9 ms·

Was Megaupload Targeted Because Of Its Upcoming Megabox Digital Jukebox Service?

212 points by caublestone 15y ago

dazbradbury 15y ago
I think you only have to look at the indictment to see why they were shut down. Whilst it's an interesting point, and perhaps if the mega empire had attempted to legitimize their business a lot quicker then the indictment would never have been put together, I simply think this falls into the realms of conspiracy theory. I have posted the full Indictment as a news story, with highlights, for those that are interested in the actual reason for their shut down: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808
rdtsc 15y ago
The insinuation is that someone from the media giants signaled FBI that it is time to take these people down. Not saying it is impossible but how would that work? Would they go through a Congressman by paying them? Is there a number you call and can set a bounty for a particular investigation like "investigate this and if you prosecute successfully you get $100k bonus"
- dcaylor 15y ago
  I have no idea about anything having to do with the Megaupload case, but private business influences the actions of government agencies all the time. It isn't as simple as a number you can call, or paying a bribe (which I think is rare in the US). It has more to do with relationships and influence, and yes, influence with a Congressman does play an important part in that mix. It isn't that easy to spot when legitimate influence (which all large lobby and business interests have) steps over the line and becomes corruption.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    That is why I was wondering what would have been the signaling channel in this case. Obviously for FBI to put all this effort into it, they'd have to have some payoff (maybe publicity about how well they did the job was the payoff?). So at some point someone had to suggest this course of action and hint on the expected reward. One way I can think is through Congress. There are revolving doors around many govt regulatory agencies and industries they regulate but I think a revolving door between FBI and Hollywood is a little harder to imagine. EDIT: Just thought about it. Can someone donate to FBI? I found: * FBIAA ( http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/ http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/ ) * http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate Wonder what kind of tricks FBI would do if someone drops $10M in there?
- bsphil 15y ago
  Not saying that's how it happened, but improper website takedowns by the US government are not exactly new.
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    I know. But this is more than just a website take -down. There are individuals being extradited. This involves some actual legwork, not just sending an email to an name registrar or an ISP.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  If it happened, it was could be the all the ex-RIAA lawyers the Oboma administration put into the DoJ having dinner with their ex-chronies at the RIAA. Over a few drink, they all talk about how crappy MU is. Next day in the DoJ offices, a few calls go out to the FBI. Cronyism is powerful, and there are a LOT of ex-entertainment folks in the government (and probably some government folks who want to get into the entertainment industry who are more than willing to do favors and pull strings).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
dclaysmith 15y ago
The (Hacker News) headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative. The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all. Edit: The HN headline, not the Techcrunch headline.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > If they are guilty of the charges against them And what is that? > If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all. Sounds... speculative.
  - dclaysmith 15y ago
    You got me--I speculated. However, there is a difference between writing a speculative comment and writing a speculative headline. Everything has its place. I could have said "Since they behaved like criminals in the past, they will continue to be criminals" but that would a) assume their guilt and b) rule out the ability for people to change their ways.
  - andylei 15y ago
    > > If they are guilty of the charges against them > And what is that? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808
- user24 15y ago
  > The headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative and the YC article header is in desperate need of a question mark on the end. edit: thanks mods :)
- JonLim 15y ago
  > The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. Not just music distribution, but also movie distribution, if I am reading the article correctly. Seems like a prime target for RIAA and MPAA, though in my mind, this is just plausible, and not the real deal.
citricsquid 15y ago
I think this is reaching quite a bit. The service is not revolutionary or going to "disrupt the music industry" because this is exactly what Grooveshark offer now to independent artists[0]. Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down and they would be an "easy target" if the "corporations" can take down Mega upload. The only value Megaupload has over Grooveshark (and Spotify I believe offer this too but I'm not entirely sure [1]) is the traffic, but I don't think being popular with this on the way is reason enough to shut them down. [0] http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation [1] http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/ http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down Except they're being sued by every single major label - and some internal emails from them are pretty damning. Same case as it is with Megaupload.
  - citricsquid 15y ago
    Yes but Megaupload was taken down completely with FBI involvement, grooveshark are only being sued. If "the labels" could have Megaupload taken down like that because "the labels" were scared of this new "industry disrupting" feature why wouldn't they do the same with Grooveshark, why would they do it the "proper" way? If you have a power drill you don't use a screwdriver, although maybe it can be argued that they didn't want to "show their hand" with Grooveshark and figured it's small enough to sue into oblivion?
    - Karunamon 15y ago
      Perhaps they can only call in so many favors so often? The first one was getting DMCA passed, this one is just a show of power. Ha ha, only serious. Then again, this investigation has been going on for at least two years.
  - krelian 15y ago
jmonegro 15y ago
No, MegaUpload was shut down after years of investigation, not because big music companies got wind of their recent plans and bribed the FBI or something. I'm a bit concerned as to how things went down, but honestly, MegaUpload had it coming. I'm sure there's lots of people who used it legitimately, but I've personally never seen one person or link to a MegaUpload file online that wasn't meant for piracy.
