Home  ›  Are the Mega Transfer Limits Causing My Uploads to Freeze?

Are the Mega Transfer Limits Causing My Uploads to Freeze?

Written By Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Defunct file hosting service

This article is well-nigh the FBI-seized website. For the successor of Megaupload, see Mega (service).

Megaupload Ltd
Type Express
Founded 21 March 2005 (2005-03-21)
(16 years, 320 days)
Founder Kim Dotcom
Defunct 19 January 2012 (2012-01-19)
(ten years, 16 days)
Fate Shut down by the Us Department of Justice
Successor Mega, Ltd.
Headquarters

Hong Kong

Expanse served

 Worldwide

Key people

 Finn Batato (CMO)
Services Online file hosting

Net income

 HK$ 175 meg+

Number of employees

 155
Website megaupload.com (Archived)
Footnotes / references
[one] [2]

Megaupload Ltd was a Hong Kong-based online visitor established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing online services related to file storage and viewing.[1]

On 19 Jan 2012, the United States Department of Justice seized the domain names and closed down the sites associated with Megaupload after the owners were arrested and indicted for allegedly operating as an organization dedicated to copyright infringement.[3] Subsequently, HK$330 million (approximately US$42 1000000) worth of assets were frozen by the Customs and Excise Department of Hong Kong.[iv] The company's founder, New Zealand resident Kim Dotcom, has denied whatever wrongdoing, and the case against Dotcom has been the bailiwick of controversy over its legality.[5] In 2017, a New Zealand guess ruled that Dotcom should be extradited to the United States, but Dotcom remained at liberty in New Zealand awaiting the results of an appeal.[6] On 5 July 2018 the New Zealand court of appeal found Dotcom and 3 of his one-time colleagues were eligible to be extradited to the U.S. authorities. His lawyer said they would appeal to the New Zealand Supreme Courtroom.[7] The shutdown of Megaupload led to denial-of-service (DoS) attacks on a range of websites belonging to the U.S. government and copyright organizations past the Hacktivist group Anonymous.[8] [9]

On xix January 2013 (2013-01-xix), Megaupload was re-launched as Mega under the domain name mega.co.nz (later moved to mega.nz, and and then to mega.io). The re-launch date was chosen to coincide with the one-yr anniversary of Megaupload'south takedown past the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.[ten]

Company and services [edit]

The visitor's registered office was on the 12th floor of the Shanghai Industrial Investment Building in Room 1204 in Wan Chai, Hong Kong.[11] [12] [xiii]

The visitor web services included Megaupload.com, a ane-click hosting service; Megapix.com, an image hosting service; Megavideo.com and Megalive.com, video hosting services; and Megabox.com, a music hosting service. Other services included Megaclick, Megafund, Megakey and Megapay, all of which were advertising and fiscal services. Along with this, four blogs were created including Megabest and Megaking. Two additional services—Megabackup and Megamovie—were in evolution before their closure.[14]

Website Description of Service
Megavideo.com Megavideo.com was an associated, advertising-supported video hosting service. For non-members, information technology was time-limited; it blocked itself later on 72 minutes, and then allowed users to resume watching after a 30-minute period.
Megapix.com Launched in belatedly 2010, Megapix.com allowed for the uploading of images, competing with other image-hosting services such equally Photobucket, ImageShack, TinyPic, Imgur and others.
Megalive.com Megalive.com was a live video-streaming service; it competed with Ustream, Justin.idiot box and Livestream.
Megabox.com Megabox.com was a music/audio-hosting service for the uploading of whole music libraries and playlists.
Megaporn.com Megaporn.com was a video streaming host service for uploading pornography.
Megaclick.com Megaclick.com was an advertising service allowing for users to publish advertisements and website owners to earn money from displaying ads.
Megafund.com Megafund.com was a funding website for users to use for funding for their websites through submitting ideas.
Megakey.com Megakey.com was the website for the software Megakey, which replaced common cyberspace advertisements with ones promoting Mega services. It about notably however, provided users who downloaded it with Premium services on all Mega websites gratis of charge.
Megapay.com Megapay.com was the website for MegaPay, an online mobile payment service like to PayPal. Websites could integrate a "Pay by Mobile" button to allow users to buy products via the service.
Megabest.com Megabest.com was a web log focused on honoring worldwide achievers including people, companies, animals and products.
Megaking.com Megaking.com was a lifestyle blog centered on luxury and dazzler products, travel, nutrient and everything expensive.
Megahelp.com Megahelp.com was a news and clemency blog that brought attention to people that needed help and people that provided help to the less fortunate.
Megagogo.com Megagogo.com was a news web log aimed at playboys.

Statistics [edit]

  • Unique visitors: 82,764,913
  • Page Views (in history): over 1,000,000,000[fifteen]
  • Visitors per solar day: 50,000,000[fifteen]
  • Accomplish: iv%[sixteen]
  • Registered Members: 180,000,000[15]
  • Storage: 25 petabyte (25,000 terabyte)[17]
  • Once the 13th most visited site on the Internet[fifteen]
  • According to Sandvine, MegaUpload deemed for 1% of full traffic on fixed access networks in North America.[eighteen]
  • In a proceeding before the High Courtroom of New Zealand on 2 Feb 2012, Kim Dotcom stated that Megaupload was "hosting 12 billion unique files for over 100 million users."[19]

Software [edit]

Mega Manager [edit]

Megaupload also released its upload/download managing director, Mega Manager,[20] a download manager that featured a link-checker for Megaupload links too as options to manage uploaded files, and to access the online control box that was on MegaUpload.

Megakey [edit]

Megakey was an adware application which removed bandwidth limitations on Mega services during "happy hour" periods. In return, the users running Megakey agreed to supply some personal identification and demographic data and to allow the exchange of ads on tertiary party websites they visited with those of Megaupload.

Megabox [edit]

Megabox, a new class of media downloading site, was the first of its kind. Kim "Dotcom" described Megabox as "very like to iTunes" except that it operated in a web browser using HTML5 engineering science and loaded "much faster than iTunes or anything else out there".[21]

Filebox [edit]

FileBox was a Wink applet that could be embedded onto whatsoever external webpage. Information technology immune users to upload content to Megaupload without having to visit the website itself or download the Mega Manager.

