15y ago
    "I do not believe you should profit off the content of others." This is the problem. Distribution is a perfectly legitimate business model, as is hosting. Think, I dunno, Youtube? They don't generate any content; should they not be allowed to make a profit? Your stance is just strange. Megaupload can have revenue from piracy, just not too much? Once revenue from their illegal content passes operating expenses, they should stop making money off it? I don't understand what you want such a business to actually -do-.
    - Zirro 15y ago
      You might want to see my post below (or above, if the votes move it around). I don't have any issues with distribution as a business model, but essentially due to ideological reasons, I don't believe it should be primarily focused on illegal content, if profit is to be made.
    - 15y ago
- rorrr 15y ago
  Rapidshare is Swiss based, and it responds to DMCA claims. I doubt it will go down any time soon.
  - surement 15y ago
    Megaupload is Swizz based, and it went down.
    - e1ven 15y ago
      Elsewhere in the thread, people are saying MU was from Hong Kong. Where do you see it as Swiss?
      - Wilduck 15y ago
        It was a bad joke on the fact that a purported owner of Megaupload is the artist "Swizz Beatz".
    - muuh-gnu 15y ago
      > Megaupload is Swizz based No, they were Hong Kong based. Rapidshare (Switzerland/Germany) has already been sued there, and won, so their (current) business model, for the time being, is not accessible for american "shock and awe" justice.
      - iamandrus 15y ago
        No, I think he was joking because Swizz Beats is/was the CEO of MU.
        squarecat 15y ago
        http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJok...
    - johncoltrane 15y ago
      Good one.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  Rapidshare just fought (and won) an antipiracy case not too long ago. *EDIT More like a series of cases, actually. German courts seem much more level headed than their US couterparts. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare#Legal_issues
e1ven 15y ago
I'm more upset with the precedent than I am with the particular site. I've never made a DMCA request against them, but my understanding from the DoJ presser was that they did comply with the letter- They removed the links that were sent. They just didn't necessarily remove all other links to the same file. When you filed yours, did you follow legal procedure, and go through their registered DMCA agent with paper mail, etc? (I'm not implying you didn't, I'm trying to understand this whole mess) Let's say for the sake of discussion that these were "Bad Guys", and the site was used for infringing purposes. If they're following the US law, they still ought to be safe. You can arrest people for breaking laws, but not for being assholes.
- AlexMuir 15y ago
  I followed the procedure to the letter - that was the whole point of the experiment. Do you honestly think they have a whole team of people diligently working through DMCA requests? Of course not - it's the foundation of their whole business. Now proving this is no-doubt going to be difficult. And prosecuting in front of a jury who have been pummelled with anti-SOPA sentiment for months is a nightmare. So I think they've a very good chance of getting away with it.
  - chaostheory 15y ago
    I'm interested in reading the data and procedures for your experiment. Where can I access it? I hate to say this, but until you provide your work; it's really difficult to believe anything you just wrote. Not to mention it's pretty impossible for the people at Megaupload to defend themselves. How do we know that you actually followed procedure? What do you define as proper procedure? What were the items in question?
  - trevelyan 15y ago
    You have to own the copyright to issue a takedown request under the DMCA, no? What did you issue the takedown request for and who uploaded it?
- stfu 15y ago
  If you have half an hour left watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEe496IS1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEe496IS1o Errol Morris interviews the notorious NYC lawyer Murray Richman. In the end you will realize, that it is all about the "asshole" factor and very little about actual laws.
zotz 15y ago
> it was hosting pirated content. Not torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS. Good. More and more of it is happening all over the net. I hope it drives the studios, MPAA and RIAA out of business forever. The force of the US government will only last them so long.
The_Sponge 15y ago
1GB per file of reliable, fast storage. You can bet we passed larger files over it.
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  you weren't annoyed by all the spammy advertising?
rorrr 15y ago
> fill it with full length DVD rips As long as users do it, and the site takes them down when requested, I'm pretty sure it's legal under DMCA.
- sp332 15y ago
  As stated in your parent and elsewhere, Mega rarely responded to DMCA requests.
  - HNatWORK 15y ago
    Sorry to split hairs but responding with a "we took down this content based on your takedown notice" and actually taking down the content are two different things. I've had companies take down content after a DMCA notice but never inform me they have done so; there is no requirement for them to do so. I assume you're referring to the latter meaning though--that they left up infringing content after receiving notice. If they did that then they're in deep. ...As long as the US has jurisdiction to prosecute, which they probably do.
zeroboy 15y ago
My friends, clients and PAs often used MegaUpload to send me big graphic and audio podcast files, and absolutely none of it was pirated. I don't use pirated software, ever. I happily pay for software I want, without flinching for a second. So your over-generalization is flat out wrong.
Zirro 15y ago
"I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. What was its business?" To be honest, I was not aware that Megaupload in particular was that pro-piracy. The times I've come in contact with them has been for legitimate content, a few times a month. I've never really liked them though, because of all the secrecy behind those who run it, and the design of the site itself which doesn't appeal to me at all. You have to recognize that there are legal uses for such sites too, however. From my experience, people love sharing _their own_ music and images there, and that is reason I come in contact with them at all.
rbanffy 15y ago
> It is, pure and simple, a piracy site full of pirated material. Yes, but it was also full of absolutely legal content uploaded by law-abiding users. Many people don't have the expertise needed to set up a file server and not everything is small enough to be attached to an e-mail. > I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. As I understand, they had problems of DMCA compliance. If you subtract the illegal files, theirs is a perfectly legal and quite useful business.
- davorak 15y ago
  Unless they were paying their employees to knowingly submit pirated content, however I unaware evidence in support of this.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    It's absurd that they'd have to pay their employees to submit pirated content when there's droves of people online who would willingly submit it for free. This accusation is as absurd as saying TPB had to pay its employees to upload trackers of pirated content.
    - Zirro 15y ago
      I can't resist pointing out that this is exactly what Grooveshark is currently being sued for.
      - electromagnetic 15y ago
        From what I read Grooveshark is being sued by EMI for non-payment of royalties. UMG is suing Grooveshark for uploading music from its pre-1972 catalogue. However this all depends on the wording of the licensing agreement. This is hardly comparable to uploading DVD screeners and R5s. Grooveshark to be operating legally (as they didn't get raided I'm guessing they're operating way too close to the law - well within counter-suit territory - for the major labels to actively attack them) would have had to be uploading the labels authorized versions, which likely means UMG gave them access to their pre-1972 catalogue without giving them approval to use it.
