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.<p>"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!<p>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?"<p>I know why this garbage is posted to Reddit and Tech Crunch, but HN is better than that.
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.<p>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.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation" rel="nofollow">http://www.grooveshark.com/compensation</a>
[1] <a href="http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/</a>
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.<p>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).<p>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.<p>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 <i>try</i> 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.<p>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.<p>The fundamental debate is really about fair use and free speech.<p>Fair use - To what extent are we allowed to use copyrighted material without compensation of the rights-holder?<p>Free speech - What is the obligation of a website operator to police the users of said website?<p>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 <i>not</i> as plain as the nose on your face (ta-dum-tss!).
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.<p>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.
Interesting theory, which fits nicely with this:<p><i>“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.”</i>
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged<p>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.
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.<p>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: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808</a>
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.<p>Edit: The HN headline, not the Techcrunch headline.
The insinuation is that someone from the media giants signaled FBI that it is time to take these people down.<p>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"
I've found the following to be of unparalleled utility in evaluating truth claims in journalism:<p>If the headline ends with a question mark, the answer is "No."<p>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.
This is really getting to the point of ridiculousness (if that's even a word).<p>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.<p>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.<p>All of this seems very similar to the Gizmondo/Stefan Eriksson deal where things just spiraled out of control into very questionable territory.
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.<p>They were much more likely to go the grooveshark route an try to hide behind the DMCA safe harbor provisions.
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).
This is getting quite ridiculous. What's up with all this speculation?<p>The reason Megaupload was targeted has already been established and well documented.<p>Do people honestly believe the FBI and NZ police are at the recording industries beck and call?
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.
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?
The "Creative America" video linked in the article (<a href="http://vimeo.com/32592166" rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/32592166</a>) is straight propaganda. Creepy.
mmmm looks more of an another "conspiracy theory" to me than something real.<p>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...<p>More proof is needed that just a small coincidence.