Reception [edit]

Unavailability [edit]

Although incorporated in Hong Kong, the visitor did non operate in Hong Kong. From 2009 onward, users with Hong Kong IP addresses were banned from accessing the site. The reason for the block was never disclosed by Megaupload,[22] but Hong Kong Community officials have suggested that the cake was an attempt to hinder constabulary enforcement investigation.[23]

Every bit of 23 May 2010, access to Megaupload was intermittently blocked past the internet government in Kingdom of saudi arabia by their regulator Communications and Information Engineering science Commission.[24] Megavideo was also intermittently blocked in the United Arab Emirates due to pornographic content being accessible through the service.[24]

From 9 June 2011 onward, the Malaysian government through Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ordered all ISPs in Malaysia to block Megaupload and Megavideo. Some ISPs reportedly blocked all the sites on the listing while other ISPs throttled connection speeds.[25]

In July 2011, access to Megaupload and Megavideo were blocked in India for Reliance Amusement customers,[26] later a courtroom club was obtained, citing illegal copies of the 2011 film Singham on file hosting sites.[27]

On 19 January 2012, U.Southward. federal prosecutors in the country of Virginia shut Megaupload down and laid charges confronting its founder Kim Dotcom and others for allegedly breaching copyright infringement laws.[28] [29]

For a short fourth dimension afterward the closure of the site, users could access textile via Google's web cache and The Cyberspace Archive. Ane day after the indictment Google and Archive.org voluntarily removed the site mirrors to avert the responsibility of hosting a website taken downward for copyright infringement.[9]

Criticism [edit]

In January 2011, MarkMonitor published a study entitled "Traffic Report: Online Piracy and Counterfeiting", which said that Megaupload and Megavideo were, along with RapidShare, the pinnacle three websites classified as "digital piracy", with more than 21 billion visits per year.[xxx] Megaupload responded by stating: "Action that violates our terms of service or our acceptable use policy is not tolerated, and we go to not bad lengths to swiftly process legitimate DMCA takedown notices".[31] Marking Mulligan, an analyst at Forrester Enquiry, pointed out that the number of visits did not necessarily indicate the number of downloads of illegal fabric.[32]

Megaupload Toolbar was said[ past whom? ] to redirect users to a custom error page when a 404 error occurred in the user's browser. It was too said to comprise spyware.[33] FBM Software said that the Megaupload toolbar is gratuitous of spyware.[34]

When a file was uploaded to Megaupload and another file with the aforementioned hash was already plant to exist, the uploader would be asked if they would like to link to the already existing file. Therefore, a unmarried file may take independent multiple links to it. This caused some controversy, since when a DMCA takedown notice was issued simply the link that was provided was removed; non necessarily the file itself.[35]

Megaupload song controversy [edit]

On 9 December 2011, Megaupload published a music video entitled "The Mega Song", showing artists including Kanye West, Alicia Keys and volition.i.am endorsing the company.[36] Snoop Dogg appeared in earlier versions of the video.[37] [38] [39] The music video was besides uploaded to YouTube,[40] but was removed post-obit a takedown asking past the record visitor Universal Music Group (UMG). Megaupload said that the video contained no infringing content, commenting: "we have signed agreements with every featured creative person for this campaign".[41] Megaupload requested an apology from UMG, and filed a lawsuit against the company in the United States District Courtroom for the Northern Commune of California, on 12 Dec 2011.[42] [43] UMG denied that the takedown was ordered under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and said that the takedown was "pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement," which gives UMG "the correct to cake or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS (Content Direction System) based on a number of contractually specified criteria."[44] The video was later returned to YouTube, with the reasons for the UMG takedown remaining unclear.[45] YouTube stated: "Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YT unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists, which is why nosotros reinstated information technology."[46] [47] Lawyers for will.i.am initially said that he had never agreed to the project, merely on 12 December, he denied whatsoever involvement in the takedown notice.[48]

2012 indictments past the United States [edit]

The seized domain proper noun redirected to this photo of the joint FBI, DoJ, and NIPRCC notice of U.S. crime charges.

On 19 January 2012 the United States Department of Justice seized and close down the file-hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. The pb prosecutor, Neil MacBride, had formerly served as Vice President, Anti-Piracy and Full general Counsel, of the Business concern Software Alliance, where he oversaw global anti-piracy enforcement and copyright policy. On xx January Hong Kong Customs froze more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars (US$39 1000000) in assets belonging to the company.[49]

Arrests in New Zealand [edit]

Acting upon a US Federal prosecutor'due south request, the New Zealand Police arrested Dotcom and iii other Megaupload executives in a leased $xxx meg mansion at Coatesville most Auckland on Friday, 20 January 2012 (NZDT, UTC+xiii).[50] This was pursuant to a request from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation that the four exist extradited for racketeering and money laundering.[51] The raid was timed for the birthday celebration of Dotcom.[52] Assets worth $17 million including art works and cars were seized. The four men arrested were Kim Dotcom (founder; 38 years old, from Germany), Finn Batato (CMO; 38, from Germany), Mathias Ortmann (CTO and co-founder; 40, from Federal republic of germany) and Bram van der Kolk (29, from the netherlands).[53] [54] [55] [56]

On 23 January, Dotcom appeared in Auckland'southward North Shore District Court for a bail hearing. The crown argued against bond on the basis that he was a flight chance with a helicopter on his front lawn, while defence force lawyers argued that the helicopter could not fly far plenty to reach another state. They also said that Dotcom denied any criminal wrongdoing. Judge David McNaughton expressed concern at the discovery of 2 shotguns at Dotcom's mansion during the law raid,[57] and deferred a decision on whether to grant bail, saying that he needed more than fourth dimension to review the submissions.[58] The request for bail was turned down, with Judge McNaughton proverb that "he was denied due to the risk [that] Mr. Dotcom would flee jurisdiction and the possibility that if he reached Germany he wouldn't be extradited to confront the charges".[59] On three Feb 2012, an entreatment to the High Courtroom of New Zealand upheld the decision to deny bail.[60]

On 22 February 2012, Northward Shore District Court Judge Nevin Dawson overturned the previous rulings and granted bail to Kim Dotcom,[61] saying that the chance of flight had diminished after his assets had been seized.[62]

On 5 March 2012, a formal request for the extradition to the United States of Kim Dotcom and three other senior Megaupload staff was filed in a New Zealand court.[63]

On thirty Apr 2012, the New Zealand High Court ruled that around $750,000 of Kim Dotcom's avails could exist returned, including a Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG and Toyota Vellfire that had been seized during the raid on his home. The assets in 63 bank accounts and around 30 other vehicles remained in custody.[64] A paperwork fault by the New Zealand authorities meant that Kim Dotcom's belongings had been seized in January 2012 without giving proper notice. The restraining lodge on his property was granted in April 2012. During Apr 2012, US district courtroom judge Liam O'Grady stated "I frankly don't know that nosotros are ever going to have a trial in this matter," as he found out that the company had never been formally served with criminal papers by the United states of america.