sophacles 15y ago
Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips,and then charge $10 a month for access then no wrong has been committed. But I think most right-minded people would say that is wrong - otherwise we'd all be doing it. Just not true. I don't think there is anything wrong with videotaping police going about their business (without breaking any other laws, hindering them at their job, and such), but you WILL NOT find me doing it in my home state (Illinois) due to such actions being zealously prosecuted felonies. Many other people agree with me here. A cost/benefit analysis making me choose not to do an action is much different than me thinking that action is wrong.
- randallsquared 15y ago
  I believe AlexMuir's implication was that things which are illegal are automatically wrong, since it's obvious that HN, in particular, has lots of users who don't believe filesharing is wrong.
  - Zakharov 15y ago
    I can't speak for Alex, but I'm quite sure that wasn't his implication. He was stating that knowingly distributing pirated content for profit was wrong.
magicalist 15y ago
> Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. Er, was this content that you held the copyrights to? That statement seems to imply otherwise, which wouldn't really be ok (or itself compliant with the DMCA).
- AlexMuir 15y ago
  That statement doesn't imply anything of the sort. I acted as agent for the copyright holders.
  - Zev 15y ago
    I had the exact same question as magicalist. So, even if you don't think that it implies not having the rights, it can certainly be read as such. // edit: magicalist is the parent poster, not rorrr. Whoops.
jcromartie 15y ago
Some people may use Megaupload for hosting legit files, but I've personally never seen it used in any context other than pirated content. I wonder what the percentage of traffic is for pirated/legit content?
noonespecial 15y ago
First they come for the sites that are 90/10 pirate to legit. Seems reasonable. Then 80/20. Then 70/30. Now they're getting the process streamlined. How far will they go? 20/80? 10/90? When will it be too much? When does it become unreasonable?
- freehunter 15y ago
  Slopes aren't always as slippery as you may believe. The point of this is that the site actively promoted and profited from piracy. This isn't Facebook with someone posting a few lines from a song, this is The Pirate Bay. Think of it like this: have you ever successfully argued to a cop that you only drive over the limit 10% of the time? What matters is the deliberateness of the speed you were doing when you got caught.
  - noonespecial 15y ago
    The deliberateness has never once mattered when I was stopped for speeding. It didn't matter if I was aware of my infraction, or if it was intentional. Just the speed. It didn't matter if I only drove over the limit 0.001% of the time, I was still busted. That's what I'm afraid of. A world where 1 user-posted file that someone claims is protected results in arrests and the total loss of my site.
    - nerfhammer 15y ago
      Setting aside minor traffic infringements, intent is a very basic part of criminal law. As a counter-example, what if you hit someone with your car? Do you think it should matter if evidence exists that it was an accident or if there is evidence that you hit the person purposefully?
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Every time I've been pulled over, the officer asks "do you know why I stopped you?" If I claim I honestly don't know, there's a better chance that the fine may be reduced. Or going in the other direction, 10mph over while driving might garner a warning, while 10mph over with another car next to you doing the same speed would get your car impounded for street racing.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
davorak 15y ago
Your argument blurs distinction between users submitting pirated content and employees at the request of management. They are two very different cases if you have evidence that was not in article please share, otherwise the amount of revulsion in your post seems out of proportion with the current evidence.
dangrossman 15y ago
Just to provide one counterexample, I also filed DMCA complaints with Megaupload in the 2009/2010 period. The files were removed as requested, silently.
jrockway 15y ago
Why does megaupload have to comply with the DMCA; they're a Hong Kong company. The US simply has no jurisdiction over what they do.
- kruhft 15y ago
  > The US simply has no jurisdiction over what they do. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Just because NYPD officer makes an arrest in Portland, doesn't mean that they have jurisdiction there. The government's ability to preform an action does not legitimize that action.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  People in the US don't have to comply with DMCA notices either. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA does not create new obligations, it creates a "if this then that" situation: IF a service provider receives a notice of infringement AND promptly disables access to the content, THEN the service provider is granted immunity from liability for that infringement. If you ignore the notice then this provision simply doesn't apply. You haven't "violated the DMCA" or anything like that, you simply don't gain the benefits offered by meeting the conditions of that section of the law. Why would an entity outside of the US choose to comply with those notices? Because they may be sued in a US court, and when in a US court, the judge is going to apply US law -- including the protections of the safe harbor provision. Why would an entity outside the US care about the result of a trial in US court? First, because international treaties mean they may be extradited to the US for violating these particular laws, and second, because the officers of the company may wish to be able to travel to the US -- at which point a sentence against them could be carried out.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    What you're saying makes no sense. Can Iran extradite me for writing software to upload pornography to the Internet? (It's a capital offense there.) Of course not, because that's not how laws work. They can try to extradite me, of course, but no reasonable country would ever assist them. Similarly, it makes very little sense to extradite programmers at Megaupload. Sure, Megaupload is probably illegal in the US. But we're not in the US, so it doesn't matter. (They got the extradition by saying that Megaupload is laundering money, among other things. This is like extraditing a coffee shop owner in Amsterdam for selling pot. It's illegal in the US, after all, and he's laundering his ill-gotten money by pretending to sell coffee.) This is garbage and I can't believe any court in the world would uphold this extradition. I'm appalled that they even got a US court to issue a warrant for such obviously-trumped-up charges. This is truly unprecedented.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
iamandrus 15y ago
>I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. What was its business? Was it being used to distribute Wikipedia archives? To host videos of people's kids singing? No - it was hosting pirated content. Not torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS. So by your definition, Dropbox is an illegitimate business because I stuck my (purchased) copy of The Dark Knight on there and they didn't remove it? I used MegaUpload. A LOT. For legitimate content. It's very useful because I don't have to worry about hosting it on my own server and potentially going over my bandwidth cap (I send RAR files with large images for graphic design, totally legitimate need for MU).
- ableal 15y ago
  Android ROMs from XDA-developers are often distributed there. E.g. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=957652 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=957652
kermitthehermit 15y ago
