Talk:Megaupload

"Megaupload.com's Reward Programe" edit

User Special:Contributions/203.131.157.174 made an intriguing edit on the page that has yet to been reverted back. I'm interested in knowing if this is valid criticism and if there are any sources online to justify keeping a mention of this "fake reward program" phenomenon. Hong-baba 18:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all I've seen about it. --DocumentN (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Don't you think that the Criticism section is a bit odd? Only the first statement contains critique regarding Megaupload. Second contains critique to the file-hosting as a whole. And the last two aren't critical statements at all (at least from my POV).Dreambringer 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

"Search engines are commonly used to find download links about a specific subject, including illegally shared files, such as adult movies and games." Deleted this line. HamSalad 08:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I was wondering if the lack of response from the Support Desk should be listed as a criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.49.72.33 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What about blocking other sites (deliberate or not) and running up the other sites' bills while not showing original ads? It's not exactly "win-win" to have your site go down due to lack of money, or get banned from it. The replacement ads are mentioned on the company's own site which uses an image instead of text to say that, oddly. The blockage is claimed by some adult site users. Anyone have more solid references to back up/disprove that claim?

No. 1 ?

Megaupload is currently number 1 website for free file hosting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.72.144 (talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's definitely one of the bigger one-click hosting sites. According to Alexa global rankings [1], Megaupload is #14, Megarotic is #23 and RapidShare is #11. --85.5.113.244 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Megaupload is no. 1 in things no one actually needs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.61.150.68 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Megarotic?

www.megarotic.com (not work safe) seems to be a sister site of Megaupload, but geared towards pornographic content. Might be worth mentioning.

Comparing WHOIS:

Registrant: Megaupload Ltd Room 1204, 12/F 48-62 Hennessy Road Wan Chai, Hong Kong Hong Kong Registrar: DOTREGISTRAR Domain Name: MEGAUPLOAD.COM Created on: 21-MAR-05 Expires on: 21-MAR-14 Last Updated on: 11-FEB-08 Administrative, Technical Contact: Ltd, Megaupload [email protected] Room 1204, 12/F 48-62 Hennessy Road Wan Chai, Hong Kong Hong Kong +852.30173700 Domain servers in listed order: NS3.SEXUPLOADER.COM NS4.SEXUPLOADER.COM

Registrant: Megarotic Limited Room 1204, 12/F 48-62 Hennessy Road Wan Chai, Hong Kong Hong Kong Registrar: DOTREGISTRAR Domain Name: MEGAROTIC.COM Created on: 09-FEB-06 Expires on: 09-FEB-14 Last Updated on: 17-OCT-07 Administrative, Technical Contact: Limited, Megarotic [email protected] Room 1204, 12/F 48-62 Hennessy Road Wan Chai, Hong Kong Hong Kong +852.66865841 Domain servers in listed order: NS3.MEGAROTIC.COM NS6.MEGAROTIC.COM NS7.MEGAROTIC.COM

MegaUpload's Owner: http://www.ukhackers.com/story/?id=13430

--85.5.113.244 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

duly mentioned. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like an ad

The two last sections of this article sound like some sort of ad... 65.23.241.249 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Find and include only accurate information

I've had to correct some guy's mistakes, because he got his information from a flash graphic at the bottom of the MegaUpload site. Anyone planning to make further edits to this (or any other) article, please gather your information from either the FAQs or the Terms of Service. That holds the correct information in the correct context.

You cannot gather any useful or accurate information from a flash graphic that says: "Unlimited Transfers and 250 Gigs of Storage / 14.99 for two months | 79.9 for two years". Look in the terms for the useful stuff, like what "unlimited transfers" actually mean, or that "250 gigs of storage" doesn't mean 250G upload file size.

Sorry for bitching, but I'm sick of the naivety of accepting as truth anything that's written briefly on a website, ESPECIALLY in a graphic or other such marketing element.

Blocking Alexa information

I asked MegaUpload about their choice to include Alexa into their toolbar, and they responded with:

"Alexa uses the data the toolbar sends to them for statistical purposes only, and we trust them. You can prevent the data from ever reaching the Alexa servers by simply putting xml.alexa.com 127.0.0.1 in your %systemroot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts file."

This is from an email, not a webpage, so I don't know if this is valid for inclusion.

NiveusLuna (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it isn't. It doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Maybe it says something like that in the FAQ already? --Nezek (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable links & sources

The sole citation for the Criticism section (TheCredence.com) seems questionable at best. This source should hardly be considered professional or reliable. The 'MegaFix for Firefox' external link seems out-of-place as well and seems inappropriate to include in this context. I am removing the latter, though if anyone has a good reason it should remain is welcome to revert my change. That aside, can anyone find a reliable source for the Criticism comments or remove this section entirely? Thanks. Ninestories (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Service is currently dead in Hong Kong

Oddly enough, the service has been dead here in Hong Kong for the past month. (Psychoneko (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Not odd, HK media companies are the only ones that could make trouble for them. (Note that the jDownloader utility can access the downloads regardless.) Barsoomian (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