On 28 June 2012, New Zealand Loftier Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann ruled that the search warrants used to raid the abode of Kim Dotcom were invalid, saying "The warrants did not fairly describe the offences to which they related. They were general warrants, and as such, are invalid."[65]

On 10 July 2012, a determination on whether Kim Dotcom and other Megaupload employees should be extradited to the The states was delayed until March 2013, in order to allow farther time for legal arguments to be heard.[66] New Zealand judge Justice Helen Winklemann said that U.S. government would demand to provide evidence of "Cyberspace piracy" before Dotcom was extradited.[67]

On 24 September 2012, New Zealand'south Prime Minister John Key ordered an research into whether staff at the Authorities Communications Security Agency had unlawfully spied on Kim Dotcom and the other defendants in the case. Key commented "I expect our intelligence agencies to operate e'er within the police force. Their operations depend on public trust."[68]

On vii July 2014, it was reported that the proceedings to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand to the USA had been delayed until February 2015.[69]

On eight September 2014, the Courtroom of Appeal ruled that the New Zealand Constabulary is to return seized electronic devices unencrypted back to Dotcom and those involved.[lxx]

On 23 December 2015, New Zealand judge Nevin Dawson ruled that Kim Dotcom, also equally iii of his colleagues, tin be extradited to the United States to face copyright infringement charges.[71] Mr. Dotcom'south lawyers said they would appeal the decision.

Basis of indictment [edit]

The outset folio of the indictment, list the defendants[72]

The indictment[1] [73] declared that Megaupload differed from other online file storage businesses.

Media reports covering the case highlighted several points from the indictment used to support claims of illegal activity. The indictment provided instances alleged to show criminal behaviour, too every bit indicating design points of Megaupload's operating model as beingness evidence of criminal intent:[1]

  1. In exercise, the "vast bulk" of users exercise not take any significant long term private storage capability. Connected storage is dependent upon regular downloads of the file occurring. Files that are infrequently accessed are rapidly removed in well-nigh cases, whereas popular downloaded files are retained. (items 7–8)
  2. Considering but a small portion of users pay for storage, the business is dependent upon advertising. Adverts are primarily viewed when files are downloaded and the business model is therefore not based upon storage but upon maximizing downloads. (items seven–8)
  3. Persons indicted have "instructed private users how to locate links to infringing content on the Mega Sites ... [and] ... have also shared with each other comments from Mega Site users demonstrating that they have used or are attempting to employ the Mega Sites to get infringing copies of copyrighted content." (item 13)
  4. Persons indicted, unlike the public, are not reliant upon links to stored files, but can search the internal database directly. Information technology is said[ by whom? ] they accept "searched the internal database for their associates and themselves so that they may directly access copyright-infringing content". (particular xiv)
  5. A comprehensive takedown method is in use to identify child pornography, simply non deployed to remove infringing content. (item 24)
  6. Infringing users did not take their accounts terminated, and the defendants "fabricated no meaning 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 place infringing copies of copyrighted works" (items 55–56)
  7. An incentive program was adopted encouraging the upload of "popular" files in return for payments to successful uploaders. (item 69e et al.)
  8. Defendants explicitly discussed evasion and infringement issues, including an attempt to re-create and upload the unabridged content of YouTube. (items 69i-l. YouTube: items 69 i,j,fifty,s)

Counter arguments advanced [edit]

Defense attorney Ira Rothken says that the raid was unjustly swift and did not give his client the opportunity to defend himself, quoting a similar case involving YouTube every bit an example of a completely dissimilar turnout.[74] [75]

Legal commentators point out that while the indictment may be right and Megaupload might have acted as a criminal conspiracy as said, a number of points in the indictment are based upon selective interpretations and legal concepts (described in one article as "novel theories" of the law[76]) and could exist challenged in court. A Los Angeles Times analysis stated that the author was "struck by how far the indictment goes to notice something nefarious";[76] too a TechDirt assay concluded that while the founder of Megaupload had a meaning history of "flounting the law", evidence has potentially been taken out of context or misrepresented and could "come dorsum to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services".[77] Both analyses hold that other bear witness could prove criminality; the concerns were not irrefutable. The legal concerns included:

  • Indictment cites lack of a site search as prove supporting misdeed, merely in other copyright cases having a site search has been described as evidence in support of criminality and in Atari v. RapidShare not having a site search was agreed past the court equally evidence of responsible activeness given that some infringing content might be and be searched for if one existed.[76] In the case of IsoHunt, the presence of a search feature was interpreted as evidence of inducement.[77] TechDirt commented that "To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to exist a problem, as bear witness of a conspiracy is crazy. Damned if you practise, damned if you lot don't."[77]
  • The "acme 100" list excluded copyrighted titles, but the indictment says this was evidence of concealing, rather than fugitive downloads of, infringing materials.[76] [77]
  • The indictment asserts equally show that no effort was fabricated to identify infringing files or users, in other words by acts of omission. But federal court rulings repeatedly agree that no duty exists to search these out.[76] In particular, in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. the Supreme Courtroom looked at "substantial noninfringing uses"; mere lack of monitoring was non past itself sufficient to show wrongdoing or inducement.[76] It may non exist possible (or reasonable to require) the host to know and place what activity is legitimate or not, as file sharing may be used by many content creators.[77]
  • Deletion later on a express catamenia of non-download is suggested every bit bear witness of a motive. But many legitimate sites such as Imgur remove unused content afterwards a while to free up server space. If files were routinely deleted subsequently a short menstruum it could every bit suggest legitimate use - considering it serves users who share legitimately for a brusk while, and enforces removal afterwards.[77]
  • Much of the indictment, in the words of 1 analysis, "seems to be based on the uncomplicated supposition that encouraging more than usage means they must exist encouraging infringement", in other words there should be evidence of actual wrongdoing, not simply evidence of pop utilise. Many legitimate files are popular and popularly shared, and an assumption that paid utilize largely equates to infringing use would demand evidence.[77]
  • Failure to remove all links post-obit a takedown asking is often legitimate. For example the aforementioned content may exist uploaded by legitimate and illegitimate users. Removing the infringing link does not touch on legitimate uploaders. Removing the infringing file would wrongfully cause it to be deleted for legitimate users likewise.[77] Similarly, in one case kid pornography is identified, it is always illegal for all users. Merely other material may exist legal for some users and not for others. So the fact one example requires file removal and the other only requires link removal may well be correct carry.[77]
  • The indictment includes money laundering charges. Just these include "basic payments" for web hosting, suggesting "lumping in"—adding matters that are in no way illegal to make a case look bad.[77]
  • Megaupload had indicated willingness to nourish courtroom in the U.S. already, and answer civil cases.[77]