It's better to allow these sites to continue to exist and demand that they comply with the requests than take them down with the FBI or whatever law enforcement agency. The precedent is far too dangerous. It's so dangerous that it could make PIPA / SOPA look like little cute puppies. The moral issues of being a pirate or not being a pirate and of allowing or not allowing piracy to exist are more of a "feel good, don't be weird" matter. These legal precedents can and will be used to silence any kind of protests and all things like: articles / reports about police brutality, murders, people "vanishing" conveniently when what they're saying is incovenient for someome, fake votes, scandals of all sorts. Today it's Megaupload, tomorrow it will be YouTube. After that, they will interrupt a live report which is incovenient. If you think those who rule are better than this, you're wrong. We've seen it before and we're seeing it again: Apple used the FBI and the police on the country's territory as its own security force as if the country was its headquarters, the FBI seems to be used more and more to go after pirates and other such things. Meanwhile, all kinds of bad things happen around the world, but the law enforcement agencies are too busy to defend the copyrights of big companies which want more billions in the pockets of those who own those companies. While the people are paying their taxes and are expecting to live a life without being worried they'll be nuked by some insane dictator, they really don't want to look over their shoulder to make sure the politicians who are ruling the country aren't being replaced by the puppets of the corporations. After all, making sure a 12 year old doesn't download an mp3 from Megaupload is far more important than making sure my children won't be having a probe in their bodies to tell the companies and the government where they are, what they eat, what they like, if they're sick, what they're seeing and saying and what their opinion is on the ads they see.
- ahoyhere 15y ago
  Apple didn't "use the police and FBI" - the police and FBI investigated crimes that are under their legal purview. Theft and corporate espionage are serious crimes and they are seriously investigated by both local police and the FBI. This is totally normal. My mother once casually knew a guy who ended up stealing a bunch of computers from a company he consulted for. Because they had sensitive data on them, the FBI visited us. Why? Because that's a crime the FBI covers. There was nothing wrong, no extension of corporate powers, no overreach, no special treatment at work with the stolen iPhone prototype whatsoever.
scintill76 15y ago
I think this _case_ can be seen as an anti-SOPA posterchild, because it shows that existing laws can already be used to successfully prosecute piracy. There are some other comments about precedents that this may be setting (i.e., _stretching_ existing law). I'm curious to see how this plays out -- will SOPA-like provisions be "read into" existing laws by the courts?
wnoise 15y ago
> Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. A response is not required for DMCA compliance -- only disabling access to the content. Did you test that the links you gave them still worked?
DennisP 15y ago
I don't understand this. Megaupload is based in Hong Kong. How does the DMCA apply to them? The site operators were arrested in New Zealand. Most aren't even U.S. citizens: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/megaupload-indicted-shuttered/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/megaupload-indicted... Now they're being charged by the FBI. How did it happen that the entire world is supposed to comply with U.S. law?
- andrewfelix 15y ago
  "The arrests were carried out by Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) and police, following a mutual legal assistance request from the United States" NZ Herald has more: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779963 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...
  - DennisP 15y ago
    Your link says the state of Virginia is claiming jurisdiction because some of the servers were there. The lesson I guess is if you're going to run a site like this, don't host it in America. There's no indication that any laws of New Zealand were broken. The NZ cops simply cooperated in enforcing U.S. law.
    - adestefan 15y ago
      The Berne Convention stipulates that the laws of where the copyright is registered takes precedent.
      - jrockway 15y ago
        It's a good thing that common carriers are well-protected in the United States, then.
      - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
        Can you quote me Berne on that one - it seems strange because copyright is an unregistered right. USA as one of the last countries to accede to Berne retains some registration systems as a way for rights holders to get access to greater fines in court. But this is not a widespread system. Do you mean the country of origination of the copied work?
MrMatters 15y ago
I'm probably not the average MU user, but 99% of the stuff I used it for pretty legitimate. Game files/recordings, map files, photo albums people were too lazy to upload one by one, personal videos between friends we didn't want to upload somewhere public like YT, etc. This is all anecdotal and I probably agree with you that the average user most likely just used it to download music and pirated content, but I do think you're overlooking a ton of legitimate usages as well.
gjulianm 15y ago
Maybe the majority of the content was copyright-protected, but that's not always bad. Of course, I'm not talking about the last Photoshop with crack or the new Brad Pitt movie. I'm talking about that old fanzine scanned by someone, which is now the only online copy; about the first demo tape of your favourite band; that movie of 1940 which nobody has anywhere... Contents that can't be found anywhere. Yes, they're infringing copyright, but in fact that's good. Cause if they weren't in MegaUpload (or similar site) they would not were anywhere. PS: I don't think HN has degraded so much to megadownvote good comments with good reasons, although they don't represent the supposed mainstream ideas.
gooorack 15y ago
How is this different from people sharing a paid Dropbox account and uploading DVDs?
- spullara 15y ago
  Scale.
  - colinm 15y ago
    It's not. DropBox will be next.
mikemoka 15y ago
I agree about watching out against abuses by corporations or by the government, but megaupload was never the answer simoly because it didn't fill his purpose, which ideally should be to replace music and video brick and mortar stores. Netflix was better at that,and he was fighted for that too, unfortunately.
atomicdog 15y ago
>Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Really? Because that statement completely goes against what people are currently saying over on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/onplj/feds_shut_down_megaupload/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/onplj/feds_shut_...) Some examples: >I'm a DMCA agent and this may well make my job harder. Megauploads was incredible with their response time to DMCA notices. >They swiftly remove violating content, which will inevitably appear due to their business model. They do not condone piracy, and comply with DMCAs. >The funny thing is that they TRIED to prevent this. They allowed record labels and movie studios to search through the files and delete anything they found as a copyright violation. So someone's either misinformed or lying.
rickmb 15y ago