First up, I don't really see how Hong Kong media companies could make trouble for MegaUpload. Could you elaborate more on this? Secondly, the jDownloader utility only occasionally works only when it accesses the jDownloader server/proxy. I could explain much more but it's probably better to let people figure it out by going to the jDownloader forums. (Psychoneko (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

They could sue them. Doesn't matter who eventually won or lost, it would cost a fortune to defend, lawyers are extremely expensive in HK. There was a case a couple of years ago when a guy was jailed for seeding movies on BT, so the courts are not tolerant of filesharing. As for jD, it works reliably in HK if you have a dynamic IP, no proxy needed. Just have Reconnect working to get a new IP after each download. Barsoomian (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The website doesn't work for me either (UK), does it work anywhere or has it closed completely? MatthewWaller (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The obvious reason they banned HK and China IPs is due to tax law. You are not charged for foreign earnings but have to pay tax on any domestic earnings. Cheapest solution is to blackout HK/China instead of being forced to hand over financial data to authorities to go over. 65.110.23.140 (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked in the UK?

The Internet Watch foundation blocked access to MegaUpload to 95% of the UK Sunday 18 October 2009 on and again on Saturday 20 March 2010. - that's odd, because I was able to use Megaupload no problem yesterday. Either Karoo is that 5%, or it isn't true. For now, I'm going to remove it, as it doesn't have any sources. Digifiend (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Waiting Times History

in 2006 users had to wait - as i remember - 480 minutes between each file to download and there was file space low limit - which i don't remember - and then then waiting time and the file changed many times till 2009. does anybody has the full exact informations about that so we can add them to the article? --41.35.236.87 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal Status?

Can someone write a short bit about the legal status of megavideo? Does it have copyright issues? That's originally what I looked on this article for and it seems like something that should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.89.169 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. My kids use this service, and it's difficult to determine its legal status. Do copyright owners get paid? Are the uploads authorized? The article lacks basic facts. ~ They are working as a hosting provider, which means that the service itself is legal in many countries and its is the uploaders responsibility to ensure that the material is legal. 81.167.215.20 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Offering a legal opinion about anything on the Internet is well nigh impossible. It depends on the country you are in, and how case law has progressed over the years. As a result, "Is Megaupload legal?" is too broad a question to have any easy answer, so it is not addressed in the article. There is a tendency to single out Megaupload for criticism, although its basic model is no different from RapidShare and numerous other sites (MediaFire, Hotfile etc). All of these sites have terms of service, eg here for Megaupload. The article points out that Megaupload is often accused of encouraging copyright violation (which it denies), and that it has been blocked in some countries as a result.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The American indictment appears to be saying that the company made money by promoting file downloading, and therefore that was a criminal conspiracy. Since when was downloading files illegal?

Dotcom's bail request has not been denied. The judges decision on the application for bail has not yet been made - it was reserved. Can an established user please correct the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done At the time of writing, no decision has been made on whether bail will be granted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload song controversy

As the source here says, UMG's statement that the song takedown did not occur under the terms of the DMCA raises more questions than it answers. The terms of the Content Management System (CMS) agreement are unclear, and the source also says: "This appears to be a reference to the agreement underlying the VEVO partnership between Google and UMG announced in April 2009. As far as we know, the agreement isn't public, so we can only speculate on what's in Paragraphs 1(b) and 1(g). But we plan to ask Google for a copy".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• At the time of writing, The Mega Song by Mr Kim Dotcom is back up on YouTube again, with Megaupload claiming "VICTORY AGAINST UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP. The censorship of the Mega Song is OVER!!!" The reasons for the UMG takedown notice are increasingly unclear, as this Techdirt article explains.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking in India

The block on Megaupload in India occurred after Reliance Entertainment obtained a court order, citing illegal copies of its 2011 film Singham on the site. This was back in July, and the sourcing does not say whether the block on Mega is still in place (it is, according to this edit). The sourcing does not say whether other file hosting sites have since been unblocked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FBI shuts down site

The FBI has seized and shutdown megaupload: [2]. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The site is down, but detail is needed on what happened. As ever, someone has jumped in and read the last rites, which is unwise at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We add details as they become available. The current question is: Is the current information available from a reliable source? The answer is yes. We have New York Times and Associated Press hits in Bing News search. Check this out: [3] Fleet Command (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly more to come on this, but it would be WP:CRYSTAL to say "this is the end of Megaupload". Caution is needed when writing articles on the basis of breaking news coverage.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

History is repeating itself. Newzbin was shut down after court action in 2010, but took its server computers to the Seychelles and relaunched. Megaupload is hosted at an IP address in Virginia, 174.140.154.12.[4] Megaupload could relaunch with servers outside the US, so it is too early to pronounce the death sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also some parallels with the famous Swedish police bust of The Pirate Bay in 2006.[5] A lot of people thought at the time that this was the end of TPB, but it was not. Since Megaupload is a Hong Kong based company, it still exists, even if it can no longer have a US based host. No need to make rush changes to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

If there is a consensus of established editors that there's a need, I can semi-protect this. Pro: would eliminate good-faith misguided edits and semi-troll edits; con: would eliminate input from good-faith editors who are new. On the third hand, there's really not much to contribute at this point, so it's unlikely that a novice editor will bring anything new to the article right now.

