Talk:Megaupload

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Untitled[edit]

Archive: 2007-2011

FBI shuts down site[edit]

The FBI has seized and shutdown megaupload: [1]. 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: [2] 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.[3] 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.[4] 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?[edit]

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)
[5] shows the IP 107.21.243.42, like other similar services. If you search for - ottawa OR seattle "107.21.243.42" - in Google it shows up the server may be outside of USA. Guess wikipedia users should have access to this information, so I propose allowing to change "On 19 January 2012, U.S federal prosecutors in the state of Virginia shut Megaupload down and laid charges against its founder Kim Dotcom and others for allegedly breaching copyright infringement laws." to "On 19 January 2012, U.S federal prosecutors in the state of Virginia shut Megaupload down (IP 107.21.243.42 and so on) and laid charges against its founder Kim Dotcom and others for allegedly breaching copyright infringement laws." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.11.136 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 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).

Do we have any evidence that the site is really shut down by the FBI? I mean, that picture that's up there is low quality and looks like a 9 year old constructed it. Is this really the FBI? How do they have jurisdiction over Hong-Kong? Just saying, this doesn't seem very legit xD Freegen (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 January 2012[edit]

more credible link to MegaUpload takedown http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-crm-074.html167.92.123.10 (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.htmlSaxifrage 21:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, Kim Dotcom has been arrested.[6]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Closing this request. The request was not sufficiently specific and the link is 404. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous' retaliation[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

[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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

megaupload take down and SOPA/PIPA[edit]

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". FanRed XN | 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. FanRed XN | 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).
Sorry, but there's no way to prove that SOPA and PIPA's failure in the legal system led to MegaUpload's downfall, even though we know it did. It's opinion and unverifiable at that. At this point, it just serves as an underpinning anecdote. --97.95.227.70 (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

from Portal:Current events/2012 January 19, resource[edit]

Wikinews[edit]

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

Edit request on 20 January 2012[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)
The difference is in the technology and thus also the intent. P2P stands for peer to peer and means that a file is being transferred from one user to another. This happens directly without the file being uploaded to a server first. There's also no way to keep the file saved for the case that the source peer goes offline. He has to be online constantly to make the file available. Also, the files being shared have to be actively allowed to be shared within the client software making it a willful act from the source peer. Megaupload uses a totally different concept that is far from being P2P. A user stores a file on their servers and makes the link available. He doesn't have to be online to keep the file available. Also, his intention isn't necessarily of an infringing nature, since the file might be found accidentally, or a private link might be shared illegally by a third party. Furthermore, Megaupload itself has basically no part in the intention (local legal definitions aside), since they neither actively upload the file, nor spread it by offering a search function. They merely store it. Basically, Megaupload or any share hoster for that matter is merely a special webspace for files. Webspace that is comparable to those of normal websites, however without the usual file size limitations by the Webspace hoster or the necessities of registering, making the whole process practically anonymous and quick. On P2P networks for example, anonymity is practically impossible thanks to the direct peer-based hosting. I'm wondering why you're claiming that Megaupload is just like any P2P-network without even knowing the difference... 77.183.211.37 (talk) 00:09, 7 February 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)
I agree. It's comparing apples with oranges. Neither the technical aspects nor the way it all went down have any similarities other than an internet company getting into legal trouble. By that wide definition one might as well throw Microsoft and Apple into the ring with their many patent-related issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.183.211.37 (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Same $#!+, different technology Smile.svg 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)

[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.41.62 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

3rd Opinion[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [12], 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)
You may want to check out the article, since your view of the legal issues in O'Dwyer case appears to be insufficiently supported by info, which suggests you may even be wrong. (Although I believe it is true it wasn't necessary for O'Dwyer actions to be in violation of UK law.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Think the said jurisdiction over .com domains is like Japaneses claiming rights over an American Toyota. Maybe the most legally protected of the popular options is actually the Irish .info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.4.0.202 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
LOL, have cheched out the article [13] and I'll never know what's wrong with 79.193.63.57 comment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.25.41.62 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
What a brilliant precedent... What about shutting all the Verisign domains down? If they are the actual owner, they are the actual guilty. For most of Internet erga omnes crimes.