- jeffool 15y ago
  I understand how it could seem that way, but consider the math. If they caused $500M in lost sales, and EVERY illegal download is a lost sale, then with 50M users a day, if everyone was downloading $1 songs, they only had about ten days of piracy. If ever user was pirating one item. If higher priced materials were pirated, or users pirated more than one item, then we're talking less time. Maybe a week, maybe less, of rampant, constant piracy. And this site, roughly, was open since when, 2006?
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Perhaps, but taking it down now is certainly no coincidence.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    What evidence makes you say that? "Timing" is not going to convince me; that self-referentially uses the fact that prompted the question as its own answer.
jrodgers 15y ago
Sensational, yes, but it is possible that being more than just a pr0n collector made Hollywood pay more attention to them as there is some strategic advantage to shut them down. They may have assisted with the investigation to speed things along for whatever reason. I would bet they were more than enough reasons to arrest mr Dotcom but the complexity and the cost might have made it a tough target vs other 'low hanging fruit' law breakers (FBI has limited resources too).
ezioamf 15y ago
;) https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJx...
mikeryan 15y ago
Bullshit. To go legit with currently signed artists they'd have to do deals with the big 4 labels and none of them were likely to license their catalog to mega. They were much more likely to go the grooveshark route an try to hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.
mattvot 15y ago
While my inner revolutionist is bouncing with excitement. Is there actually any evidence. My worry is that it's all speculation.
bradleyland 15y ago
Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view of the situation. I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand). It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers. Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to try and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory. The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives. The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech. Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder? Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website? There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are not as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).
- bproper 15y ago
  The shutdown of MegaUpload was the result of an FBI investigation that took place over the last two years. The idea that an international legal case with multiple extradition arrangements was motivated mostly by a music service launched a month ago is hard to swallow and distracts from the serious debate around online piracy and the future of copyright.
  - 15y ago
victork2 15y ago
mmmm looks more of an another "conspiracy theory" to me than something real. For example this service was announced one month ago, so the whole operation has only been planned for one month by the FBI? Seems highly suspicious, it takes months to years to do something in several countries at the same time... More proof is needed that just a small coincidence.
scott_s 15y ago
Please change the title. It changes a question (no, it's not a theory) into a fact.
ctdonath 15y ago
Interesting theory, which fits nicely with this: “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged The well-connected didn't want the competition, found a suitable offense, and pulled strings to have the competition shut down on before the pretext was eliminated.
drx 15y ago
The "Creative America" video linked in the article (http://vimeo.com/32592166 http://vimeo.com/32592166) is straight propaganda. Creepy.
redthrowaway 15y ago
I've found the following to be of unparalleled utility in evaluating truth claims in journalism: If the headline ends with a question mark, the answer is "No." No caveats, no special cases, just "No." If the question asked had half a chance of being true, it would have been stated, not asked.
- _delirium 15y ago
  Also known as Betteridge's Law of Headlines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines Although sometimes the answer can be "yes", because they phrase the ridiculous insinuation the other way. For example, "Do cellphones kill you?" follows Betteridge's law, but the (actual) CNN headline "Are cell phones safe to use?" asks the same question inverted.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Thanks for the link.
brmj 15y ago
At the risk of being blatantly trollish, let me state for the benefit of the commenters apparently still caught up in it that Ayn Rand's works are to Philosophy what Twilight is to literature.
forrestthewoods 15y ago
Egads! This a Tech Crunch article based on a Reddit post based on Google+ post. That Google+ post was also on HN last night so I'll just copy/paste my reply to that. "This is stupid and wrong. The investigation into MegaUpload took two years. This post wants me to believe the US government convinced the New Zealand government to perform a 70+ person raid in two weeks? The government can't give authorization to someone to tie their shoe in under two weeks! More importantly, this is an opinion piece with zero facts or evidence posted by a freaking high school student. Why in the hell is this nonsense being posted to HN?" I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.
- funkah 15y ago
  Stupid, wrong, and garbage are the correct words for this. People are taking leave of their senses over this bust.
Zimahl 15y ago
This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness (if that's even a word). Here's the plain fact: if a copyright holder notifies me that their material is being shared on my servers and I do nothing about it, I can get sued by them. If I do this on such a grand scale that there is obviously a blatant amount of copyrighted material and I still do nothing about it, the Feds will probably have to be the ones to shut me down until things get worked out. This is what Megaupload was doing. This is not a grander problem that will hit Google or Youtube, they tend to remove copyrighted content pretty quickly. All of this seems very similar to the Gizmondo/Stefan Eriksson deal where things just spiraled out of control into very questionable territory.
firefoxman1 15y ago
I wonder if they had a private Github repository or something containing their source for Megabox that wasn't seized. How cool would that be if they open-sourced it?
andrewfelix 15y ago
This is getting quite ridiculous. What's up with all this speculation? The reason Megaupload was targeted has already been established and well documented. Do people honestly believe the FBI and NZ police are at the recording industries beck and call?