Safe harbor provisions [edit]

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Deed provides condom harbor for sites that promptly have downwards infringing content. Safety harbor does not be if the site has actual knowledge and does nothing about it.[78] Moreover, the DMCA "safe harbor" is less important in criminal cases than ceremonious cases because defeating the first element, lack of knowledge or sensation of infringement, may exist easier for the prosecution than coming together the "willfulness" requirement for criminal copyright liability.[79]

In Megaupload's instance, the indictment alleges DMCA provisions were used for the appearance of legitimacy – the actual material was non removed, only some links to information technology were, takedowns agreement was approved based on business concern growth rather than infringement, and the parties themselves openly discussed their infringing activities. The indictment says that Megaupload executives:

... are willfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual cognition that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a fiscal benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have non removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing textile from servers they control."[80]

Prosecutors said in the indictment that Megaupload was not DMCA compliant, and cited the example of an alleged infringer on the site known as "VV." Over six years, VV had allegedly uploaded nearly 17,000 files to Megavideo.com, resulting in more than 334 million views. According to prosecutors, although numerous takedown e-mails had been sent, none of the files had been deleted.[81]

In a television set interview with 3 News, Kim Dotcom said he was not a "piracy rex", and said that Megaupload had applied the provisions of the DMCA and went beyond it, past giving copyright holders direct rights to delete links. He too said that the indictment relied on a malicious interpretation of technical issues to construe its merits of criminal intent, and that there was pregnant legal apply of Megaupload.[82]

Criminal defense action [edit]

Kim Dotcom denied the charges filed against him and retained the services of Ira P. Rothken, an chaser who has defended several copyright infringement cases. Ira Rothken stated that there is no criminal liability for secondary copyright infringement nether U.s. police force, quoting a similar case involving YouTube as an example of similar accusations which were dealt with equally a ceremonious case.[74] [75]

Dotcom initially hired Washington, D.C. attorney Robert Bennett, who had confirmed he was going to represent Megaupload in the copyright infringement case.[83] [84] On 22 January 2012, Bennett withdrew from the case due to a conflict of interest with another client.[85] [86] As of 23 January, attorney Paul Davison was quoted as representing Megaupload's founder, Kim Dotcom, in New Zealand.[87] At the terminate of Apr 2012, a controversy emerged over legal representation. The constabulary firm Quinn Emanuel, retained past Megaupload to debate for the retention of Megaupload's data, said in a motion filed to the courtroom that there was a concerted effort past the Usa Section of Justice to deny Megaupload fair legal representation. In the cursory, Quinn Emanuel alleged that several law firms dropped out of the case afterward the DoJ informed them of potential conflicts of interest, arguing that they wanted to call clients of the firms as witnesses. Given the size of the Megaupload, Quinn Emanuel said this "disharmonize of involvement" argument could be applied to any police business firm with experience in intellectual holding rights, denying Megaupload experienced representation in a case where both law and technical issues are involved. Quinn Emanuel received such a letter of the alphabet just rejected the DoJ's arguments.[88] Techdirt argued that while the founder of Megaupload had a significant history of "flouting the constabulary", evidence had potentially been taken out of context or misrepresented and could "come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services".[77] Eric Goldman, a professor of police force at Santa Clara University, described the Megaupload example as "a depressing display of abuse of government authority". He pointed out that criminal copyright infringement requires that willful infringement has taken place, and that taking Megaupload offline had produced the "securely unconstitutional issue" of denying legitimate users access to their data.[v] Other legal commentators have expressed more skepticism toward Megaupload's likelihood of defending confronting charges of aiding and abetting copyright infringement on "willfulness" grounds if the allegations of fact in the indictment turn out to be true.[79]

The defence has drawn on procedural errors past the prosecution to challenge the case and in a sentence at the end of May 2012, New Zealand guess David Harvey granted the defendants the right to the disclosure of show held by the FBI in preparation for the extradition trial.[89] In his 81-page decision, he came to the cess that the DoJ is attempting to use concepts of civil law, in item secondary copyright infringement, in a criminal case, which creates legal issues. He too confirmed that the charges in the indictment relating to money laundering, racketeering and wire fraud are not separate criminal acts merely are dependent on the claim of criminal secondary copyright infringement.[90] In a separate development in the Usa, the defense has challenged the case against Megaupload as a whole, saying the US has no jurisdiction over a strange company and the seizure of Megaupload'due south avails was unlawful.[91] A 2nd brief points out numerous legal errors in the indictment, declaring it "an experiment in stretching U.S. criminal law well past the breaking indicate."[92]

Data retentiveness [edit]

Post-obit the seizure of Megaupload, concerns were raised as to what would happen to the files that had been uploaded past its users.[93] On twenty January 2012, the Justice Department stated that "It is important to annotation that Mega clearly warned users to keep copies of whatsoever files they uploaded" adding that "Megaupload.com expressly informed users through its Oft Asked Questions ('FAQs') and its Terms of Service that users have no proprietary interest in whatever of the files on Megaupload'south servers, they assume the full risk of consummate loss or unavailability of their data, and that Megaupload can stop site operations without prior notice."[94] On 27 Jan 2012, U.Southward. Attorney Neil H. MacBride wrote:

The Mega Servers are not in the bodily or constructive custody or control of the United States, but remain at the premises controlled by, and currently under the control of, Carpathia and Cogent. Should the defendants wish to obtain independent access to the Mega Servers, or coordinate third-political party access to data housed on Mega Servers, the issue must exist resolved direct with Cogent or Carpathia.[95] [96]

In response, on xxx January 2012, Carpathia Hosting denied having access to MegaUpload files and issued a printing release stating

Carpathia Hosting does not accept, and has never had, access to the content on MegaUpload servers and has no mechanism for returning whatever content residing on such servers to MegaUpload'southward customers. The reference to the two February 2012 engagement in the Department of Justice letter for the deletion of content is not based on whatever information provided by Carpathia to the U.S. Regime. We would recommend that anyone who believes that they have content on MegaUpload servers contact MegaUpload. Please do non contact Carpathia Hosting.[97] [98]

