

LeaseWeb explains why it deleted Kim Dotcom's MegaUpload data - tanglesome
http://www.zdnet.com/leaseweb-explains-why-it-deleted-kim-dotcoms-megaupload-data-7000017098/

======
aroch
Link to LW statement: [http://blog.leaseweb.com/2013/06/19/statement-on-
former-clie...](http://blog.leaseweb.com/2013/06/19/statement-on-former-
client-megaupload/)

Why does LW have to explain anything? They're under no contractual or legal
obligation to hold onto _rented_ servers for more than a year without payment.
Had these been servers MU owned outright, I would be a little more sympathetic
to Dotcom. However I find it highly unlikely that LW didn't follow their end
of the ToU and more likely that the contact information Dotcom had on file was
either outdated or incorrect (that or he and his lawyer are just lying or
manipulating the facts to support their narrative).

------
lifeguard
Kind of disingenuous of them to claim, "we had to re-use the servers". They
could have just pulled the HDDs for the MEGA storage servers and re-purposed
the servers to paying customers. This would still have been expensive of
course.