As I see it, mostly the article needs minor, experienced, non-alarmist massaging to reflect a single wire report's information. I'm of the personal opinion that there is not much value in the surge of anonymous and new-editor edits brought on by the media attention. But, I've also been absent as an admin for ages, so though the first point in the guidelines suggests that semi-protection is warranted I'm not going to make the call. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems warranted to me. The abuse to this page is starting to ramp up as more and more people find out about the sites being shut down. - 65.28.15.50 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection as the silly brigade has now turned up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! And Salvio beat me to it. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

SUPPORT notion of semi-protection. Whilst mildy amusing points have a valid critisism of the removal action its not appropriate for wikipedia, and even breaks the POV. This article is being reverted and changed all too much. I dislike the fact the websites not available, but comeon this is an encyclopedia. Deadagain33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 19 January 2012

more credible link to MegaUpload takedown http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html

167.92.123.10 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Link is taking forever to load for me. It appears that Anonymous is already DDoSing justice.gov. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

FBI has more info. Evalowyn (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And yes, Anon is revenging.. kinda. Evalowyn (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Individual tendrils of the collective are twitching about, but the whole beast is not yet fully attending to this. Normal early operating procedure, in other words. Incidentally, there's a Coral Cache of the .gov page here: http://www.justice.gov.nyud.net:8090/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html — Saxifrage ✎ 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Kim Dotcom has been arrested.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous' retaliation

Anonymous is DDoSing several sites in retaliation: http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-doj-universal-sopa-235/ . Relevant? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload song link

The "Mega Song" link under External links goes to megaupload.com. The link could be changed to this one: has over 11 million views, has been up since December 17th, and it on the account of Mr. Kim, the founder of megaupload.com. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

megaupload shutdown

[7]

megaupload has just been shutdown and its founder has been indicted, how should we add this to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

By using the official Wikipedia time machine and going back in time to add it a few hours ago. Oh look, done! ;) — Saxifrage ✎ 22:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Physical address

Okay, http://web.archive.org/web/20100102004055/http://megaupload.com/?c=terms says:

• "Megaupload Limited P.O. Box No. 28410 Gloucester Road Post Office Hong Kong"

But that's a mailing address. Where were the physical offices located? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like "Megaupload Ltd, Room 1204, 12/F, 48-62 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong" from the WHOIS record.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the find! http://www.commercial.hsbc.com.hk/1/2/commercial/customer-service/banking-channels/sme-centres says that it's the Shanghai Industrial Investment Building WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

So the Hong Kong authorities were definitely involved - don't start assuming that the Americans have some magic ability to arrest anyone on Earth, anywhere and override the laws of those other countries. Wikipedia has to remain factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.77.172 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources themselves said that several law enforcement agencies around the world cooperated on this sting. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some New Zealand news pages with addresses: Hugo999 (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Dotcom in New Zealand". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
• "Website fights back". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
• "New Zealand police complete Dotcom search". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.

Sources

• Sisario, Ben. "7 Charged as F.B.I. Closes a Top File-Sharing Site." The New York Times. January 19, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload back online? No, fake site with malware

megavideo dot bz— Preceding unsigned comment added by ForgenRaden (talk • contribs) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

megaupload take down and SOPA/PIPA

was the megaupload take down in any way a retaliation for (or related to) the wikipedia blackout? --74.179.122.10 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The timing is purely coincidental, the US Justice dept indicted Megaupload, Kim Dotcom and others two weeks ago - see [8] where it states, "The individuals and two corporations – Megaupload Limited and Vestor Limited – were indicted by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia on Jan. 5, 2012". FanN | talk 02:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Not coincidental. Not coincidental at all.. I cannot comment further, though.. but payback's a bitchSOPA supporter (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you cannot comment further and are unwilling or unable to provide any evidence then your input has no value. The facts are that the FBI and US Justice Department has been working on this for a long time in conjunction with foreign jurisdictions, and two weeks ago issued an indictment that was actioned today. Coincidentally, a week after the indictment Wikipedia began a poll and voted to blackout its English site in opposition to SOPA/PIPA. The blackout happened on the 18th, and any coincidence that has with the arrests and closure of Megaupload makes for a very tenuous link - both are concerned with internet piracy laws - and that's all. If you believe there's a connection then you'll probably also secretly know that Kim Jong-il faked the moon landings and is currently shacked up with Elvis and the guy from the Grassy Knoll in a secret base deep beneath the South Pole plotting the Great Internet War. FanN | talk 08:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you really need to lock that page for editing please at least bring in some English speaker to proofread. The government send in prosecutors and not prosectors.78.148.150.9 (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC) smartass

I guess that rules you out, Pip. Quendishir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

from Portal:Current events/2012 January 19, resource

• The FBI shuts down Megaupload. In response, hacker group Anonymous shuts down the United States Department of Justice website and three websites of the entertainment industry. (Washington Post) (CNET)

99.35.14.75 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews

Wikinews has related news:

• US government, music industry websites taken offline in web attack

99.35.14.75 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2012

This needs to be changed:

"Later that day, Megaupload announced that it will return with a new website called megavideo dot bz.[5]".