Let's analyze the propaganda speak here: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ itself, this is clearly false. > The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. > The site paid people (users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular content. So does YouTube. So do various other business models. > It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. > Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips... It's an outright lie to claim that they themselves filled it with said rips. The users did. Just like many other sites, usenet servers etcetera. > Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money Yeah, that's a crime... You've already corrected one claim, that Megaupload wasn't used for legitimate purposes. Full disclosure: personally, I believe copyright in it's current form should die. Partly because of exactly this: it makes virtually impossible to provide any service around something that is way more important than the profits of the entertainment industry: the freedom of people to share information. I also highly doubt this would actually be much of a problem if there was any economic impulse for the entertainment industry to provide a decent alternative. In the current context, with a ridiculous artificially created scarcity, how the hell is anybody supposed to run a site like Megaupload and not have it full of "illegal" DVD-rips and shit, whether they like it or not? The DOJ might have evidence that this was deliberate, but all the rest of us have is propaganda and deeply biased speculation.
- dangrossman 15y ago
  Did you read the indictment before attempting to "analyze the propaganda"? Unless you believe the FBI's evidence is manufactured, then some of your rebuttals are already known to be false. The owners of the site were uploading DVD rips and music albums to the site, not just users.
- arctangent 15y ago
  >> It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. > How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. I might be slightly off-topic here, but I think this is a good opportunity to point out the danger of falling for a "Halo or Horns" fallacy. Wikipedia doesn't compare the Halo effect with the Horns effect but it does have an article about the Halo effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Simply put, if you believe one aspect of a person (or thing) to be bad, you're more likely to judge its other aspects in a negative light. Similarly, one good characteristic can make you more likely to judge the other aspects in a better light. You can see examples of Halo vs Horns all the time if you look for it. It's very common when mob psychology comes into play, and often causes a change in the status quo.
GigabyteCoin 15y ago
I have most certainly used megaupload for "non piracy" purposes.
nitrogen 15y ago
Add me to the list of people who used the site for legitimate purposes only. I used it to send things that wouldn't fit on my VPS's storage, and were too big for any of the other digital lockers.
abhaga 15y ago
Well, if it helps to know, while I don't use it to send files, I receive files through Megaupload all the time. Files sent by their rightful owners. I try to get them to use Dropbox now but old habits die hard. (Hasn't Megaupload been around since before Dropbox?)
radagaisus 15y ago
You know, they should totally go after youtube next: List of Full Albums: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=full+album&oq=full+album&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=138l3092l0l3123l10l7l0l0l0l0l293l956l1.1.3l5l0 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=full+album&o...
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I'm right there with you. The whole legitimate use thing is a thinly veiled attempt to seem like they're legit. The vast majority of its users are there for the piracy and anyone who tries to say that the main purpose of the site was for anything other than that is either just lying to themselves or just lying. The fact that it can be used legitimately doesn't mean it is nor does it mean it was ever intended to. This is just a really weak case of plausible deniability
anon-I-mous 15y ago
Thank you for offering your opinions on this matter, but allow me to disagree on the following points: 1) Robin hood was a criminal. Stealing is a crime, and he stole from the rich to give to the poor. 2) In this context, "piracy" does not mean stealing, it means sharing. Sharing objects, whether they are information objects such as movies or real objects such as lawnmowers, is natural and a natural right. See John Locke for details. 3) The MPAA, RIAA, and major software and video game makers have organized, through political donations and manipulating public opinion, a legal, institutionalized system of tyranny that deprives ordinary people of their natural rights. 4) The United States of America, through the FBI and other federal agencies, devotes considerable resources to finding and prosecuting those who work to oppose this system of tyranny. The United States of America is working for the tyrants whose business is predicated upon depriving ordinary people of their natural rights. --- tl;dr --- You do not have a choice between right and wrong. You have a choice between greedy scumbags who are tyrants and greedy scumbags who helping, in their own greedy, scummy way, ordinary people exercise their natural rights.
mcmc 15y ago
> I cannot believe that Megaupload is being > touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild. That's the point! According to you, they were a piracy haven, and they were shut down. Without SOPA. So why do we need SOPA again? This is pretty clearly an anti-SOPA talking point.
jeswin 15y ago
At the risk of megadownvoting here... There was a time when you didn't have to write this. :(
plf 15y ago
Personally, even though I had a premium account, what worries me the most is the precedent this sets. I think everyone should be worried.
fijal 15y ago
FYI downvoting mostly affects posts with no content or poor reasoning (usually both). I don't agree with you, but I will not downvote you because of that. I'll only answer one point: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests [not even arguing whether it's true or not] As far as I understand, people who are not residents of the US don't have to comply with DMCA requests any more they have to comply with Iranian request to take down something that insults Islam. I even personally think that insulting Islam is genuinely more harmful than copying copyrighted content, so it would be very hard to argue that DMCA requests are "good" while Iranian gov ones "bad". The only reason why I can think it's wise to comply with DMCA is because US has 43% of world's military budget and it's a very scary thought because it attack independence of everyone else.
- Drbble 15y ago
  Megaupload operated in the US (servers and users). It is only the physical location of the proprietors that was non-US.
kahawe 15y ago
> Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money over a five to seven year period doing this. Probably more famous amongst German hackers but this is also the Kim "kimble" Schmitz of insider-trading letsbuyit.com fame who pulled PR stunts like launching "Young Intelligent Hackers Against Terrorism" (Yihat) to track down Bin Laden and before letsbuyit.com was trolling German coder newsgroups. After all that he tried attracting only "very high wealth individuals" to a company he founded in HongKong that allegedly specialized in automated artificial intelligence trading and that was about the last I remember hearing of him... On a personal level, this is very, very satisfying to see they got him again on charging people per month for illegal downloads! He gives actual European hackers an extremely bad name. > I cannot believe that Megaupload is being touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild. This right here, people. This is not linux torrents we are talking about - this is "I want your money and I take it any way I can and will then post pictures of my extra-ordinary live style online" kim schmitz, a convicted criminal who prides himself on being successful "outside of rules and legislations".
- infinity 15y ago
  Yes, Kim "Kimble" Schmitz is a name I remember from 90's. He was quite often on TV in Germany, showing off his luxurious life-style, girls and cocktails at a pool, that sort of thing. And then he was jailed. He is indeed a convicted criminal. The german Wikipedia has a nice overview over his former activities: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz This guy has never been a modern Robin Hood.
  - joeycfan 15y ago
    He's a rascal for the ages for sure. I hope his career isn't over, he's quite entertaining.