212 points by caublestone 15y ago

I think you only have to look at the indictment to see why they were shut down. Whilst it's an interesting point, and perhaps if the mega empire had attempted to legitimize their business a lot quicker then the indictment would never have been put together, I simply think this falls into the realms of conspiracy theory. I have posted the full Indictment as a news story, with highlights, for those that are interested in the actual reason for their shut down: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808

rdtsc 15y ago

The insinuation is that someone from the media giants signaled FBI that it is time to take these people down. Not saying it is impossible but how would that work? Would they go through a Congressman by paying them? Is there a number you call and can set a bounty for a particular investigation like "investigate this and if you prosecute successfully you get $100k bonus"

dcaylor 15y ago
I have no idea about anything having to do with the Megaupload case, but private business influences the actions of government agencies all the time. It isn't as simple as a number you can call, or paying a bribe (which I think is rare in the US). It has more to do with relationships and influence, and yes, influence with a Congressman does play an important part in that mix. It isn't that easy to spot when legitimate influence (which all large lobby and business interests have) steps over the line and becomes corruption.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  That is why I was wondering what would have been the signaling channel in this case. Obviously for FBI to put all this effort into it, they'd have to have some payoff (maybe publicity about how well they did the job was the payoff?). So at some point someone had to suggest this course of action and hint on the expected reward. One way I can think is through Congress. There are revolving doors around many govt regulatory agencies and industries they regulate but I think a revolving door between FBI and Hollywood is a little harder to imagine. EDIT: Just thought about it. Can someone donate to FBI? I found: * FBIAA ( http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/ http://www.fbiaa.org/donations/ ) * http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate http://www.fbicaindiana.com/donate Wonder what kind of tricks FBI would do if someone drops $10M in there?
bsphil 15y ago
Not saying that's how it happened, but improper website takedowns by the US government are not exactly new.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  I know. But this is more than just a website take -down. There are individuals being extradited. This involves some actual legwork, not just sending an email to an name registrar or an ISP.
SoftwareMaven 15y ago
If it happened, it was could be the all the ex-RIAA lawyers the Oboma administration put into the DoJ having dinner with their ex-chronies at the RIAA. Over a few drink, they all talk about how crappy MU is. Next day in the DoJ offices, a few calls go out to the FBI. Cronyism is powerful, and there are a LOT of ex-entertainment folks in the government (and probably some government folks who want to get into the entertainment industry who are more than willing to do favors and pull strings).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

dclaysmith 15y ago

The (Hacker News) headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative. The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all. Edit: The HN headline, not the Techcrunch headline.