Perhaps change it to

"They have currently not announced any plans of returning with a new website."

And the source for this information is invalid. The website is a scam and possibly contains viruses.

Iop777 (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Iop777 is correct. The source is invalid. That false information needs to be removed from the article as soon as possible, because megavideo.bz is an opportunistic fake that tries to install malware. We can't have a link to that in such a high profile article! Db105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC).

Hello it's prosecutor and not prosector. If you can't proofread don't lock the entry and open it up. This is Wikipedia and not some redneck nonsense sandbox. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.9 (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the lead and found no evidence of malware, do you have anything at all that says there is malware there ? or any way to check for malware. I also checked the original reference, and that all checked out too. It qualifies as perfectly notable and encyclopedic so far, but please post any reason why it isn't so it can be removed asap ! Penyulap _talk 09:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have no evidence that it tried to install malware, other than having seen warnings to that effect in several forums. However, when someone goes to the trouble of creating a hoax like that, it is reasonable to suspect that there are motives other than playing a joke. Db105 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, megavideo dot bz is not loading. The dot bz domain is hardly the top end of the market, and the content of the page appeared to be the same as 109.236.83.66 here in a screenshot. The graphics are good, but the lousy English sets off alarm bells straight away. Until a rock solid source confirms that Megaupload is back online, nothing should go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload has a new site

Keep low key or it will be closed again. Please highlight the text below.
IP address 109.236.83.66--Tntchn (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This may be correct, but would need a reliable source. There has already been one attempt to spread malware with a fake domain, so care is needed. WikiLeaks came back after domain and hosting problems, so it would not be surprising if Megaupload returns in some form.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• For anyone who is curious, there is a screenshot of the "new" Megaupload here. Please don't click on any links claiming to be the reborn Megaupload at the moment, as they could easily be scams or malware. Wait for a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This is fake. It's part of the anonops DDoS. ☭ cmn ☭ ( ❝❞ /✍ ) 15:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Past tense

Isn't it just a little premature to have gone through and changed almost every reference to its existence into past tense? ("MegaUpload was", "MegaUpload included", "MegaUpload allowed, etc.) Being taken offline doesn't mean the company no longer exists. 98.237.213.194 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree, but people do like to keep the article up to date. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it can all be changed back again if the site returns. At the moment, it is hard to say if or when the site will return.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I can fully sympathize with wanting to keep it up to date, but in some cases the tense change is clearly factually-inaccurate. The company still exists as an entity, whether they're currently serving files or not. 98.237.213.194 (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There is fundamental difference between law enforcement action and a binding court ruling. Only the latter can change the status of the company to past tense. So I've made the requisite changes. __meco (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. 98.237.213.194 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload and Napster

Megaupload is not a torrent site or a piece of software. Also, the citation here is in Spanish, which is far from ideal. Napster was never raided by police, but shut down after a court case, as were LimeWire and Mininova. This is not really necessary in the WP:LEAD, and is potentally misleading. Meagupload is a File hosting service.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Torrent or not, they're all P2P. Napster was the first case and made the most noise, and now Megaupload is breaking a new record. This is not misleading at all, and aside from the Spanish language source (which, although "not ideal", complies with WP:RS), there is also an English language source as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The source cited is a potted history of copyright infringement. There are no direct comparisons between Napster and Megaupload, and it is potentially misleading to put Megaupload in the same boat as P2P software that was deliberately designed to share files. For a non-technical reader, this creates an inaccurate impression in the opening paragraph.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

OK – please indulge the non-technical me: what is the practical difference between P2P software that people use for file sharing, and hosting servers that people use for... file sharing? I also didn't quite get the first sentence in your above comment. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

During the 2000s, most of the controversies were set off by P2P software or torrent sites, eg Grokster or The Pirate Bay. My main concern is giving people the impression in the WP:LEAD that the current controversy is about P2P software or torrent sites, when it is not. The real issue is copyright infringement. There is no great need to draw a comparison with Napster in the lead section, and it is something that would be better discussed later on in the article, where there is more space to put it in context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but you're missing something else here: the easiest way to convey a subject to the "average schmo" is by comparing it to a relatable case. The issue, although about copyright infringement, is still largely about the P2P aspect of it, as this is not about, say, raids on Top 40 bands that play copyrighted songs at weddings. Therefore, for the sake of accessibility, I believe it is a very good way to open an encyclopedia article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Napster is not the best comparison to the current situation, as it was a piece of software, not a website. Megaupload was a Top 100 Alexa ranked website (72) that was taken down overnight after an FBI-led raid. This is new territory, and the article should reflect this rather than making a comparison that could mislead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Same $#!+, different technology In any case, I've requested a third opinion. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference is simple: P2P stands for peer-to-peer, without any server inbetween where relevant data is being stored other than data related to location. Megaupload, on the other hand, is a file-hosting service, which is like a rentable harddisk, or a rentable storage place IRL. Another good comparison for Megaupload would be the US Mail service which has a known history of delivering illegal material (remember the anthrax panic back in 2001?). But do you remember any time where that lead to the arrest of the United States Postmaster General and the complete shutdown of US Mail? Because that's virtually what just happened. --79.193.31.193 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