The Electronic Borderland Foundation has started a campaign to allow legitimate users of Megaupload in the US access to their data and wants the information preserved for that reason. It has chosen to represent one such legitimate user in court and thus has sided with Megaupload and Carpathia in request the court to retain the data.[99]

On 26 April 2012, Megaupload information negotiations began. Carpathia reported that maintaining the data costs over US$ix,000 a day, and wanted to seek a formal resolution on whether to delete the data or release it to interested parties. U.s. district court Guess Liam O'Grady ordered all parties to return to the negotiating tabular array. The U.S. Department of Justice noted that U.s.$35 one thousand thousand had been paid past Megaupload to Carpathia, and alleged that Carpathia had knowingly profited from copyright infringement.[100]

LeaseWeb wiped all of Megaupload'due south data.[101] [ further explanation needed ]

Retaliatory attacks by Anonymous [edit]

Following the shutdown of the Megaupload website, the website of the United States Department of Justice and other websites were taken offline post-obit concerted deprival of service attacks attributed to Bearding.[102] [103]

Gizmodo concurred that it was "about certainly the issue of a rapidly assembled DDoS [Distributed Deprival of Service] attack—and easily the widest in scope and ferocity we've seen in some time", commenting that "if you had whatever doubts Anonymous is still a hacker wrecking ball, doubt no more than".[104] Links posted in chatrooms and on Twitter, when clicked on by unsuspecting Cyberspace users, ran a web version of the application known as the Low Orbit Ion Cannon. On nineteen Jan 2012, Anonymous released a statement on Pastebin.com taking responsibleness for the mass attacks on websites including those of RIAA, MPAA, BMI, FBI, and others.[105] According to the RT network, Anonymous described the attacks every bit "the unmarried largest Net set on in its history".[104] [106]

Possible return of information [edit]

On 31 May 2013, a New Zealand court ordered police force to return whatsoever items not relevant to the case and to provide copies of relevant material to Dotcom and his associates.[107]

Other reactions [edit]

Sometime French president Nicolas Sarkozy said he was satisfied with the shutdown of the website. He found the site'southward operators were reaping "criminal profits from the illegal distribution of copyrighted works". "The fourth dimension has come for increased judicial and constabulary co-operation between states" in the fight confronting online copyright infringement, he said in a statement.[108]

Web organisations have raised concerns about possible effects of the Megaupload example on the time to come of file sharing, cloud storage, and Internet commerce.[109] [110] [111] Various commentators including John C. Dvorak, Glenn Greenwald, and Julian Sanchez take written on the topic as well, particularly as it relates US government powers to have down a web site without a trial, fifty-fifty without new laws similar SOPA.[112] [113] [114] [115] In fact, the U.S. Dept of Justice was able to rely on PRO-IP, a law passed dorsum in 2008, in order to shut downward Megaupload.[116]

People who used Megaupload for personal and business storage, such equally big audio and video files for family and work, have likewise voiced their complaints well-nigh the fact that they no longer had access to their files on the service.[117] [118] Examples cited in the media included staff at public interest group Public Knowledge who used it for large files, and Android cellphone software writers who described it equally "one of the best ways to distribute [software] ... There are a number of similar sites for this utilise, merely Megaupload was always the fastest".[117]

File hosting websites express the functionality of their services. FileSonic.com, 1 of the top x file hosting services, withdrew the ability to share links to files. The site'due south chief page added a banner stating "All sharing functionality on FileSonic is at present disabled. Our service can only exist used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally."[119] Other file hosting websites followed suit, including FileServe.com, FileJungle.com, Uploadstation.com, x7.to and 4shared.com, past shutting downwards, cancelling affiliate programs or allowing users to only download what they themselves uploaded.[120] Another large file-sharing website, Uploaded.to, ceased services for users accessing from United states of america-based IP addresses.[121]

Co-ordinate to MediaFire CEO Derek Labian, he and his file hosting company are not concerned by the Megaupload incident because "Megaupload was making a ridiculous amount of money with a ridiculously bad service... We don't have a business built on copyright infringement."[122] A spokesperson for RapidShare similarly expressed a lack of business, saying that "file hosting itself is a legitimate business", pointing out that Microsoft'southward SkyDrive operates on a similar ground.[123]

BTJunkie, a website indexing torrent files, close down voluntarily on half dozen February 2012.[124] The file hosting site Turbobit.net blocked access to U.S. visitors,[125] and QuickSilverScreen, a site offering streaming video links, airtight on vii February 2012.[126]

See also [edit]

  • Legal aspects of file sharing
  • Library.nu
  • Megaupload legal instance
  • Seizure of Megaupload