rplnt 15y ago

I too am glad that someone finally went for the big guys. Rapidshare should be next in my opinion. They only make money on piracy and they know it. On the other hand, I hate when p2p networks are targeted (thepiratebay for example). Sure, they too make some money but nowhere close to paid sites like the megaupload and they don't even host the pirated content.

Zirro 15y ago
Indeed, when a site built around (partially) illegal content being shared, it's OK with me if they earn just enough not to lose money on operating the site. However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.
- Zirro 15y ago
  Am I being downvoted because people think you should be able to earn money on pirated content, or because you think they should operate such sites at a loss (if at all)?
  - MortenK 15y ago
    I'd think it might be the line "However, I do not believe you should profit off the content of others.". That's a blanket statement which probably has been misinterpreted as you being against any form of distributor or reseller business model.
    - Zirro 15y ago
      Oh, I see. Thank you for pointing that out to me. My intention was to say that I do not believe that you should create a business-model around earning money on only pirated content. Helping artists getting their name and songs out there is a good thing, but without their approval I don't think you should profit off it.
- cgmorton 15y ago
  "I do not believe you should profit off the content of others." This is the problem. Distribution is a perfectly legitimate business model, as is hosting. Think, I dunno, Youtube? They don't generate any content; should they not be allowed to make a profit? Your stance is just strange. Megaupload can have revenue from piracy, just not too much? Once revenue from their illegal content passes operating expenses, they should stop making money off it? I don't understand what you want such a business to actually -do-.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    You might want to see my post below (or above, if the votes move it around). I don't have any issues with distribution as a business model, but essentially due to ideological reasons, I don't believe it should be primarily focused on illegal content, if profit is to be made.
  - 15y ago
rorrr 15y ago
Rapidshare is Swiss based, and it responds to DMCA claims. I doubt it will go down any time soon.
- surement 15y ago
  Megaupload is Swizz based, and it went down.
  - e1ven 15y ago
    Elsewhere in the thread, people are saying MU was from Hong Kong. Where do you see it as Swiss?
    - Wilduck 15y ago
      It was a bad joke on the fact that a purported owner of Megaupload is the artist "Swizz Beatz".
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > Megaupload is Swizz based No, they were Hong Kong based. Rapidshare (Switzerland/Germany) has already been sued there, and won, so their (current) business model, for the time being, is not accessible for american "shock and awe" justice.
    - iamandrus 15y ago
      No, I think he was joking because Swizz Beats is/was the CEO of MU.
      - squarecat 15y ago
        http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJok...
  - johncoltrane 15y ago
    Good one.
Karunamon 15y ago
Rapidshare just fought (and won) an antipiracy case not too long ago. *EDIT More like a series of cases, actually. German courts seem much more level headed than their US couterparts. Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare#Legal_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapidShare#Legal_issues

e1ven 15y ago

I'm more upset with the precedent than I am with the particular site. I've never made a DMCA request against them, but my understanding from the DoJ presser was that they did comply with the letter- They removed the links that were sent. They just didn't necessarily remove all other links to the same file. When you filed yours, did you follow legal procedure, and go through their registered DMCA agent with paper mail, etc? (I'm not implying you didn't, I'm trying to understand this whole mess) Let's say for the sake of discussion that these were "Bad Guys", and the site was used for infringing purposes. If they're following the US law, they still ought to be safe. You can arrest people for breaking laws, but not for being assholes.

AlexMuir 15y ago
I followed the procedure to the letter - that was the whole point of the experiment. Do you honestly think they have a whole team of people diligently working through DMCA requests? Of course not - it's the foundation of their whole business. Now proving this is no-doubt going to be difficult. And prosecuting in front of a jury who have been pummelled with anti-SOPA sentiment for months is a nightmare. So I think they've a very good chance of getting away with it.
- chaostheory 15y ago
  I'm interested in reading the data and procedures for your experiment. Where can I access it? I hate to say this, but until you provide your work; it's really difficult to believe anything you just wrote. Not to mention it's pretty impossible for the people at Megaupload to defend themselves. How do we know that you actually followed procedure? What do you define as proper procedure? What were the items in question?
- trevelyan 15y ago
  You have to own the copyright to issue a takedown request under the DMCA, no? What did you issue the takedown request for and who uploaded it?
stfu 15y ago
If you have half an hour left watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEe496IS1o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLEe496IS1o Errol Morris interviews the notorious NYC lawyer Murray Richman. In the end you will realize, that it is all about the "asshole" factor and very little about actual laws.

zotz 15y ago

> it was hosting pirated content. Not torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS. Good. More and more of it is happening all over the net. I hope it drives the studios, MPAA and RIAA out of business forever. The force of the US government will only last them so long.

The_Sponge 15y ago

1GB per file of reliable, fast storage. You can bet we passed larger files over it.

RandallBrown 15y ago
you weren't annoyed by all the spammy advertising?

rorrr 15y ago

> fill it with full length DVD rips As long as users do it, and the site takes them down when requested, I'm pretty sure it's legal under DMCA.

sp332 15y ago
As stated in your parent and elsewhere, Mega rarely responded to DMCA requests.
- HNatWORK 15y ago
  Sorry to split hairs but responding with a "we took down this content based on your takedown notice" and actually taking down the content are two different things. I've had companies take down content after a DMCA notice but never inform me they have done so; there is no requirement for them to do so. I assume you're referring to the latter meaning though--that they left up infringing content after receiving notice. If they did that then they're in deep. ...As long as the US has jurisdiction to prosecute, which they probably do.

zeroboy 15y ago

My friends, clients and PAs often used MegaUpload to send me big graphic and audio podcast files, and absolutely none of it was pirated. I don't use pirated software, ever. I happily pay for software I want, without flinching for a second. So your over-generalization is flat out wrong.

Zirro 15y ago

"I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. What was its business?" To be honest, I was not aware that Megaupload in particular was that pro-piracy. The times I've come in contact with them has been for legitimate content, a few times a month. I've never really liked them though, because of all the secrecy behind those who run it, and the design of the site itself which doesn't appeal to me at all. You have to recognize that there are legal uses for such sites too, however. From my experience, people love sharing _their own_ music and images there, and that is reason I come in contact with them at all.

rbanffy 15y ago

> It is, pure and simple, a piracy site full of pirated material. Yes, but it was also full of absolutely legal content uploaded by law-abiding users. Many people don't have the expertise needed to set up a file server and not everything is small enough to be attached to an e-mail. > I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. As I understand, they had problems of DMCA compliance. If you subtract the illegal files, theirs is a perfectly legal and quite useful business.

davorak 15y ago
Unless they were paying their employees to knowingly submit pirated content, however I unaware evidence in support of this.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  It's absurd that they'd have to pay their employees to submit pirated content when there's droves of people online who would willingly submit it for free. This accusation is as absurd as saying TPB had to pay its employees to upload trackers of pirated content.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    I can't resist pointing out that this is exactly what Grooveshark is currently being sued for.
    - electromagnetic 15y ago
      From what I read Grooveshark is being sued by EMI for non-payment of royalties. UMG is suing Grooveshark for uploading music from its pre-1972 catalogue. However this all depends on the wording of the licensing agreement. This is hardly comparable to uploading DVD screeners and R5s. Grooveshark to be operating legally (as they didn't get raided I'm guessing they're operating way too close to the law - well within counter-suit territory - for the major labels to actively attack them) would have had to be uploading the labels authorized versions, which likely means UMG gave them access to their pre-1972 catalogue without giving them approval to use it.