...and here we go: I asked for the practical difference, not for the technical difference. As far as the uneducated user is concerned, there is one use to all of that: one person uploads a file and another person downloads that same file. They don't really care whether or not a host/carrier is used or "how hot dogs are made". The Megaupload case is causing a big buzz that is largely reminiscent of the Napster buzz, that arose from the same exact concerns: copyright infringing file sharing. Does no one here actually see this??? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me a precedence where the United States Postmaster General has been arrested and US Mail shut down because a person sent a book to another. The US Mail even profits from this form of copyright infringement by accepting the delivery fee payed by the perpetrator! What I'm saying is that an organization was targeted for a form of unlawful behavior that it was not responsible for and that it was actively working against. --79.193.31.193 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And besides, since many people are relating this to the recent protests against SOPA: It's the very lobbyists in support of SOPA that encouraged people to infringe copyrights in the first place, gave people the means to do it, and gave them detailled instructions on how to do it: [9] [10] --79.193.31.193 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A person who paid for an account at Megaupload and used it legally is going to be well annoyed by the current situation. This is quite different from LimeWire, Grokster etc, where people were knowingly sharing copyrighted material by running the software.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want a practical difference, here: the legal situation is entirely different (a court-ordered closure of a software/server combination and the dissolution of a company after a conviction vs. an international/FBI arrests and seizure of hardware and DNS control without a conviction yet). Since this is a legal event, comparisons with unrelated legal events are unwarranted. The only connection is that the inspiration is copyright law enforcement, which has already been stated.

The only connection is that both are part of a history of societal conflict over copyright since the birth of the Internet. They're not even the only high-profile examples in such a history, just the earliest and the latest. If they deserve to be mentioned in the same article, it should be in an article about the history of copyright conflict—which is, obviously, not what this article is about.

Furthermore, encyclopedias are not editorial. They provide information and the blatantly obvious connections to other subjects, and then allow the reader to make connections between article subjects. We don't do that for the reader, because the reader's research purpose—and hence the connections that are relevant—is not our responsibility nor right to decide. Drawing a connection would make Napster seem somehow directly related to Megaupload to a uninformed reader, which is false and a disservice to that reader.

It's also worth noting that the lack of mention is itself informative. A reader such as yourself, who assumes they're related, may dig deeper to find out why such a connection is missing from the article and hence learn than Megaupload is not P2P, and is unlike Napster in that it is in fact used for mixed legal and illegal purposes. Hence, by linking them we would do a disservice twice over to the readers of the encyclopedia. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Napster and Megaupload are unrelated. To do so would violate WP:SYN. ianmacm is right and I support the current version. For the future, please provide the diffs of the versions in question.Curb Chain (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I am also looking at the site which hosts the english link citation: http://www.deltaworld.org/. It looks like a blog post which fails WP:RS.Curb Chain (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What about ABC (newspaper)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the spanish link, that is irrelevant to this issue, as what you seem to think is that if something is sensational, it should be correlated together. That may be in demand on Wikinews, but not on an encyclopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

POV - Recital of indictment

under "Legal Case" section.

Since when is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for prosecutors? Vtzzoat (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been no case presented for the argument that this is simply American big business using New Zealand police to protect their financial interests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The FBI's jurisdiction against a Hong Kong-based company

Does it even have that? Does the article clear up this issue or even discuss it? __meco (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It certainly should, got any sources or ideas ? Penyulap _talk 13:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Interpol allows requests to be made to the police in other countries, which may be how the FBI was able to arrest Kim Dotcom in New Zealand. The USA and New Zealand are both member states of Interpol. There are also parallels with the case of Richard O'Dwyer [11], who is currently facing extradition to the United States from the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article currently gives the impression that the FBI has worldwide jurisdiction. __meco (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The FBI has no jurisdiction outside the USA. However, as recent events show, it may use treaty obligations to enforce US law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. government has said that a website with a .com or .net address is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Ref. the current case of Richard O'Dwyer in the UK: "US anti-piracy body targets foreign website owners for extradition" Emkins (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I think this needs to be pointed out explicitly in the article. However, even though the DOJ asserts jurisdiction they cannot physically confiscate servers that are located in another country without the complicity of that country's law enforcement authorities. Thus the article should read "so-and-so agency of country A confiscated the servers following a request from the FBI" or similarly when it comes to "shutdown" even though that term is a bit opaque. __meco (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The .com and .net domains are both operated by Verisign, which is based in Virginia. Perhaps as a coincidence, the IP address of megaupload.com (174.140.154.12) was in Virginia as well. This does not necessarily mean that the servers were in Virginia, but it would give the FBI some jurisdiction. The Richard O'Dwyer case is a precedent, as he ran a site called tvshack.net. The site's server computers were not in the USA, and this has led to controversy and claims that he should be tried in the UK. The article should consider mentioning the O'Dwyer case as a parallel.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What's interesting are the differences to the O'Dwyer case: While Kim Dotcom was arrested over charges for something that is illegal both in the US and New Zealand, Richard O'Dwyer was arrested and is awaiting extradition for what's illegal in the US, but *NOT* in the UK. O'Dwyer never uploaded or hosted any copyrighted material, all he did was link to another place, which is decidenly not illegal in the UK. --79.193.63.57 (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand news pages with addresses

• "Dotcom in New Zealand". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
• "Website fights back". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
• "New Zealand police complete Dotcom search". 22 January 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. Hugo999 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

MPAA/RIAA stooges are trying to influence the article

Editors beware. JIYCR (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Which edits do you think are trying to do this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty neutral to me... Yarou (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What with all the British spellling?