New Zealand news pages with addresses[edit]

MPAA/RIAA stooges are trying to influence the article[edit]

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 spelling?[edit]

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.FanRed XN | talk 20:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this article is about Megaupload, not just the case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Criminal defense section & Techdirt[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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)

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

Forbes: 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... DigitalMusicNews: airvinyl 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 [14] 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???[edit]

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)

In the UK, the use of the LOIC to flood a website is a criminal offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. People may have their IP addresses traced and get a knock on the door from the police if they do this sort of thing.[15] I'm not sure about the law in the USA, but it is likely illegal there as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but "likely" does not warrant such a statement here. That claim is speculative and should be cited or removed IMHO. I know this isn't a legal advice website, but claiming a law is broken [without citing which law and how] is worse than actually saying which law may have been broken. --97.95.227.70 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed this unless it can be clarified and sourced. Interestingly, the arrests in the UK by Scotland Yard described in 'Anonymous' defends the use of web attacks were coordinated with US law enforcers. Although I am not a legal expert, deliberately flooding/spamming an online service with a view to taking it offline is a criminal offence in many countries.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks... It just seemed that the wording was too vague and was implying wrong-doing without stating how. Not fitting for a wiki article; we need citations, especially for something involving legal implications :). Thanks again for your consideration. --97.95.227.70 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
BTW, does anyone know what law this would break in the USA? This might help with sourcing the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Not sure specifically what laws are involved but most likely they'll be some kind of cyber security laws and not the laws MegaUpload was done in for such as the DCMA. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Retaliatory attacks by Anonymous[edit]

We need something in this section that helps to explain their motive for attacking the FBI, etc. Anonymous are called "Piracy activists" by the BBC and "Pro-piracy sympathisers" by the The Telegraph. [16] [17] Plus there are lots more sources via GoogleThePowerofX 09:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

People really need to distinguish between "Anonymous" and "AnonOps". That includes the retar-- (whoops, can't say that word on a Christian website! lol) oops, I mean idiots who write these BBC articles. There's a difference between your typical "ANONYMUZ IZ LEEJUN xDDD" spouting /b/ resident, and those at AnonOps posting those Pastebin announcements describing their DDoS attacks. "Anonymous" is not a "hacker group"; it isn't even a group, but an abstract concept of collective individuals acting without self-identifying names (within the context of the internet). Anyone can claim to be "Anonymous" and start an anti-government protest in City X, then another set of people claim to be "Anonymous" and claim to DDoS Website Y, and another set of people claiming to be "Anonymous" start some stupid underage nonsense on a Minecraft server, but none of these people or incidents have any relation to one another. Anyone that posts as "Anonymous" on a messageboard is, essentially, an "anon", and doesn't necessarily have to be "hackers on steroids" (as CNN once put it). People in the media need to recognise that.
Now, taking this into account, no, "Anonymous" can't possibly be "Pro-piracy sympathisers" as The Telegraph claims, as an abstract concept cannot be a sympathiser of anything. If it was reworded that the hackers from AnonOps calling themselves "Anonymous" were this and that, then that would be a better option. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 10:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
This is entirely your own interpretation. I invite you to read WP:OR and undo your most recent edit. — ThePowerofX 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you have a good read on the article on Anonymous? Regarding OR, being mentioned by BBC doesn't make it correct; if BBC claimed that pigs flied, then do they fly? News sources do make errors every now and then, believe it or not, since they are human after all. Pointing out their errors isn't OR. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 11:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming pigs can fly. Rather, reliable sources say Anonymous are opposed to organisations and law agencies that attempt to reduce digital piracy. None of this is the least bit controversial. — ThePowerofX 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
However, what they are referring to is supposed to be AnonOps. Anonymous is not one entity. I doubt those Wall Street protesters calling themselves "Anonymous" even know the difference between an SD card and MySQL; one "Anonymous" is a bunch of hipsters holding protest signs in public, another "Anonymous" are 13 year old script kiddies that use LOIC, and another bunch of "Anonymous" are actual hackers that do things either for activism, or for general pranks.
Just pulling a few things out of memory, and some others from the Timeline of events involving Anonymous page, it's been reported that "Anonymous" has been involved in defacing websites with "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER", raiding Habbo with swastikas, and defacing hip-hop websites with "Enjoy This White Wimmenz, N*gger". They've also been reported to have engaged in street protests against Scientology, acted as activists in Iran's democracy movement, DDoSed Australian Government websites in protest against censorship, and the recent SOPA hubbub. Do you really think that the "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" "Anonymous" is the same "Anonymous" as the one that's advocating for democracy in Iran? Both claim to be "Anonymous".
In other words, saying that "Anonymous" is a pro-piracy group makes no sense, as "Anonymous" is not one person, nor a group of people; those claiming to be "Anonymous" have different ideologies, purposes and beliefs from one another, and anyone on the internet can claim to be "Anonymous". It is merely a blanket term for someone who uses that name to do something. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
They are not hackers and they're not a group. Got it. Why then have you not sought to remove a single instance of "group" or "hacktivist group" from either article? Your only recent contribution is to delete "pro-piracy" leaving everything else untouched. If you wish to emphasise the disparate nature of this collective, using reliable sources, go right ahead, but please understand that quality sources have also described them as sympathetic to digital piracy. This needs to be made clear so readers can understand why they attacked the FBI in this instance. Now will you kindly revert? — ThePowerofX 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Both articles were written in regards to The Pirate Bay shutdown, before the MU case. Also, neither of them explicitly ties "piracy advocacy" to Anonymous, only about them "congregating" on the 4chan boards. Lastly, both are op-ed pieces, which leaves us with two choices: either remove "pro-piracy" or leave "viewed by some as pro-piracy", with the respective sources attached. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
1. The date is less important when adding a brief description. Unless you wish to argue that Anonymous have reversed their position and now stand against digital piracy, I don't see how this is relevant. 2. Activists, 4chan and Operation Payback are clearly identified plus both stories are written in an easily perceptible manner. The BBC say "A similar anonymous group - also reportedly coordinated through 4chan - temporarily blocked access...". 3. Neither are op-eds. Honestly, I don't understand the resistance to this at all. — ThePowerofX 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Conceiva rip-off?[edit]

