The debate here should not be wether Megaupload is or isn't guilty of infrigiment. But really why the following approach mentioned in the article was not pursue

The debate here should not be wether Megaupload is or isn't guilty of infrigiment. But really why the following approach mentioned in the article was not pursued in favor of the blunt takedown and arrest: Megaupload should have been served with DMCA takedown notices (the site did have a registered DMCA agent, as required by law, though not until 2009). If rightsholders believed that was insufficient, they should have conferred with Megaupload's US counsel (the company has retained US attorneys for some time before the current action). And if that wasn't satisfactory, a civil copyright infringement lawsuit should have been filed, one that would not have taken the site down first and asked questions later.