This is an American case. The FBI and U.S. courts don't use British spelling. Flying white saucer (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is about more than the FBI case against Hong Kong registered Megaupload; however at least two of the persons arrested, including Kim Dotcom are New Zealand residents and the arrests took place in New Zealand, and they will be processed under New Zealand's laws before they ever see a US Federal jurisdiction. That sounds like a good case for using New Zealand English in the article - or Hong Kong English.FanN | talk 20:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Criminal defense section & Techdirt

Undue weight on 2 sources. An LA Times editorial is high a quality source. Techdirt blogger Mike Masnick not so much. Both sources are oddly labelled as "Legal commentators". Attribution needs improving there. The bulletin points (in defense) summarise a large amount of the article. The text includes underlining and italics, as if to emphasise the DOJ's stupidity in bringing the case. Techdirt blogger has completely misunderstood the alleged motive in not making Megaupload's internal search engine available to outside eyes (needing to conceal the extent of infringing material which operators themselves agree is "substantial") but happy to point users to third-party search engines (to continue generating traffic thus revenue). Masnick misrepresents other points too. However that is a personal observation, as such is meaningless. I'd rather we find another high quality source rather than a pro file sharing blogger. — ThePowerofX 19:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If we get more or better legal analyses, then yes. But a lot of the techdirt analysis is a recount of non-contentious law and legal cases, and technical practices and considerations, where the writer isn't saying anything contentious. For example it's not contentious that all child porn would be illegal no matter who hosts it, but a file might be legal for some and illegal for others, nor that file removal based on file rather than link might wrongfully affect some users. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that it was okay to remove a link but not the file is painfully weak. The rightsholders were filing an assertion that the file was infringing. Under the DMCA anyone claiming the file to be legitimate needed to file a counter-notice for it to be kept. Jheald (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Company IS, or Company WAS

I've set the intro as present tense - the company IS. Although the websites are sezied, the legal entity "Megaupload Limited" still exists as a Hong Kong company and no report says that it has been liquidated or ceased to exist. If disagreed please discuss here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A corporation continues to exist - even if the owners are dead - until there is a decree of dissolution or a certificate of termination. Emkins (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I rather think that a "certificate of termination" is an American concept, not a Hong Kong one. Hong Kong companies are simply de-registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Indictment reasons

There is a slight conflict here in that should we summarize what media highlighted as reasons, or what the indictment itself gave as reasons. Most media reports are based on the indictment anyway, and summarizing them legally from the indictment is the authoritative source on "why it was considered criminal" - arstechnica is not.

Can we discuss if there is doubt? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:PSTS says we should start from secondary sources as far as possible, using primary sources for backup.

Secondly, if we're trying to help people to understand what's going on here, the way the indictment is set out is very poorly structured. To properly explain what is going on, the place to start is actually the "Conspiracy to Commit Copyright Infringement count" as set out from page 24 onwards, plus why the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA are asserted not to apply, because it is from this count the others hang -- the RICO count is only operative if the enterprise has been directed to criminal copyright infringement, the Money Laundering count is only operative if it was the proceeds of criminal activity that the enterprise was transferring across state borders, etc.

The assertions about MU's business model also fundamentally depend on the material being infringing and MU knowing that. It is not an offence, or even suspicious, to pay people increasing royalties for providing popular content -- that is the basis of pretty much any publishing contract. But it becomes a problem if the material that is the subject of the contract is material that one knows (or, perhaps: that one might be reasonably expected to believe) to be infringing.

That is why it is the discussion surrounding that point that is what should logically be the jumping-off point of any attempt we make to explain the case being made against MU (as, in fact, Ars did).

What we're doing here is taking a big primary-source document and highlighting particular aspects of it as being important. WP:PSTS strongly encourages us to make that assessment through presenting how the material has been evaluated by secondary sources. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it's not our place to pretend to be lawyers and present our analysis of any indictment as legally authoritative. Equally a plain reading summary (of any document, book, image, video, or other entity) is valid provided it doesn't reach into WP:OR. That's after all exactly how plot summaries are written for thousands of books and films. We write them based on the plain reading of the book or film, we don't look for what an reviewer or critic or newspaper wrote and limit to that, or plagiarize or copy their specific view on it. An object is a reliable source for its own content. So there's a balance.

Also it's important to propose it as "the indictment states" (X says Y) and not to assert ourselves that it's true or accurate in fact.