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d "MegaUpload.com Section of Justice indictment". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on fifteen July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  2. ^ Anderson, Nate (17 May 2007). "Google cut off Megaupload's ad money voluntarily back in 2007". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 8 July 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  3. ^ "Megaupload.com blocked (shutdown) Anonymous hacked Universal Music and other sites". Pakblog.net. 19 Jan 2012. Archived from the original on half-dozen September 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  4. ^ "HK seizes $330 1000 in Megaupload raids". RTHK. 21 January 2012. Archived from the original on 23 July 2016.
  5. ^ a b Masnick, Mike (one May 2012). "Law Professor: Megaupload Prosecution A 'Depressing Display Of Abuse Of Government Dominance'". Techdirt . Retrieved 4 May 2012.
  6. ^ Roy, Eleanor Ainge (20 February 2017). "Kim Dotcom extradition to US can go ahead, New Zealand high courtroom rules". The Guardian.
  7. ^ "Kim Dotcom loses latest appeal to avoid extradition to U.Due south." Retrieved 5 July 2018.
  8. ^ "Hackers retaliate over Megaupload website shutdown". BBC News. 20 Jan 2012. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 24 Jan 2012.
  9. ^ a b "SOPA OPERA: The Online War–The Internet reacts non-and then-nicely to Megaupload shutdown". WordswithMeaning.org. 5 September 2011. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  10. ^ Williams, Owen (twenty January 2013). "Mega hits i million users after one day equally Kim Dotcom officially launches the service". TheNextWeb . Retrieved 19 December 2017.
  11. ^ "Whois Tape For MegaUpload.org". DomainTools. Archived from the original on xviii July 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2012. Registrant Name: Megaupload Ltd
    Registrant Address: Room 1204, 12/F, 48–62 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong.
  12. ^ "HSBC Business Centres". HSBC . Retrieved 19 February 2012. Wan Chai Hennessy Road Rooms 2101–2102, 21/F, Shanghai Industrial Investment Building, 48–62 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong
  13. ^ "Hennessy Road SMC Map" (PDF). HSBC. Archived from the original (PDF) on fifteen November 2012. Retrieved 19 Feb 2012.
  14. ^ "Home". MegaWorld. Archived from the original on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  15. ^ a b c d "Megaupload indictment" (PDF). Washington Post . Retrieved 21 Jan 2012.
  16. ^ "Site profile". Google. Archived from the original on 24 Jan 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
  17. ^ Tung, Liam (31 January 2012). "25PB Megaupload trove may exist trashed Thursday". iTnews. Archived from the original on ane Baronial 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
  18. ^ Tooley, Matt (20 January 2012). "Megaupload Gets Shut Down". Sandvine. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 31 Jan 2012.
  19. ^ Foreman, Michael (iii February 2012). "Kim Dotcom v Us of America". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 22 February 2013. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  20. ^ "Mega Manager". Megaupload.com. Archived from the original on 12 April 2007.
  21. ^ Peoples, Glenn (eleven March 2013). "Kim Dotcom at SXSW: Megabox Online Music Service Could Launch in Adjacent Six Months". Billboard . Retrieved 27 November 2013.
  22. ^ "Is Megaupload dead in Hong Kong?". Hongfire.com. 17 May 2009. Archived from the original on 28 January 2013. Retrieved twenty January 2012.
  23. ^ "HK Community-US authorities co-operation smashes a transnational piracy syndicate with over HK$300 million worth of offense proceeds restrained (with photos)". Hong Kong Government. twenty January 2012. Archived from the original on two August 2012. Retrieved 23 Jan 2012.
  24. ^ a b Marshall, Rick. "The Megaupload saga: A timeline of events". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
  25. ^ "SKMM Meminta Penyedia Cyberspace Menghalang Akses ke 10 Laman Perkongsian Pop" (in Malay). nine June 2011. Archived from the original on xix Feb 2013.
  26. ^ "India starts blocking file storage websites in a motility against piracy". ZDNet. 20 July 2011. Archived from the original on 10 February 2013. Retrieved 14 Dec 2011.
  27. ^ "Update: Files Sharing Sites Blocked In India Because Reliance BIG Pictures Got A Court Order". Medianama. 21 July 2011. Archived from the original on fourteen September 2012. Retrieved 23 Dec 2011.
  28. ^ "Dwelling". MEGA.co.nz. Archived from the original on 17 July 2001. Retrieved 19 November 2012.
  29. ^ Kravets, David (xix Jan 2012). "Feds Shutter Megaupload, Abort Executives". Wired. Archived from the original on 9 February 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
  30. ^ "Traffic Report: Online Piracy and Counterfeiting" (PDF). MarkMonitor. January 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2011.
  31. ^ "FAQ". Megaupload. Archived from the original on vi September 2012. Retrieved 14 December 2011.
  32. ^ "Piracy websites attract billions of visits". BBC News. 11 Jan 2011. Archived from the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  33. ^ "Megaupload Toolbar is a Spyware which Changes Browser Settings". TheCredence.com. thirteen August 2008. Archived from the original on 11 May 2011.
  34. ^ "Megaupload Toolbar on Spyware-Cyberspace". FBM Software.com. Archived from the original on 28 June 2009. Retrieved 8 November 2009.
  35. ^ "Megaupload: What information technology a rogue site worthy of destruction?". TorrentFreak.com. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2011.
  36. ^ "RIAA Label Artists & A-List Stars Endorse Megaupload In New Vocal". TorrentFreak.com. 9 Dec 2011. Archived from the original on seven January 2012. Retrieved thirteen Dec 2011.
  37. ^ Mills, Elinor (15 December 2011). "In SOPA's shadow, Megaupload strikes dorsum against Universal". CNET. Archived from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  38. ^ "A Agglomeration Of RIAA Label Artists Endorse MegaUpload... As RIAA Insists It'south A 'Rogue' Site". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 3 February 2013. Retrieved thirteen February 2012.
  39. ^ Estes, Adam Clark (15 December 2011). "Takedowns and Lawsuits Have Already Started in the Fight Against SOPA". The Atlantic Wire. Archived from the original on 7 January 2012. Retrieved 13 Feb 2012.
  40. ^ MrKimDotcom (vii December 2011). "Megaupload Mega Vocal". YouTube. Archived from the original on nineteen December 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2018.
  41. ^ "Universal Censors Megaupload Song, Gets Branded a "Rogue Label"". TorrentFreak.com. 10 Dec 2011. Archived from the original on 29 July 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  42. ^ Michaels, Sean (xiii December 2011). "Megaupload threatens to sue Universal over YouTube video". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on one August 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  43. ^ "Megaupload to Sue Universal, Joins Fight Confronting SOPA". TorrentFreak.com. 12 Dec 2011. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  44. ^ "UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own". Ars Technica. 16 Dec 2011. Archived from the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
  45. ^ "Mystery surrounds Universal's takedown of Megaupload YouTube video". CNET. 17 December 2011. Archived from the original on 12 July 2012. Retrieved eighteen December 2011.
  46. ^ "YouTube Apparently Gives Universal Music Group Direct Access to Videos for Easy Removal (Update)". TIME. sixteen Dec 2011. Archived from the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  47. ^ Sisario, Ben (13 Dec 2011). "File-Sharing Company Sues Record Label, for a Change". The New York Times. Archived from the original on eleven July 2012. Retrieved 16 Dec 2011.
  48. ^ "UMG, MegaUpload Instance Gets Fifty-fifty Stranger; Will.i.am Says He Didn't Authorize A Takedown". Techdirt. 15 December 2011. Archived from the original on 11 September 2012. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
  49. ^ Yung, Chester (21 January 2012). "Hong Kong Freezes Megaupload Assets". The Wall Street Periodical. Archived from the original on 29 June 2013. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
  50. ^ "Megaupload founder arrested in NZ, site shut down". TVNZ. twenty Jan 2012. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved xx Jan 2012.
  51. ^ Johnston, Kirsty (21 January 2012). "FBI seeks extradition of internet 'pirate'". Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 12 September 2012. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
  52. ^ Fisher, David (22 January 2012). "Dotcom altogether party targeted". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on ten September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  53. ^ "Dotcom in New Zealand". Yahoo!News NZ. 22 January 2012. Archived from the original on 22 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  54. ^ "Website fights back". Stuff.co.nz. 22 January 2012. Archived from the original on 12 January 2013. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  55. ^ Leask, Anna (22 January 2012). "New Zealand constabulary consummate Dotcom search". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 9 September 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  56. ^ "Megaupload founder arrested in Auckland, site shut downward". 3News.co.nz. 19 January 2012. Archived from the original on 18 July 2012. Retrieved nineteen January 2012.
  57. ^ "Megaupload accused Kim Schmitz in court, helicopter part of bail debate". 3news.co.nz. 23 January 2012. Archived from the original on thirty July 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
  58. ^ Craymer, Lucy (24 January 2012). "Estimate Delays Kim Dotcom Bail Conclusion". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 29 June 2013. Retrieved 24 January 2012.
  59. ^ "Megaupload Founder has been DENIED Bail". WordswithMeaning. Archived from the original on 26 May 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  60. ^ "Megaupload co-founder'south bail entreatment rejected past courtroom". BBC News. 3 Feb 2012. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  61. ^ "Kim Dotcom Released From Prison". WordswithMeaning!. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012.