sophacles 15y ago

Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips,and then charge $10 a month for access then no wrong has been committed. But I think most right-minded people would say that is wrong - otherwise we'd all be doing it. Just not true. I don't think there is anything wrong with videotaping police going about their business (without breaking any other laws, hindering them at their job, and such), but you WILL NOT find me doing it in my home state (Illinois) due to such actions being zealously prosecuted felonies. Many other people agree with me here. A cost/benefit analysis making me choose not to do an action is much different than me thinking that action is wrong.

randallsquared 15y ago
I believe AlexMuir's implication was that things which are illegal are automatically wrong, since it's obvious that HN, in particular, has lots of users who don't believe filesharing is wrong.
- Zakharov 15y ago
  I can't speak for Alex, but I'm quite sure that wasn't his implication. He was stating that knowingly distributing pirated content for profit was wrong.

magicalist 15y ago

> Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. Er, was this content that you held the copyrights to? That statement seems to imply otherwise, which wouldn't really be ok (or itself compliant with the DMCA).

AlexMuir 15y ago
That statement doesn't imply anything of the sort. I acted as agent for the copyright holders.
- Zev 15y ago
  I had the exact same question as magicalist. So, even if you don't think that it implies not having the rights, it can certainly be read as such. // edit: magicalist is the parent poster, not rorrr. Whoops.

jcromartie 15y ago

Some people may use Megaupload for hosting legit files, but I've personally never seen it used in any context other than pirated content. I wonder what the percentage of traffic is for pirated/legit content?

noonespecial 15y ago

First they come for the sites that are 90/10 pirate to legit. Seems reasonable. Then 80/20. Then 70/30. Now they're getting the process streamlined. How far will they go? 20/80? 10/90? When will it be too much? When does it become unreasonable?

freehunter 15y ago
Slopes aren't always as slippery as you may believe. The point of this is that the site actively promoted and profited from piracy. This isn't Facebook with someone posting a few lines from a song, this is The Pirate Bay. Think of it like this: have you ever successfully argued to a cop that you only drive over the limit 10% of the time? What matters is the deliberateness of the speed you were doing when you got caught.
- noonespecial 15y ago
  The deliberateness has never once mattered when I was stopped for speeding. It didn't matter if I was aware of my infraction, or if it was intentional. Just the speed. It didn't matter if I only drove over the limit 0.001% of the time, I was still busted. That's what I'm afraid of. A world where 1 user-posted file that someone claims is protected results in arrests and the total loss of my site.
  - nerfhammer 15y ago
    Setting aside minor traffic infringements, intent is a very basic part of criminal law. As a counter-example, what if you hit someone with your car? Do you think it should matter if evidence exists that it was an accident or if there is evidence that you hit the person purposefully?
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Every time I've been pulled over, the officer asks "do you know why I stopped you?" If I claim I honestly don't know, there's a better chance that the fine may be reduced. Or going in the other direction, 10mph over while driving might garner a warning, while 10mph over with another car next to you doing the same speed would get your car impounded for street racing.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

davorak 15y ago

Your argument blurs distinction between users submitting pirated content and employees at the request of management. They are two very different cases if you have evidence that was not in article please share, otherwise the amount of revulsion in your post seems out of proportion with the current evidence.

dangrossman 15y ago

Just to provide one counterexample, I also filed DMCA complaints with Megaupload in the 2009/2010 period. The files were removed as requested, silently.

jrockway 15y ago

Why does megaupload have to comply with the DMCA; they're a Hong Kong company. The US simply has no jurisdiction over what they do.

kruhft 15y ago
> The US simply has no jurisdiction over what they do. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Just because NYPD officer makes an arrest in Portland, doesn't mean that they have jurisdiction there. The government's ability to preform an action does not legitimize that action.
dangrossman 15y ago
People in the US don't have to comply with DMCA notices either. The safe harbor provision of the DMCA does not create new obligations, it creates a "if this then that" situation: IF a service provider receives a notice of infringement AND promptly disables access to the content, THEN the service provider is granted immunity from liability for that infringement. If you ignore the notice then this provision simply doesn't apply. You haven't "violated the DMCA" or anything like that, you simply don't gain the benefits offered by meeting the conditions of that section of the law. Why would an entity outside of the US choose to comply with those notices? Because they may be sued in a US court, and when in a US court, the judge is going to apply US law -- including the protections of the safe harbor provision. Why would an entity outside the US care about the result of a trial in US court? First, because international treaties mean they may be extradited to the US for violating these particular laws, and second, because the officers of the company may wish to be able to travel to the US -- at which point a sentence against them could be carried out.
- jrockway 15y ago
  What you're saying makes no sense. Can Iran extradite me for writing software to upload pornography to the Internet? (It's a capital offense there.) Of course not, because that's not how laws work. They can try to extradite me, of course, but no reasonable country would ever assist them. Similarly, it makes very little sense to extradite programmers at Megaupload. Sure, Megaupload is probably illegal in the US. But we're not in the US, so it doesn't matter. (They got the extradition by saying that Megaupload is laundering money, among other things. This is like extraditing a coffee shop owner in Amsterdam for selling pot. It's illegal in the US, after all, and he's laundering his ill-gotten money by pretending to sell coffee.) This is garbage and I can't believe any court in the world would uphold this extradition. I'm appalled that they even got a US court to issue a warrant for such obviously-trumped-up charges. This is truly unprecedented.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

iamandrus 15y ago

>I am also astounded that people on HN are calling this a legitimate business. What was its business? Was it being used to distribute Wikipedia archives? To host videos of people's kids singing? No - it was hosting pirated content. Not torrents, not links. AVI files of films. AND THEN CHARGING FOR ACCESS. So by your definition, Dropbox is an illegitimate business because I stuck my (purchased) copy of The Dark Knight on there and they didn't remove it? I used MegaUpload. A LOT. For legitimate content. It's very useful because I don't have to worry about hosting it on my own server and potentially going over my bandwidth cap (I send RAR files with large images for graphic design, totally legitimate need for MU).