Existing article points out: "Mega Manager bore striking resemblances to Conceiva DownloadStudio version 5, self-evident in its "Options..." dialogue box and some other aspects of the program." The MegaUpload guy Kim Schmitz is well known for being a fraudster and conman. So did they license the Conceiva software, or was it an illegal hacked copy of it? 86.184.161.224 (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload "ripped off YouTube, tried smearing rivals"[edit]

This story is on CNET. It is the latest in a series of claims made by U.S. Federal investigators. Not sure if this is notable enough for the article, although it is similar to one of the reasons for the shutdown given in the indictment, which was that Megaupload "reproduced copyrighted works directly from third-party websites, including from YouTube.com".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection ineffective[edit]

I've been monitoring this article, and the semi-protection isn't helping the vandalism at all. There's a load of links to Motherless.com, a porn website, and random spiderman references thrown about. There's gotta be a better way to fix this.

I'm suggesting FULL PROTECTION of this article, because this is getting ridiculous. --GallowsCalibrator (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg was NOT in the Megaupload video/song[edit]

As you can see in the headline of this section, I'm claiming that Snoop Dogg was not in the Megaupload video/song. This Wikipedia article claims he was and uses torrentfreak.com as the source. Is that website really the best source for this? If Snoop Dogg really is in the video, then these screenshots I've made should be him: at imgur.com, at postimage.org. A man that looks like Snoop Dogg, yes. But is it him? I've seen Snoop Dogg's dreadlocks, but they don't look like that. I've seen Snoop Dogg's teeth and they don't look anything like that. The man in the video is wearing huge sunglasses that cover most of his upper face, including his eyes. I've seen Snoop Dogg's goatee, but it doesn't look like that. Are you really trying to tell me that they paid Snoop Dogg to be in the video in disguise? Yeah sure, put on the biggest glasses you can find so we can't see your eyes, then dress up like a Jamaican vampire, put in some fake teeth, put on a wig with massive dreads, and basically do anything you can to look like somebody else. Anyways, can we get a better source for this please. Thanks. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is basically original research. I can't comment, but if true, why has Snoop Dogg not come forward and said "This is not me, it's a fake?"--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I just found out who the man really is, it's Lil Jon. Snoop Dogg is NOT in the Megaupload video. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
CNET, The Guardian and other sources say that he is in the video (or at least the song, perhaps he is off camera). Perhaps this could be raised at Talk:Snoop Dogg, as the regular editors there should have more idea of what he looks like.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is my final post about this issue, I'm not going to discuss it at Talk:Snoop Dogg. Watch the song, check the picture of Lil Jon. This Megaupload article says: "On 9 December 2011, Megaupload published a music video titled: "The Mega Song", showing artists including Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, Alicia Keys and will.i.am endorsing the company.29". The source is torrentfreak.com, where it says "But top music stars including P Diddy, Will.i.am, Alicia Keys, Snoop Dogg and Kanye West disagree and are giving the site their full support in a brand new song.". They don't mention Lil Jon. Why not? Because they think the man in the video is Snoop Dogg. I don't care what The Guardian claims, maybe they copied the incorrect information from Wikipedia. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The original video included a segment where Snoop Dogg (yes, Snoop Dogg) says something really (in my opinion) stupid, like "Megaupload, it keeps the kids off the streets". (Off the top of my head, might have slightly different wording) The later video re-uploaded onto Youtube by Kim Dotcom after the numerous takedowns no longer had that few-second segment. This might have been because the Youtube takedown agreements involved all videos that included a certain list of artists, including Snoop Dogg. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 09:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
