4 ms·

I still don't get what this fuss is about? Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and

• pavel_lishin 15y ago
  At what percentage do you draw the line?
  • powertower 15y ago
    When that percentage is the primary driver of your business.
    • lwat 15y ago
      Yes and how much is that exactly
    • pavel_lishin 15y ago
      So, 51%?
• talmand 15y ago
  Sure, let the government have its day in court to prove its case. But some would say these people are being punished without due process right now before they appear in court. Plus the fact this has international implications makes it seem the US government has overstepped just a bit. I always love the logic of forcing someone to pay to defend themselves in court but the government takes away your assets so that you are unable to pay for your defense.
• firefoxman1 15y ago
  We all know MegaUpload is the go-to place for pirated content. That's not really in question. The question here is: Is our government following the rules our founding fathers laid out, or do they believe they can cut straight to taking down a company 90% out of their jurisdiction without even following due process. The whole reason it's a debate is because if we, as citizens, don't watch our government closely when they make controversial moves like this, it easily becomes a very slippery slope. If we let our government get away with something like this, where will it end? Soon, will unwarranted search and seizure will be OK for the FBI, so long as they're after "pirates?" Will we end up like Iran who can execute a programmer 'cause they said so? Yeah, those are extreme examples, but the reason it is such a slippery slope is because our court's decisions are largely ruled by precedence. If the courts declare the actions taken against MegaUpload legal, it's pretty much "anything goes" for the FBI and DoJ to attack future, perhaps less piracy-oriented or even completely legitimate companies. All the DoJ or FBI has to say is "see, you let us do it last time with MegaUpload."
  • res0nat0r 15y ago
    The arrests overseas we executed in full cooperation with those local countries governments. Not via some rogue operation.
    • firefoxman1 15y ago
      Yeah I did read that. The police in the respective countries carried out the actual arrests. But since when did the U.S. see themselves the official justice department for the entire world? (I guess the answer is "since WWII") But how many people in the U.S. were being so irreversibly harmed by MegaUpload that our government felt such a need to command this world-wide operation.
      • powertower 15y ago
        > But since when did the U.S. see themselves the official justice department for the entire world? I'm still confused on why you're confused. MU was distributing copyrighted material around the globe. The US gathered evidence, presented that evidence to its partners, partners made the arrest. It's a global network, there are various treaties, and there is cooperation.
• learc83 15y ago
  What's the cutoff? Is it a 50/50 thing? If my site makes 10% of it's revenue from pirates, should I go to jail? Google makes plenty of money from sites that host counterfeit goods and copyrighted material, should Larry Page go to jail?
  • powertower 15y ago
    Does your business completely revolve around profiting from the illegal distribution of copyrighted works?
    • yassim 15y ago
      Did theirs? Can real numbers be shown of the money that was generated by piracy with this service vs money that was not? My guess is from this point we will never know the real unbiased numbers, not matter who wins. Edit: to clarify tone.
      • Steko 15y ago
        My guess is that we'll be shown fairly conclusive internal communication that makes it clear the MU knew exactly that they were profiting illegally and continued to do it and enable it. At that point it doesn't matter exactly how much they made legally or illegally. Does it matter that a pawn shop makes some money legitimately if it's basically a front for selling stolen property?
• OpieCunningham 15y ago
  I still don't get what this fuss is about? Your company looks very suspicious, just look at all these words I wrote down that show you just how suspicious it is. The words I wrote down are so suspicious, I'm going to take your house and all your money. You can start issuing your own words to get it all back in a few months while I get paperwork ready to keep it from you permanently. Trust me, I'm going to win, I promise. If I didn't think so, would I have taken your house and all your money?
  • res0nat0r 15y ago
    PayPal does this all the time.
• lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  > Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account, and from ads and scams that were displayed on URLs with legit content. When did we end up in a society where "Do you really think..." is sufficient for judge, jury, and execution? The fuss is not about megaupload. The fuss is about the MPAA and the RIAA teaming up with law enforcement to make sites and businesses that they don't like disappear from the internet, without due process. It's been said before, but your whole post describes pre-google youtube. The only difference is they didn't use ads. It's worth noting, the charges against megaupload have nothing to do with any dirty business using ads.
