3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- droithomme 15y ago
  I did not remember reading in the indictment that it was largely ad supported and not subscriptions as you indicate, but you do cite the indictment itself so I assumed you noticed something I did not and went and reread it. It documents $8,840,000 in ad revenue in items 42 through 44, $110 million in subscription revenue from PayPal in item 41, and then in item 67 says "Between September 2005 and the date of this Indictment, the defendants collectively have received more than $175 million from advertising and subscriptions." It would be nice if there was a more detailed break down but the breakdown given does not support claims that subscription income was inconsequential. I wonder, had you actually read the complete indictment, or were you just relying on summaries from other web sites. Sometimes summaries are not accurate or don't give the whole picture. Then again, perhaps I missed a more detailed breakdown elsewhere, if you have it please reference it by specific item number within the indictment. Thanks.
  - powertower 15y ago
    I've looked it over again and you're right. The majority of that came from premium accounts. This still does not help MU if the signup originally came after a user visited a page with illegal content, and signed up to be able to get that content or to partake in sharing illegal content and get bounties on it.... Which would all be easy to check by taking a small sample of the logs and seeing what's what. Though it does help MU if it can be shown those were all legitimate users. Aside from that, the indictment is still very damning on other points. Even if the revenue was mostly legit, the primary driver to that revenue and the way MU conducted itself looks to be questionable at best.

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.

droithomme 15y ago
I did not remember reading in the indictment that it was largely ad supported and not subscriptions as you indicate, but you do cite the indictment itself so I assumed you noticed something I did not and went and reread it. It documents $8,840,000 in ad revenue in items 42 through 44, $110 million in subscription revenue from PayPal in item 41, and then in item 67 says "Between September 2005 and the date of this Indictment, the defendants collectively have received more than $175 million from advertising and subscriptions." It would be nice if there was a more detailed break down but the breakdown given does not support claims that subscription income was inconsequential. I wonder, had you actually read the complete indictment, or were you just relying on summaries from other web sites. Sometimes summaries are not accurate or don't give the whole picture. Then again, perhaps I missed a more detailed breakdown elsewhere, if you have it please reference it by specific item number within the indictment. Thanks.
- powertower 15y ago
  I've looked it over again and you're right. The majority of that came from premium accounts. This still does not help MU if the signup originally came after a user visited a page with illegal content, and signed up to be able to get that content or to partake in sharing illegal content and get bounties on it.... Which would all be easy to check by taking a small sample of the logs and seeing what's what. Though it does help MU if it can be shown those were all legitimate users. Aside from that, the indictment is still very damning on other points. Even if the revenue was mostly legit, the primary driver to that revenue and the way MU conducted itself looks to be questionable at best.