And here's a goldmine of pages which confirm Snoop (originally) saying that "kids off the street" line in the video: [18] -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 09:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe someone can update the article to make it clearer that Snoop Doog used to be in the original video and song, but that this original is no longer available anywhere. --95.97.92.58 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Since this has become an issue, Snoop Dogg's name has been removed from the article. The most important thing is the controversy caused by the video, not who was in it. BTW, I looked at several versions of the song on YouTube and Vimeo, and none had the line "Megaupload, it keeps the kids off the streets" in it. A barnstar goes to anyone who can find a version with this line.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Two secondary sources – [19] and [20] – seem good enough. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that this was correct, only pointing out that all of the videos of the song currently available seem to have this line missing. Something happened that led to the removal, but it is unclear when or why it happened.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

More charges for Megaupload in US case[edit]

This is in the BBC News. The full indictment is here (5.2 MB). This new indictment is considerably longer than the original on 5 January 2012.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"In addition, the document says that the defendants' claim of more than 180 million registered users is not supported by their own records, which show only 66.6 million registered users as of January 19." CNNThePowerofX 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Criminal or civil?[edit]

Why is providing facilities that are used by others in breach of copyright treated as a criminal matter? Surely faciliating breach of copyright is at worst a civil matter? If the FBI's reasoning is followed the makers of video or audio recorders, scanners, photocopiers and faxes are all criminal conspiracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also allegations of fraud and whatnot. Fraud is a criminal case. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The same "Where's the harm?" argument ultimately failed in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Making money from copyright violation can lead to civil and criminal liability, as the boring small print says. No doubt the debate over Megaupload will run and run, but the indictment is clear about some criminal element being involved.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

illegal filesharing?[edit]

Can someone explain me why megaupload's DMCA-abiding file sharing service is being taken down, but the nearly identical SkyDrive (by Microsoft) isn't? What's the catch aside from microsoft owning more lawyer-power than some entire american states? I won't comment on in the main page without a little fact-finding talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.12.125 (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload made millions of dollars via ad revenue and premium memberships which were reliant on uploaded copyrighted material. Microsoft makes its mountains of money from the software it sells to individuals and corporations, and the file-hosting service it offers is more Nazi in deleting infringing material, is more limited as to what can be uploaded (You could upload a 800MB+ file on MU; let's see you try that elsewhere), and has shitty speeds (meaning that it's okay for 14 year old girls to share prom photos, not so good in sharing "Independence.Day.(1996).1080p.REMASTERED.FLAC-DualAudio.H264.L33tHax0rzPr0duksh0nz.mkv"). The RIAA/MPAA/Star of David team is arguing that, with the speeds, size limits and services it offers, MU is geared towards sharing copyrighted material. Whether or not that is true, and whether or not you and I agree, is another matter. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
(And before some admin goes ape-crazy, that filename is supposed to be ironic) -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Feds broaden piracy case against Megaupload.com says: "The superseding indictment cited the case of one alleged infringer referred identified only as "VV." Over six years, VV had uploaded nearly 17,000 files to Megavideo.com, which resulted in more than 334 million views, it said. Though VV had been the subject of numerous takedown e-mails, none of those files had been deleted." In other words, part of the prosecution case is that Megaupload was not DMCA compliant as it claimed. Perhaps the article should mention this and make it clearer.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect[edit]