smokeyj 15y ago
> If they are guilty of the charges against them And what is that? > If they are guilty of the charges against them, it's very possible that their new venture wouldn't be "legit" at all. Sounds... speculative.
- dclaysmith 15y ago
  You got me--I speculated. However, there is a difference between writing a speculative comment and writing a speculative headline. Everything has its place. I could have said "Since they behaved like criminals in the past, they will continue to be criminals" but that would a) assume their guilt and b) rule out the ability for people to change their ways.
- andylei 15y ago
  > > If they are guilty of the charges against them > And what is that? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808
user24 15y ago
> The headline is a bit sensational, over simplified, and speculative and the YC article header is in desperate need of a question mark on the end. edit: thanks mods :)
JonLim 15y ago
> The article simply says MegaUpload was going to release a new site targeting music distribution. Not just music distribution, but also movie distribution, if I am reading the article correctly. Seems like a prime target for RIAA and MPAA, though in my mind, this is just plausible, and not the real deal.

citricsquid 15y ago

I think this is reaching quite a bit. The service is not revolutionary or going to "disrupt the music industry" because this is exactly what Grooveshark offer now to independent artists[0]. Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down and they would be an "easy target" if the "corporations" can take down Mega upload. The only value Megaupload has over Grooveshark (and Spotify I believe offer this too but I'm not entirely sure [1]) is the traffic, but I don't think being popular with this on the way is reason enough to shut them down. [0] http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation [1] http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/ http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/

Karunamon 15y ago
>Grooveshark are of questionable legality and use this model, yet they have not been shut down Except they're being sued by every single major label - and some internal emails from them are pretty damning. Same case as it is with Megaupload.
- citricsquid 15y ago
  Yes but Megaupload was taken down completely with FBI involvement, grooveshark are only being sued. If "the labels" could have Megaupload taken down like that because "the labels" were scared of this new "industry disrupting" feature why wouldn't they do the same with Grooveshark, why would they do it the "proper" way? If you have a power drill you don't use a screwdriver, although maybe it can be argued that they didn't want to "show their hand" with Grooveshark and figured it's small enough to sue into oblivion?
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    Perhaps they can only call in so many favors so often? The first one was getting DMCA passed, this one is just a show of power. Ha ha, only serious. Then again, this investigation has been going on for at least two years.
- krelian 15y ago

jmonegro 15y ago

No, MegaUpload was shut down after years of investigation, not because big music companies got wind of their recent plans and bribed the FBI or something. I'm a bit concerned as to how things went down, but honestly, MegaUpload had it coming. I'm sure there's lots of people who used it legitimately, but I've personally never seen one person or link to a MegaUpload file online that wasn't meant for piracy.

jeffool 15y ago
I understand how it could seem that way, but consider the math. If they caused $500M in lost sales, and EVERY illegal download is a lost sale, then with 50M users a day, if everyone was downloading $1 songs, they only had about ten days of piracy. If ever user was pirating one item. If higher priced materials were pirated, or users pirated more than one item, then we're talking less time. Maybe a week, maybe less, of rampant, constant piracy. And this site, roughly, was open since when, 2006?
nextparadigms 15y ago
Perhaps, but taking it down now is certainly no coincidence.
- scott_s 15y ago
  What evidence makes you say that? "Timing" is not going to convince me; that self-referentially uses the fact that prompted the question as its own answer.

jrodgers 15y ago

Sensational, yes, but it is possible that being more than just a pr0n collector made Hollywood pay more attention to them as there is some strategic advantage to shut them down. They may have assisted with the investigation to speed things along for whatever reason. I would bet they were more than enough reasons to arrest mr Dotcom but the complexity and the cost might have made it a tough target vs other 'low hanging fruit' law breakers (FBI has limited resources too).

ezioamf 15y ago

;) https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJx...

mikeryan 15y ago

Bullshit. To go legit with currently signed artists they'd have to do deals with the big 4 labels and none of them were likely to license their catalog to mega. They were much more likely to go the grooveshark route an try to hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

mattvot 15y ago

While my inner revolutionist is bouncing with excitement. Is there actually any evidence. My worry is that it's all speculation.