ableal 15y ago
Android ROMs from XDA-developers are often distributed there. E.g. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=957652 http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=957652

kermitthehermit 15y ago

It's better to allow these sites to continue to exist and demand that they comply with the requests than take them down with the FBI or whatever law enforcement agency. The precedent is far too dangerous. It's so dangerous that it could make PIPA / SOPA look like little cute puppies. The moral issues of being a pirate or not being a pirate and of allowing or not allowing piracy to exist are more of a "feel good, don't be weird" matter. These legal precedents can and will be used to silence any kind of protests and all things like: articles / reports about police brutality, murders, people "vanishing" conveniently when what they're saying is incovenient for someome, fake votes, scandals of all sorts. Today it's Megaupload, tomorrow it will be YouTube. After that, they will interrupt a live report which is incovenient. If you think those who rule are better than this, you're wrong. We've seen it before and we're seeing it again: Apple used the FBI and the police on the country's territory as its own security force as if the country was its headquarters, the FBI seems to be used more and more to go after pirates and other such things. Meanwhile, all kinds of bad things happen around the world, but the law enforcement agencies are too busy to defend the copyrights of big companies which want more billions in the pockets of those who own those companies. While the people are paying their taxes and are expecting to live a life without being worried they'll be nuked by some insane dictator, they really don't want to look over their shoulder to make sure the politicians who are ruling the country aren't being replaced by the puppets of the corporations. After all, making sure a 12 year old doesn't download an mp3 from Megaupload is far more important than making sure my children won't be having a probe in their bodies to tell the companies and the government where they are, what they eat, what they like, if they're sick, what they're seeing and saying and what their opinion is on the ads they see.

ahoyhere 15y ago
Apple didn't "use the police and FBI" - the police and FBI investigated crimes that are under their legal purview. Theft and corporate espionage are serious crimes and they are seriously investigated by both local police and the FBI. This is totally normal. My mother once casually knew a guy who ended up stealing a bunch of computers from a company he consulted for. Because they had sensitive data on them, the FBI visited us. Why? Because that's a crime the FBI covers. There was nothing wrong, no extension of corporate powers, no overreach, no special treatment at work with the stolen iPhone prototype whatsoever.

scintill76 15y ago

I think this _case_ can be seen as an anti-SOPA posterchild, because it shows that existing laws can already be used to successfully prosecute piracy. There are some other comments about precedents that this may be setting (i.e., _stretching_ existing law). I'm curious to see how this plays out -- will SOPA-like provisions be "read into" existing laws by the courts?

wnoise 15y ago

> Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests - I made several as part of some research and never received any response. A response is not required for DMCA compliance -- only disabling access to the content. Did you test that the links you gave them still worked?

DennisP 15y ago

I don't understand this. Megaupload is based in Hong Kong. How does the DMCA apply to them? The site operators were arrested in New Zealand. Most aren't even U.S. citizens: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/megaupload-indicted-shuttered/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/megaupload-indicted... Now they're being charged by the FBI. How did it happen that the entire world is supposed to comply with U.S. law?

andrewfelix 15y ago
"The arrests were carried out by Organised & Financial Crime Agency New Zealand (OFCANZ) and police, following a mutual legal assistance request from the United States" NZ Herald has more: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779963 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...
- DennisP 15y ago
  Your link says the state of Virginia is claiming jurisdiction because some of the servers were there. The lesson I guess is if you're going to run a site like this, don't host it in America. There's no indication that any laws of New Zealand were broken. The NZ cops simply cooperated in enforcing U.S. law.
  - adestefan 15y ago
    The Berne Convention stipulates that the laws of where the copyright is registered takes precedent.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      It's a good thing that common carriers are well-protected in the United States, then.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      Can you quote me Berne on that one - it seems strange because copyright is an unregistered right. USA as one of the last countries to accede to Berne retains some registration systems as a way for rights holders to get access to greater fines in court. But this is not a widespread system. Do you mean the country of origination of the copied work?

MrMatters 15y ago

I'm probably not the average MU user, but 99% of the stuff I used it for pretty legitimate. Game files/recordings, map files, photo albums people were too lazy to upload one by one, personal videos between friends we didn't want to upload somewhere public like YT, etc. This is all anecdotal and I probably agree with you that the average user most likely just used it to download music and pirated content, but I do think you're overlooking a ton of legitimate usages as well.

gjulianm 15y ago

Maybe the majority of the content was copyright-protected, but that's not always bad. Of course, I'm not talking about the last Photoshop with crack or the new Brad Pitt movie. I'm talking about that old fanzine scanned by someone, which is now the only online copy; about the first demo tape of your favourite band; that movie of 1940 which nobody has anywhere... Contents that can't be found anywhere. Yes, they're infringing copyright, but in fact that's good. Cause if they weren't in MegaUpload (or similar site) they would not were anywhere. PS: I don't think HN has degraded so much to megadownvote good comments with good reasons, although they don't represent the supposed mainstream ideas.

gooorack 15y ago

How is this different from people sharing a paid Dropbox account and uploading DVDs?

spullara 15y ago
Scale.
- colinm 15y ago
  It's not. DropBox will be next.

mikemoka 15y ago

I agree about watching out against abuses by corporations or by the government, but megaupload was never the answer simoly because it didn't fill his purpose, which ideally should be to replace music and video brick and mortar stores. Netflix was better at that,and he was fighted for that too, unfortunately.

atomicdog 15y ago

>Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Really? Because that statement completely goes against what people are currently saying over on Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/onplj/feds_shut_down_megaupload/ http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/onplj/feds_shut_...) Some examples: >I'm a DMCA agent and this may well make my job harder. Megauploads was incredible with their response time to DMCA notices. >They swiftly remove violating content, which will inevitably appear due to their business model. They do not condone piracy, and comply with DMCAs. >The funny thing is that they TRIED to prevent this. They allowed record labels and movie studios to search through the files and delete anything they found as a copyright violation. So someone's either misinformed or lying.

rickmb 15y ago

Let's analyze the propaganda speak here: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests Based on not only the experience of others, but the claims of the DoJ itself, this is clearly false. > The site charged for access to, and provided advertising around, pirated content. This is true in the same way YouTube provides advertising around, and your friendly local ISP provides access to, pirated content. > The site paid people (users/staff - it's a fine line) to provide popular content. So does YouTube. So do various other business models. > It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. > Now if people believe that anyone should be allowed to set up a site, fill it with full length DVD rips... It's an outright lie to claim that they themselves filled it with said rips. The users did. Just like many other sites, usenet servers etcetera. > Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money Yeah, that's a crime... You've already corrected one claim, that Megaupload wasn't used for legitimate purposes. Full disclosure: personally, I believe copyright in it's current form should die. Partly because of exactly this: it makes virtually impossible to provide any service around something that is way more important than the profits of the entertainment industry: the freedom of people to share information. I also highly doubt this would actually be much of a problem if there was any economic impulse for the entertainment industry to provide a decent alternative. In the current context, with a ridiculous artificially created scarcity, how the hell is anybody supposed to run a site like Megaupload and not have it full of "illegal" DVD-rips and shit, whether they like it or not? The DOJ might have evidence that this was deliberate, but all the rest of us have is propaganda and deeply biased speculation.