  62. ^ "Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom granted bail". BBC News. 22 Feb 2012. Archived from the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  63. ^ "Megaupload founder extradition papers filed past U.s.". BBC News. 5 March 2012. Archived from the original on 24 July 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2012.
  64. ^ "Megaupload Founder Kim Schmitz: Assets Worth $750,000 Returned". autoevolution.com. xxx April 2012. Archived from the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 4 May 2012.
  65. ^ "Megaupload raid warrant 'invalid', New Zealand gauge says". BBC News. 28 June 2012. Archived from the original on nineteen April 2013. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
  66. ^ "Megaupload extradition instance delayed until March 2013". BBC News. 10 July 2012. Archived from the original on 14 Jan 2013. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  67. ^ "Megaupload case: New Zealand court wants FBI evidence". BBC News. 16 August 2012. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
  68. ^ "Kim Dotcom: Inquiry ordered into 'unlawful spying'". BBC News. 24 September 2012. Archived from the original on 19 April 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
  69. ^ "Kim Dotcom extradition hearing delayed again". BBC News. 7 July 2014. Retrieved 8 July 2014.
  70. ^ Bayer, Kurt (8 September 2014). "A win for Dotcom over seized property". The New Zealand Herald. p. 1. Retrieved 9 September 2014.
  71. ^ "Megaupload Founder Can Be Sent to U.S., Judge Says". The New York Times. 24 Dec 2015.
  72. ^ "Mega Indictment". Scribd.com.
  73. ^ "Mega Indictment" (PDF). Google . Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  74. ^ a b Sandoval, Greg (20 January 2012). "Megaupload assembles worldwide criminal defense". CNET . Retrieved 20 January 2012.
  75. ^ a b Kang, Cecilia (20 Jan 2012). "Megaupload lawyer Q&A on DOJ criminal example". Washington Post.
  76. ^ a b c d e f "Copyrights: Feds push button a few novel theories in MegaUpload case". Los Angeles Times. 20 Jan 2012.
  77. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Masnick, Mike (1 October 2007). "Megaupload Details Raise Significant Concerns About What DOJ Considers Bear witness Of Criminal Behavior". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 14 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  78. ^ Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). "Why the feds smashed Megaupload". Ars Technica.com. Archived from the original on xiii July 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  79. ^ a b Martin, Benton; Newhall, Jeremiah (half dozen March 2013). "Criminal Copyright Enforcement against Filesharing Services". SSRN 2229376.
  80. ^ Paragraph 20, page ix of the indictment.
  81. ^ "Feds broaden piracy case against Megaupload.com". CNN. 18 February 2012. Archived from the original on 19 Jan 2013. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  82. ^ "Kim Dotcom'due south showtime Television interview: 'I'grand no piracy king'". 3 News. 1 March 2012. Archived from the original on 29 July 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
  83. ^ "DC attorney Robert Bennett to represent Megaupload in piracy case, promises vigorous defence". Washington Post. 20 January 2012. Archived from the original on 31 January 2012.
  84. ^ Barakat, Matthew (20 Jan 2012). "Renowned attorney Bennett to represent Megaupload". Boston.com. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 24 Jan 2012.
  85. ^ "Megauploads high-profile defense lawyer Robert Bennett withdraws from piracy case". National Mail service. Canada. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  86. ^ Ingram, David (22 January 2012). "U.Due south. lawyer for Megaupload.com withdraws". Reuters. Archived from the original on 23 January 2012. Retrieved 31 Jan 2012.
  87. ^ Perry, Michael (23 January 2012). "Megaupload boss says innocent, rival stops file-sharing". Reuters UK . Retrieved nineteen January 2018.
  88. ^ "Government trying to deny Megaupload fair legal representation". Ars Technica. 16 April 2012. Archived from the original on seven July 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
  89. ^ Sisario, Ben (30 May 2012). "Digital Notes: Judge Presses U.S. in Megaupload Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 11 July 2012.
  90. ^ "Torrent Freak Mega Actress". Scribd.com. 29 May 2012. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
  91. ^ "Motility To Dismiss Indictment" Link
    "Memorandum Of Police To Dismiss Indictment For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" Link
    "Rebuttal Memorandum" Link
  92. ^ "Move To Challenge The Scope Of Pretrial Restraint Of Assets" p. 2
  93. ^ Albanesius, Chloe (20 January 2012). "Megaupload Shutdown Targets Pirates ... And Legitimate Files". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 31 Jan 2013. Retrieved 31 Jan 2012.
  94. ^ Albanesius, Chloe (xx January 2012). "Recovering Legitimate Megaupload Files? Proficient Luck With That". PC Mag. Archived from the original on five September 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  95. ^ Gallagher, Sean (30 January 2012). "Feds: Megaupload user files may be deleted starting Thursday". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  96. ^ Albanesius, Chloe (30 January 2012). "Megaupload Files: Deleted Past Thursday?". PC Mag. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  97. ^ "Carpathia Hosting's Statement on Recent News Reports". Carpathia Hosting. xxx Jan 2012. Archived from the original on xxx Jan 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  98. ^ Tsukayama, Hayley (30 Jan 2012). "Carpathia: Don't call u.s.a. for Megaupload data". Washington Post. Archived from the original on v February 2013. Retrieved 31 Jan 2012.
  99. ^ "Megaupload user asks court render of his video files". Electronic Borderland Foundation. 30 March 2012. Archived from the original on 20 December 2012.
  100. ^ "US Megaupload hosting visitor might be sued next". TorrentFreak. 15 April 2012. Archived from the original on 17 December 2012.
  101. ^ "Leaseweb Wipes All Megaupload User Information, Dotcom Outraged". TorrentFreak. 19 June 2013.
  102. ^ Williams, Christopher (xx January 2012). "Anonymous attacks FBI website over Megaupload raids". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on twenty January 2012.
  103. ^ "Anonymous in revenge attack for MegaUpload shutdown". Fiscal Times. Archived from the original on 21 January 2012.
  104. ^ a b Biddle, Sam (19 January 2012). "Anonymous Goes on Megaupload Revenge Spree: DoJ, RIAA, MPAA, and Universal Music All Offline". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on twenty January 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  105. ^ "Bearding mail service". Pastebin. Archived from the original on nineteen July 2012.
  106. ^ Smith, Gerry (19 January 2012). "Anonymous Responds To Megaupload Takedown; Claims Credit For DOJ, RIAA, MPAA, Universal Music Outages (UPDATE)". The Huffington Mail. Archived from the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 31 Jan 2012.
  107. ^ "Police ordered to return seized files to cyberspace mogul Kim Dotcom". ABC . Retrieved 1 June 2013.
  108. ^ "FBI unplugs summit piracy site". The Australian. 20 January 2012. Archived from the original on 30 December 2012. Retrieved 20 Jan 2012.
  109. ^ Perlroth, Nicole; Hardy, Quentin (20 Jan 2012). "Antipiracy Instance Sends Shivers Through Some Legitimate Storage Sites". The New York Times. Archived from the original on five September 2012.
  110. ^ Kang, Cecilia (22 January 2012). "Megaupload shutdown raises new Internet-sharing fears". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012.
  111. ^ "Government takedown of Megaupload leads to new fears". United states Today. twenty January 2012. Archived from the original on five January 2013.
  112. ^ Dvorak, John C. (20 Jan 2012). "U.Southward. Government Kills Megaupload". PCMag.com. Archived from the original on 8 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  113. ^ Greenwald, Glenn. "Two lessons from the Megaupload seizure". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 4 Jan 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  114. ^ "FBI Reminds Us Government Already Has MegaPower to Accept Down Websites". Cato-at-freedom.org. Archived from the original on 21 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
  115. ^ "v Questions, Answers Near The Megaupload Case". NPR.org. Archived from the original on 7 September 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  116. ^ "If feds tin can bosom Megaupload, why bother with anti-piracy bills?". Christian Science Monitor. 21 January 2012. Archived from the original on two January 2013.
  117. ^ a b Brodkin, Jon. "Megaupload wasn't simply for pirates: angry users out of luck for at present". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 1 January 2013. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  118. ^ Albanesius, Chloe (ane Jan 1970). "Recovering Legitimate Megaupload Files? Adept Luck With That". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved 22 Jan 2012.
  119. ^ "FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests". CNET. 22 Jan 2012. Archived from the original on 13 July 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
  120. ^ "Cyberlocker Ecosystem Shocked As Big Players Take Desperate Activity". TorrentFreak.com. 23 Jan 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
  121. ^ "FileSonic and Uploaded.to bow out in light of recent events". Technologymob.com. 23 January 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
  122. ^ Ludwig, Sean (22 January 2012). "MediaFire CEO: Unlike Megaupload, our business model isn't built on piracy". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on twenty July 2012.
  123. ^ "RapidShare "not concerned" about Megaupload takedown". Ars Technica. 20 Jan 2012. Archived from the original on 10 July 2012.
  124. ^ "BitTorrent Index BTjunkie Bites the Dust". Fourth dimension. half-dozen Feb 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
  125. ^ "Turbobit.net Blocks United states Visitors Later MegaUpload Shutdown". TorrentFreak. 7 February 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 8 Feb 2012.
  126. ^ "QuickSilverScreen Streaming Links Site Calls It Quits". TorrentFreak. 7 February 2012. Archived from the original on 15 July 2012. Retrieved 8 Feb 2012.