  • awj 15y ago
    > The fuss is about the MPAA and the RIAA teaming up with law enforcement to make sites and businesses that they don't like disappear from the internet, without due process. Since when is "equipment subpoenaed via grand jury indictment" not due process? I'm all for arguing if what's happening should/should not be allowed, but let's at least get the facts straight on "what's happening" first.
• victork2 15y ago
  Hi, Indeed your quick analysis is true: MegaUpload was a platform to download copyrighted things over the internet. But there is a greater principle at play: when should action be taken? The way it is done in democracy and countries where liberty is valued is that the action taken is done after due process. Also and I think this is pretty damn important there are international rules in terms of law and what can be done. Citizens of other countries should have the right to benefit from the law in vigor in their country without the US interfering with them. The US is not all saint and sometimes take poor decisions that cost the business, health or life of some people, especially when the problem comes from private interests. Anyway if you allow authorities to take action without due process you end up in dark dark world where arrests become arbitrary. There were plenty of evidence that MegaUpload business was not legit actions could have been taken legally, but probably bribes came into play and short-circuited the whole thing. This becomes rampant in the US (Bradley Manning anyone ?) and it has to stop before it's too late.
  • scott_s 15y ago
    I have only been skimming the MegaUpload discussion and articles, so please understand that I am asking an honest question: in what was was due process not followed?
    • dsthysd 15y ago
      -Megaupload never got to state their case -There was no trial (and probably will not matter because their site has already lost all its traffic and revenue) -It is not a US based site -The majority of its traffic did not come from the US -There is not much evidence that that they were doing anything illegal by US law. They had a system in place (such as youtube) to remove copyright infringing content if found. The fact that the majority of their traffic came from pirated content (I am just assuming, no facts) is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that if the media companies put as much effort into reporting copyright violating content on Megaupload as they do on youtube, it would have none.
      • pyre 15y ago
• cynicalkane 15y ago
  I think the point of this post is that we don't have any reason to believe that the Megaupload takedown is sinister. I happen to agree and don't think it should be downvoted. The Internet's reaction to these events seems really knee-jerk. Okay, the Megaupload case might have been a horrible abuse of government power. But right now it seems like a routine takedown of a business that supported itself mostly through illegal activity. This is standard operating practice from long before Internet piracy was a thing. So let's not make a big deal about something which might have been bad, but we have no reason to believe it actually was. If Megaupload turns out to be completely innocent, I'll join the bandwagon. But the grand jury indictment is so damning, it would really have to turn out to be mostly lies. Meanwhile there are real government abuses, such as the indefinite detention of terror suspects. Can we talk about those instead?
• droithomme 15y ago
  > Do you really think that MegaUpload generated 175MM from a few users signing up to a paid account No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. I know lots of people that did so, Megaupload is widely used by professionals in the video, music, graphics and games industries for transferring and distributing large files at low cost legally. I find it highly unlikely that those engaging in illegal activity went in and gave their traceable credit card information to get accounts for illegal activity. That may have happened, but it seems obvious that users doing illegal stuff, particularly those involving stealing things because you don't want to pay, are not highly likely to be creating easily traceable financial connections between their illegal activity and their real identities. File sizes are large nowadays and millions of people and teams work remotely. There is a tremendous need for locker sites with large file capabilities, reasonable usability, and low cost. Megaupload provided a good technical solution and price to a strong need in modern business and this is why they were successful. People paid them because people have large files they need to work with and distribute. Completely separately from illegal use. Any company that allows uploading of material is going to have this problem. Legislation such as DMCA was supposed to protect business from copyright violation liability when the infringement was committed by third parties as long as they followed the takedown process. Now we find that DMCA does no such thing, and businesses are beginning to shut down or drastically limit file hosting services. This is creating serious problems for tens of thousands or more of legitimate users and is harming legal businesses that benefit from locker file hosting services.
  • powertower 15y ago
    > No, I think they made money from a LOT of users signing up for paid accounts. Except that the indictment states that MU had only a few paid users and was largely ad supported... And I could have sworn that before all this happened, MU said the same thing. > Legislation such as DMCA was supposed to protect business from copyright violation liability when the infringement was committed by third parties as long as they followed the takedown process. DMCA didn't protect MU because they refused to delete the actual files (they only deleted some of the links pointing to that same file), and actively ignored DMCA takedown notices that did not come from major US parties.