dangrossman 15y ago
Did you read the indictment before attempting to "analyze the propaganda"? Unless you believe the FBI's evidence is manufactured, then some of your rebuttals are already known to be false. The owners of the site were uploading DVD rips and music albums to the site, not just users.
arctangent 15y ago
>> It went to extraordinary lengths to hide the identity of its operators. > How many legitimate business don't have their owners wrapped in layers of corporations strewn around the globe? Nothing particularly unique or illegal here. I might be slightly off-topic here, but I think this is a good opportunity to point out the danger of falling for a "Halo or Horns" fallacy. Wikipedia doesn't compare the Halo effect with the Horns effect but it does have an article about the Halo effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect Simply put, if you believe one aspect of a person (or thing) to be bad, you're more likely to judge its other aspects in a negative light. Similarly, one good characteristic can make you more likely to judge the other aspects in a better light. You can see examples of Halo vs Horns all the time if you look for it. It's very common when mob psychology comes into play, and often causes a change in the status quo.

GigabyteCoin 15y ago

I have most certainly used megaupload for "non piracy" purposes.

nitrogen 15y ago

Add me to the list of people who used the site for legitimate purposes only. I used it to send things that wouldn't fit on my VPS's storage, and were too big for any of the other digital lockers.

abhaga 15y ago

Well, if it helps to know, while I don't use it to send files, I receive files through Megaupload all the time. Files sent by their rightful owners. I try to get them to use Dropbox now but old habits die hard. (Hasn't Megaupload been around since before Dropbox?)

radagaisus 15y ago

You know, they should totally go after youtube next: List of Full Albums: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=full+album&oq=full+album&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=138l3092l0l3123l10l7l0l0l0l0l293l956l1.1.3l5l0 http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=full+album&o...

billpatrianakos 15y ago

I'm right there with you. The whole legitimate use thing is a thinly veiled attempt to seem like they're legit. The vast majority of its users are there for the piracy and anyone who tries to say that the main purpose of the site was for anything other than that is either just lying to themselves or just lying. The fact that it can be used legitimately doesn't mean it is nor does it mean it was ever intended to. This is just a really weak case of plausible deniability

anon-I-mous 15y ago

Thank you for offering your opinions on this matter, but allow me to disagree on the following points: 1) Robin hood was a criminal. Stealing is a crime, and he stole from the rich to give to the poor. 2) In this context, "piracy" does not mean stealing, it means sharing. Sharing objects, whether they are information objects such as movies or real objects such as lawnmowers, is natural and a natural right. See John Locke for details. 3) The MPAA, RIAA, and major software and video game makers have organized, through political donations and manipulating public opinion, a legal, institutionalized system of tyranny that deprives ordinary people of their natural rights. 4) The United States of America, through the FBI and other federal agencies, devotes considerable resources to finding and prosecuting those who work to oppose this system of tyranny. The United States of America is working for the tyrants whose business is predicated upon depriving ordinary people of their natural rights. --- tl;dr --- You do not have a choice between right and wrong. You have a choice between greedy scumbags who are tyrants and greedy scumbags who helping, in their own greedy, scummy way, ordinary people exercise their natural rights.

mcmc 15y ago

> I cannot believe that Megaupload is being > touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild. That's the point! According to you, they were a piracy haven, and they were shut down. Without SOPA. So why do we need SOPA again? This is pretty clearly an anti-SOPA talking point.

jeswin 15y ago

At the risk of megadownvoting here... There was a time when you didn't have to write this. :(

plf 15y ago

Personally, even though I had a premium account, what worries me the most is the precedent this sets. I think everyone should be worried.

fijal 15y ago

FYI downvoting mostly affects posts with no content or poor reasoning (usually both). I don't agree with you, but I will not downvote you because of that. I'll only answer one point: > Megaupload never complied with DMCA requests [not even arguing whether it's true or not] As far as I understand, people who are not residents of the US don't have to comply with DMCA requests any more they have to comply with Iranian request to take down something that insults Islam. I even personally think that insulting Islam is genuinely more harmful than copying copyrighted content, so it would be very hard to argue that DMCA requests are "good" while Iranian gov ones "bad". The only reason why I can think it's wise to comply with DMCA is because US has 43% of world's military budget and it's a very scary thought because it attack independence of everyone else.

Drbble 15y ago
Megaupload operated in the US (servers and users). It is only the physical location of the proprietors that was non-US.

kahawe 15y ago

> Kim Schmitz has made a lot of money over a five to seven year period doing this. Probably more famous amongst German hackers but this is also the Kim "kimble" Schmitz of insider-trading letsbuyit.com fame who pulled PR stunts like launching "Young Intelligent Hackers Against Terrorism" (Yihat) to track down Bin Laden and before letsbuyit.com was trolling German coder newsgroups. After all that he tried attracting only "very high wealth individuals" to a company he founded in HongKong that allegedly specialized in automated artificial intelligence trading and that was about the last I remember hearing of him... On a personal level, this is very, very satisfying to see they got him again on charging people per month for illegal downloads! He gives actual European hackers an extremely bad name. > I cannot believe that Megaupload is being touted as an anti-SOPA posterchild. This right here, people. This is not linux torrents we are talking about - this is "I want your money and I take it any way I can and will then post pictures of my extra-ordinary live style online" kim schmitz, a convicted criminal who prides himself on being successful "outside of rules and legislations".

infinity 15y ago
Yes, Kim "Kimble" Schmitz is a name I remember from 90's. He was quite often on TV in Germany, showing off his luxurious life-style, girls and cocktails at a pool, that sort of thing. And then he was jailed. He is indeed a convicted criminal. The german Wikipedia has a nice overview over his former activities: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz This guy has never been a modern Robin Hood.
- joeycfan 15y ago
  He's a rascal for the ages for sure. I hope his career isn't over, he's quite entertaining.