External links [edit]

Websites operated by Megaupload [edit]

  • Megaupload at the Wayback Motorcar (archived 18 Jan 2012)
  • Megavideo at the Wayback Automobile (archived xix January 2012)
  • Megapix at the Wayback Machine (archived xi January 2012)
  • Megalive at the Wayback Machine (archived 19 January 2012)
  • Megabox at the Wayback Machine (archived iv Jan 2012)
  • Megaporn

Articles [edit]

  • "Why Did the Feds Target Megaupload? And Why Now?". Gizmodo. xx January 2012.
  • "Looking for Signs of Criminal offense in Megaupload'south Memos". The New York Times. 20 January 2012.
  • "Newsmaker: Megaupload a story of Dotcom smash and bust". Reuters. 22 January 2012.

Court Documents [edit]

  • USA v. Dotcom et. al. (Docket Report), vol. No. 1:12-cr-00003, Eastward.D.V.A., 5 Jan 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Recap (PACER current viewPaid subscription required)
    • Usa v. Dotcom et. al. (Docket Report), vol. No. 1:12-cr-00003, E.D.5.A., 5 January 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Recap
      • "Motility Of Specially-Actualization Defendant Megaupload Limited To Dismiss Indictment" (PDF), USA five. Dotcom et. al. (Courtroom Filing), E.D.V.A., vol. No. 1:12-cr-00003, no. Docket 96, Attachment 1, 30 May 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Recap
      • "Motion To Challenge The Scope Of Pretrial Restraint Of Assets" (PDF), Us five. Dotcom et. al. (Court Filing), E.D.V.A., vol. No. 1:12-cr-00003, no. Docket 96, Attachment two, 30 May 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Recap
    • United states of america v. Dotcom et. al. (Docket Report), vol. No. one:12-cr-00003, Due east.D.V.A., five Jan 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Epitomize
      • "Memorandum Of Police force In Support Of Movement Of Particularly Appearing Defendant Megaupload Limited To Dismiss Indictment For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (PDF), USA v. Dotcom et. al. (Court Filing), E.D.5.A., vol. No. one:12-cr-00003, no. Docket 115, 3 July 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Epitomize
      • "Rebuttal Memorandum Of Constabulary In Farther Support Of Move Of Particularly Appearing Defendant Megaupload Limited To Dismiss Indictment For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (PDF), USA v. Dotcom et. al. (Courtroom Filing), E.D.V.A., vol. No. one:12-cr-00003, no. Docket 118, 18 July 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via Recap

Other [edit]

  • "Printing Release Concerning Megaupload Arrests". New Zealand Police force.
  • "U.S. Department of Justice indictment against Megaupload" (PDF). Washington Postal service. 16 February 2012.

martinezthistil1996.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload

0 Response to "Are the Mega Transfer Limits Causing My Uploads to Freeze?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel