

Was Megaupload Targeted Because Of Its Upcoming Megabox Digital Jukebox Service? - caublestone
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/was-megaupload-targeted-because-of-its-upcoming-megabox-digital-jukebox-service/

======
forrestthewoods
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
Stupid, wrong, and garbage are the correct words for this. People are taking
leave of their senses over this bust.

------
citricsquid
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> [1]
<http://www.spotify.com/uk/work-with-us/labels-and-artists/>

~~~
Karunamon
>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.

~~~
krelian
And I think that this is the point where a logical person who is somewhat
"internet savvy" can deduce for himself why Megaupload and Grooveshark - while
both profiting from IP which they do not own - cannot be, at least morally,
judged the same way. The way I see it, Grooveshark is a service that is
basically trying to force or at least demonstrate to the music industry what
it is exactly that people want in an online music service. I am certain that
in a bizzaro worlds where music executives have actual working brains they
would see it and would offer "legality" to grooveshark without pricing them
out of existence. In a world without piracy grooveshark would thrive.

Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist
pirates. Without piracy there is no reason for the existence of such a service
(and before anyone yells "dropbox!", I don't think I need to explain why these
two services are very different).

~~~
Karunamon
>Megaupload on the other hand is a company whose sole purpose it to assist
pirates. Without piracy there is no reason for the existence of such a
service...

While you might be able to make that conclusion about Megaupload (based on
some of their internal emails), making that conclusion about file locker
services as a whole is _complete hogwash_. You don't think there's a
legitimate reason for a person to be able to upload a large file somewhere for
download by someone else? _Really_?

I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a
troll or a paid shill. 5 seconds on google would provide numerous accounts of
people who were using Megaupload for distributing their own content who were
burned by this crap.

~~~
krelian
>I can conclude nothing else from your stance but the fact you are either a
troll or a paid shill.

Typical response from the "everything is a conspiracy" crowd that dominates
these discussions so much.

Sure, people also used the service for legitimate purposes. If you think for
one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the userbase (and
that's being generous) or that Megaupload and similar services were setup to
profit from those legitimate users and not from the pirates then you are
simply being delusional. And there is no need for internal emails to reach
that conclusion some experience and common sense will suffice.

~~~
Karunamon
-snip, can't read, need coffee-

Is it a valid service to provide server space and linking of files for sharing
with other people? Yes it is. That's what would be called a significant non-
infringing use (and it's the reason that Rapidshare isn't shut down).

The fact that some people use it to break the law (much with guns, or
computers, or any other tool) doesn't really change anything.

>If you think for one second that those people comprised more than 5% of the
userbase

Prove it. The onus of proof is on you. Presumption of innocence and all that.

------
bradleyland
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!).

~~~
roel_v
"Those with an objectivist viewpoint won't be able to see this scenario in any
other way."

What? The Objectivist viewpoint is exactly opposite to what you say.
Intellectual property is property (Hank Rearden's steel formula was his and
his alone, John Galt's engine is his and his ideas are his property) and
strong intellectual property rights enforcement are natural rights of their
holders, just like ownership of tangible property (and the enforcement
thereof) is. The rights holders are the artists/producers etc, who entered
into a voluntary business transaction with their labels, distributors etc. who
in turn united in the RIAA/MPAA to collective defend their rights. All
voluntarily, and every actor in these transactions is looking out for their
own interests, and are morally well within their rights to do so.

Having strong intellectual property protection laws isn't rent seeking. It's
only rent seeking when it preys on the creation of others who haven't
voluntarily entered into a business relationship with the actors at hand.
Objectivist dogma says that protecting man's rights (including property
rights) is one of the few legitimate government functions.

I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an
Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather
than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the
creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed
argument to that effect.

~~~
bradleyland
I should have said "aren't" instead of "won't be". I can't make an argument
that this is rent seeking, because I don't believe that it is. I believe, like
you, that the MPAA/RIAA are acting in their own interest. Understanding their
viewpoint is necessary to hold a productive conversation with them.

>I truly do not understand how you come to the conclusion that under an
Objectivist world view, it would be the RIAA/MPAA who are the looters, rather
than those who wish to take the intellectual property of others without the
creator's consent, and I would be interested in seeing a further developed
argument to that effect.

I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this
theory. It's the framing of this particular theory that has overtones of Atlas
Shrugged, in my view. The claim is that the MPAA/RIAA leveraged the government
to shut down a potential competitor. This isn't rent seeking by the strict
definition, but I never claimed that it was. Rent seeking is only one form of
"looter" behavior.

I'd much rather focus on the two fundamental questions. It is not enough to
say "we need strong intellectual property laws". That is a very broad
statement. We're currently seeing an erosion of fair use, and I think that is
a bad thing. We're also seeing an erosion of the protections afforded to the
press (whereby "press" includes website operators). I also see this as a bad
thing.

I don't want to see website operators acting as enforcers of copyright. That
is the government's job. The DMCA already provides the ability for copyright
holders to issue take-down notices. Further legislation is pushing the balance
too far in favor of rights-holders. I do believe in copyright, and I don't
believe "fair use" should include the ability to do what you like with others'
work, but website operators ought not be treated as conscripts in the
enforcement of intellectual property rights.

EDIT: As I was posting this, someone literally quoted a passage from Atlas
Shrugged:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3505458>

~~~
roel_v
"I'm not describing my own view. I'm stating my view of what's driving this
theory."

OK, fair enough, but I still think the analogy is a misrepresentation of what
really drives people who have strong feelings against intellectual property
rights enforcement. There are several camps who can't be lumped together, and
whose 'theories' are largely in internal conflict: there are the copyright
abolitionists, there is the GPL/FSF crowd, there is the entitled crowd who
doesn't really care about reason and just repeatedly says that it's 'unfair'
that their 'fair use rights' (of which they have a completely warped view, and
which have never existed in the form they imagine in the first place) are
being curtailed.

Either way, we disagree on enough other points to continue discussing ;) For
example, 'website operators' aren't one group who all deserve indemnification
under all circumstances. Megaupload, for example, is a clear case (for the
reasonable, non-dogmatic observer) of 'intellectual property infringement
facilitation for monetary gain'. Arguably Youtube used to be in its early
days. Websites aren't 'press' by definition, and while it's not prima facie
reasonable to expect them to be the first conservators of intellectual
property laws, they can't just say 'oh it's our users, it's not our
responsibility'.

Re: the edit, using that quote in that context makes me angry because it's
such a fundamental misrepresentation of what Objectivism and Rand's philosophy
stands for and was founded in. Having governments enforce property rights is
not the same as what happened in the socialist tyranny that destroyed Rand's
family and from which she escaped. Crikes, Rand herself made her fortune from
writing screenplays and books, without copyright she would never have been in
a position to produce abstract works like her work after The Fountainhead!

------
jmonegro
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.

~~~
nextparadigms
Perhaps, but taking it down _now_ is certainly no coincidence.

~~~
scott_s
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.

------
ctdonath
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.

------
dazbradbury
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>

------
dclaysmith
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
> 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.

~~~
andylei
> > If they are guilty of the charges against them

> And what is that?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3487808>

------
rdtsc
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
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
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.fbicaindiana.com/donate>

Wonder what kind of tricks FBI would do if someone drops $10M in there?

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

------
redthrowaway
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
Also known as Betteridge's 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
I knew I'd seen it somewhere. Thanks for the link.

------
Zimahl
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.

------
mikeryan
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.

------
jrodgers
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).

------
andrewfelix
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?

------
brmj
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.

------
firefoxman1
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?

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

------
ezioamf
;)

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJx...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/111314089359991626869/posts/HQJxDRiwAWq)

------
victork2
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.

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