In this case I agree it's right to be cautious. But a simple list of key points plainly stated in the indictment is indeed a plain summary of reasons asserted to show criminality. A lot of the indictment is specifics that can be summed up accurately (eg "evidence the owners discussed infringement"), or speaks to different legal concerns such as assets held, payments made etc (ie actions alleged to be in the course of criminality). As an encyclopedia, and for non-legal readers, the order I'd expect to ask is big picture first - why is it claimed to be criminal. Detail second - what about safe harbor (if I'm aware of that). I'm being mindful of our audience here I guess. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I have made above is that the proper place to start to understand "why is it claimed to be criminal" is to explain why it is alleged that MU knew the material was infringing. The assertions that there was something untoward about MU rewarding providers of popular material and removing material that was unpopular only have any traction if MU knew (or reasonably should have known) that the material was infringing. That is the heart of the issue in the case against MU.

The best place to start reading a legal document is not necessarily page 1. For example, the important part of a patent document is the claims, not how the invention is described. Similarly here the key part is the systematic presentation of the particulars of the various counts from page 21 onwards (and page 24 for the copyright charge itself). The sequence there very much does start from the most direct.

• members of the Mega Conspiracy,including many of the named defendants, willfully reproduced and distributed infringing copiesof copyrighted works using computer servers controlled by the Conspiracy
• ... provided financial incentives for users to upload infringing copies of popular copyrighted works. The Conspiracy made payments to uploaders who were known to have uploaded infringing copies of copyrighted works
• ... generally did not terminate the user accounts of known copyright infringing users, when it had the rightand ability under its Terms of Service to do so
• ... made no significant effort to identify users who were using the Mega Sites or services to infringe copyrights, to prevent the uploading of infringing copies of copyrighted materials, or to identify infringing copies of copyrighted works located on computer servers controlled by the Conspiracy
• ...
• ... generally did not delete infringing copies of copyrighted works from computer servers that they controlled, even when they were aware of the infringing material or the removal was specifically requested by the copyright holder
• ... selectively complied with their obligations to remove any copyrighted materials (or links thereto) from the computer servers they controlled, and sometimes deliberately did not remove copyrighted works (or links thereto) when it would result in a loss of revenue.
• ... deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed copyright infringing content from their servers, while, in fact, they only removed certain links to the content file, which could still be illegally downloaded through numerous redundant links. Redundant links were sometimes created by members of the Conspiracy
• ... had the ability to search files that were on the computer systems they controlled, and purposefully did not provide full and accurate search results to the public, or, in the case of Megaupload.com, chose not to provide any search functionality at all in order to conceal the fact that the primary purpose of the website and service was to reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works for private financial gain
• ... misrepresented to the Conspiracy’s users and the public the nature of the files that were contained on the computer servers it controlled and of the amount of their network bandwidth associated with infringement
• ... reproduced copyrighted works directly from third-party websites, including from YouTube.com, to make them available for reproduction and distribution on Megavideo.com

etc. If we're going to provide a bullet-list to explain what the indictment is based on, then this is what it should resemble; from the very top reflecting the allegations that there is evidence that MU knew the material was infriging, because that is the logical foundation that provides the mens rea to makes some of the later actions arguably suspicious. Jheald (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The point's fair but I don't agree, mainly for one reason to do with the article and readers. The starting point of the indictment is the overarching claim - they were infringers (ie your first bullet). But we already know from the foregoing that the site was shut down for criminal activity, the essence next is what points were raised to show criminality. I'm not sure the term for this but the two are in different classes. "Long term storage was only free for repeated downloads" is evidence showing why it might have been criminal (in their view), while "it was infringing" is a claim but not a pointer to a specific point of evidence. It's a bit like the difference between "X is a murderer" and "X stabbed Y to death in a robbery on 17 December". Hope that makes sense.

What I would be fine with is a statement in the preceding paragraph to the effect "they were accused of running a criminal business centered around large scale copyright infringement", to make clear that point. But I figured someone reading the specifics would get that anyway - "downloading youtube", "directly accessing infringing materials" and "removing child porn but not infringing matters" is kinda hard to miss.

Any help? (And note most of your bullets are already in there, summarized) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose my problem is that the assertion that "Long term storage was only free for repeated downloads" in itself is bizarrely tenous, inconsequential even, as grounds for imputing criminality; so too the fact of the downloads being supported by advertising; and the royalties/rewards scheme -- whereas so much other evidence is asserted (that the Ars article summarises, per the paragraph I put up) that on the face of it would establish the illegal conduct directly (that they were knowingly storing and making available infringing material, and therefore the mechanisms to encourage popular downloads promoted piracy, and the advertising reflected earnings off piracy).