bradleyland 15y ago

Note: please read this all the way through before down/up voting. I'm not defending any actors here, I'm just trying to present an "all sides considered" view of the situation. I think there's a fair amount of "projecting" going on here. More and more, I see the intellectual property discussion being couched in the language of "looters, moochers, and parasites" (aptly borrowing from Ayn Rand). It's undeniable that the RIAA/MPAA are leveraging government to protect their business model (Randian looter behavior), but how you perceive this action has a lot to do with which side of the fence you're on. If you're on the outside looking to get in, the RIAA/MPAA are looters. If you're on the inside looking to control who gets in, those on the outside are moochers. Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any other way. The RIAA/MPAA are easy villains, and play the part of the looter very well. They don't even appear to try and compete in the market. They just run to the government for cover. That doesn't, in and of itself, validate the "Megabox disruption" theory. The RIAA/MPAA don't view their actions any differently than a business owner who calls the police when someone steals a product from the shelf in their store. Yes, I'm completely aware of the difference. It has been discussed ad nauseum in plenty of places. Digital goods can't be stolen, blah blah blah. I get it. I agree to some extent, but I'm asking you to set aside those views for a moment and consider this chess board from both players' perspectives. The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech. Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder? Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website? There's an old saying about fundamental rights that goes something like this: The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In matters of intellectual property, things are not as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).

bproper 15y ago
The shutdown of MegaUpload was the result of an FBI investigation that took place over the last two years. The idea that an international legal case with multiple extradition arrangements was motivated mostly by a music service launched a month ago is hard to swallow and distracts from the serious debate around online piracy and the future of copyright.
- 15y ago

victork2 15y ago

mmmm looks more of an another "conspiracy theory" to me than something real. For example this service was announced one month ago, so the whole operation has only been planned for one month by the FBI? Seems highly suspicious, it takes months to years to do something in several countries at the same time... More proof is needed that just a small coincidence.

scott_s 15y ago

Please change the title. It changes a question (no, it's not a theory) into a fact.

ctdonath 15y ago

Interesting theory, which fits nicely with this: “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged The well-connected didn't want the competition, found a suitable offense, and pulled strings to have the competition shut down on before the pretext was eliminated.

drx 15y ago

The "Creative America" video linked in the article (http://vimeo.com/32592166 http://vimeo.com/32592166) is straight propaganda. Creepy.

redthrowaway 15y ago

I've found the following to be of unparalleled utility in evaluating truth claims in journalism: If the headline ends with a question mark, the answer is "No." No caveats, no special cases, just "No." If the question asked had half a chance of being true, it would have been stated, not asked.

_delirium 15y ago
Also known as Betteridge's Law of Headlines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridges_Law_of_Headlines Although sometimes the answer can be "yes", because they phrase the ridiculous insinuation the other way. For example, "Do cellphones kill you?" follows Betteridge's law, but the (actual) CNN headline "Are cell phones safe to use?" asks the same question inverted.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Thanks for the link.

brmj 15y ago

At the risk of being blatantly trollish, let me state for the benefit of the commenters apparently still caught up in it that Ayn Rand's works are to Philosophy what Twilight is to literature.

forrestthewoods 15y ago

Egads! This a Tech Crunch article based on a Reddit post based on Google+ post. That Google+ post was also on HN last night so I'll just copy/paste my reply to that. "This is stupid and wrong. The investigation into MegaUpload took two years. This post wants me to believe the US government convinced the New Zealand government to perform a 70+ person raid in two weeks? The government can't give authorization to someone to tie their shoe in under two weeks! More importantly, this is an opinion piece with zero facts or evidence posted by a freaking high school student. Why in the hell is this nonsense being posted to HN?" I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.

funkah 15y ago
Stupid, wrong, and garbage are the correct words for this. People are taking leave of their senses over this bust.

Zimahl 15y ago

This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness (if that's even a word). Here's the plain fact: if a copyright holder notifies me that their material is being shared on my servers and I do nothing about it, I can get sued by them. If I do this on such a grand scale that there is obviously a blatant amount of copyrighted material and I still do nothing about it, the Feds will probably have to be the ones to shut me down until things get worked out. This is what Megaupload was doing. This is not a grander problem that will hit Google or Youtube, they tend to remove copyrighted content pretty quickly. All of this seems very similar to the Gizmondo/Stefan Eriksson deal where things just spiraled out of control into very questionable territory.

firefoxman1 15y ago

I wonder if they had a private Github repository or something containing their source for Megabox that wasn't seized. How cool would that be if they open-sourced it?

andrewfelix 15y ago

This is getting quite ridiculous. What's up with all this speculation? The reason Megaupload was targeted has already been established and well documented. Do people honestly believe the FBI and NZ police are at the recording industries beck and call?