It is the assertions which establish this -- the suggestions that they made payments to uploaders who were known to have uploaded infringing copies of copyrighted works; that they selectively complied with their obligations to remove any copyrighted materials (or links thereto) from the computer servers they controlled, and sometimes deliberately did not remove copyrighted works (or links thereto) when it would result in a loss of revenue; that they deliberately misrepresented to copyright holders that they had removed copyright infringing content from their servers, while, in fact, they only removed certain links to the content file etc; that they had the ability to search files that were on the computer systems they controlled, and used it to seek out and download infringing material; that they cleaned their "Top 100" list, but did not then remove the material from their system; that they set out to rip off YouTube wholesale -- it is all of this which is directly damning (and only partly included in your list). Jheald (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE refer to Reliable Sources and how they can be used to improve the article - Wiki is not a forum, and this thread is quickly heading in that direction. Our opinions/viewpoints count for naught; we summarize reliable source material. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.4.140 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

References tag

I have removed the refimprove tag from the top of the page. We already have one warning about the article describing a current event and more verbiage isn't helpful. This tag is only appropriate where there is a serious shortage of references in an article. Hardly the case here. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Parsing Second Paragraph

   The shutdown led to what activist group Anonymous calls
   "the single largest Internet attack in its history" in
   retaliation.[6]

Why am I having trouble parsing this? Am I the only one? Is "led to" being used to mean "constituted", "amounted to"? If not, what was the cause, what was effect that was led to? And who was retaliating for what? Help, please. Toddcs (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Top filesharing site Filesonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests

This is a big development: CNET News: FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57363594-93/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/ Suigyoza (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Although strictly about FileSonic, this should probably be mentioned here as well. The site's main page currently says "All sharing functionality on FileSonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally." The Megaupload arrests have called into question the whole future of file hosting services, as nobody will want to run a site like this if they are facing criminal charges if someone uploads copyrighted material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FileSonic doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. Digifiend (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Filesonic had an article but it was deleted. There are many cyberlocker sites, but Filesonic is one of the larger and more notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Headquaters Location?

I noticed that the headquarters is set to 'America', but AFAIK there are only servers in America? The physical address section of this talk page seems to agree with me on the HQ not being on America. Can we find the *actual* headquarters, and provide a source for it? Information probably relevant now that legal proceedings are taking place. 70.65.187.72 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The headquarters location of Megaupload in the infobox was changed to Hong Kong, as this is where the company is registered.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fileserve now also dead. Megaupload arrests have effectively killed filesharing without SOPA

http://torrentfreak.com/cyberlocker-ecosystem-shocked-as-big-players-take-drastic-action-120123/ Cyberlocker Ecosystem Shocked As Big Players Take Drastic Action
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/23/filesonic-file-sharing-offline Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16679174 Storage sites unnerved by Megaupload action Carlkysz (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FileSonic is not the same as Fileserve, which is still accepting files and offering HTML links. Fileserve was working earlier today, but the current home page no longer offers uploads. RapidShare has said that it is not concerned by the current situation, and this should perhaps be in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FileSonic, FilePost, FileServe, WSUpload are basically all the same company and they are now no longer "sharing" links - uploader/downloader service only and will likely stay that way until the "heat" is off.  :-P The West is putting alot of pressure of China and Russia to 'play ball,' so this could be a major change-event in the history of cyberspace. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Anonymous"

I won't do it myself in fear of angering you operators, but please consider removing the "Anonymous" quote. There is no such thing as "Anonymous" group, and those people who claim to be one are not credible enough to add them to a proper wiki article. The reference is just some silly news article that makes things up as it goes (considering its use of "Anonymous" hacking group and quotes from it). --194.190.194.74 (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Hackers retaliate over Megaupload website shutdown from the BBC News website says "A statement attributed to Anonymous claimed responsibility", which is probably more accurate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

FORBES: Is This The Real Reason Why MegaUpload Was Shut Down?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/01/24/is-this-the-real-reason-why-megaupload-was-shut-down/ Megaupload was planning on launching a new music sharing website called Megabox that looked like it had the potential to completely transform music distribution, and even find a way to pay musicians in the process.... http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111221airvinyl MegaUpload Is Now Launching a Music Service Called MegaBox... Wednesday, December 21, 2011 There's another gigantic wrinkle in the MegaUpload drama. Not only is MegaUpload fighting tooth-and-nail against Universal Music Group, but they're now planning the launch of a cloud-based music locker, download store, and do-it-yourself artist service. It's called MegaBox, and it's already up in beta with listed partners 7digital, Gracenote, Rovi, and Amazon MP3. Megabox.com will soon allow artists to sell their creations directly to consumers while allowing artists to keep 90 percent of earnings... Ualpoetv12 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The FBI investigation had been ongoing for two years [12] so it is unlikely that SOPA, PIPA or Megabox was a major issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

IIRC even the NZ police were involved long before the MegaBox launch. It wouldn't surprise me if the date of the raid had already been partially planned before the MegaBox launch. (The FBI probably knew about the MegaBox plans before the launch for obvious reasons, but it's nonsense to suggest they would share this with third parties. Of course third parties could have found out themselves.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IDK... the timing seems a bit too coincidental... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Megabox did not start picking up media coverage until December 2011. The Hollywood studios, television and record companies were all hopping mad about Megaupload long before that. The degree of planning involved in the New Zealand raid suggests that it had been in the works for a long time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Law???

The article states that people may have unintentionally participated in the DDoS and may have violated U.S. Law. Which U.S. Law, and what's the citation? I am not aware of any law that prohibits the visiting of a website, even an aggressive over-pinging like what actually occurred. The DDoS that occurred was through repeated and nonstop visiting of the target websites, not the result of a hack. --97.95.227.70 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)