The information about Mediafire, Rapidshare etc being banned in India is totally incorrect. I'm from India and I can visit the sites perfectly fine. I'm gonna remove it. Penpaperpencil (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

That is not the point. Even if the ban has subsequently been lifted, it was in place for the reason given at the time that it was reported. It would be better to find a source saying that the ban has been lifted instead of removing sourced content.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it wasn't blocked in the first place. I use those websites regularly. And as much as I can remember it hasn't been blocked except megaupload. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 09:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The blocking of a range of sites occurred for customers of Reliance Communications.[21] The film Singham was the cause of the problem.[22] The article needs to mention this, rather than removing it altogether because the block may subsequently have been lifted.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The source says it's "being blocked in India" not "blocked for Reliance customers". And read the comments on there, it wasn't blocked as it was posted on July 20th and many users have commented that those sites were working fine. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 14:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The wording has been tweaked. At the time of writing, some UK ISP customers cannot access Newzbin after a court order for similar reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reason for the IP block in Hong Kong[edit]

From the sourcing available, it appears that the decision to block Megaupload for IP addresses in Hong Kong came from Megaupload itself, rather than the Chinese authorities. The reason for this may never be known, although this research paper suggests that it may have been to prevent any legal liabilities in Hong Kong, where its headquarters are based.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 February 2012[edit]

i need to edit it

Akerker27 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits, if you want to edit it, you need to be autoconfirmed--Jac16888 Talk 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Police made 'errors' during raid on Megaupload boss[edit]

This is in the news today, and it may lead to the return of the cars and other items seized during the police raid.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hi everybody !
I'm an administrator on french Wikipedia. I'm here to warn you that we underwent a big vandalism on our article on Megaupload from kids of this forum. I was protected the article and blocked IPs adress, but they may be come here. The vandalisme is a probably opening of Megaupload in may 2012. Juraastro (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

Rtnews template[edit]

I've removed the Russia Today news template from the page, as it had raised concern because it pointed to a single trending news page, rather than a selection of trend pages, and after discussion in the appropriate places, it's easier to remove it than it is to add lots of other trend pages, as I don't know of any (don't have time to look). If there are any comments, concerns, or suggestions please reply on my talkpage, as I don't watch this page. Penyulap 02:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

revision 490679340[edit]

The material looks ok to me, any thoughts ? Penyulap 03:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This was trimmed because it has sourcing issues. Beginning a paragraph with "Legal commentators point out that" is a WP:WEASEL expression, and the total amount of pro-Megaupload material in this section leads to issues with NPOV. Criticism and commentary should be traced back to a named reliable source, such as Eric Goldman. Overall, the "Criminal defense action" section contains too much speculation and commentary, and not enough hard facts. There is no need to put the return of his cars in the WP:LEAD, as it is not one of the defining features of the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Some material was trimmed to avoid repetition, commentary and speculation. "Rothken claims that the raid on Dotcom's mansion in January 2012 was unjustly swift and did not give his client the opportunity to defend himself. Under New Zealand law any seizure request should have been communicated beforehand, allowing the accused to defend himself against the allegations. This did not happen, and the two first seizure warrants were declared null and void by a judge, though a third one was granted ex post, legalizing the raids that had already occurred." is not in the sourcing at [23] or [24], but is sourced at [25]. The Los Angeles Times opinion piece was trimmed because it largely repeats what Techdirt and Eric Goldman said. [26] was trimmed because it is a blog source. The criminal defence section has three salient points:
  1. Kim Dotcom denies the charges against him.
  2. Legal experts have expressed doubts about some aspects of the case.
  3. Some of the paperwork in the case was shown to be incorrect, and a US judge has expressed doubts about whether the case will come to court.

The previous version of these facts was padded out with speculation, commentary and WP:CRYSTAL. There is enough material in the current version to get the facts across without reading like an essay or commentary on the case.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload IP address[edit]

[27] shows the IP 107.21.243.42, like other similar services. If you search for - ottawa OR seattle "107.21.243.42" - in Google it shows up the server may be outside of USA. Guess wikipedia users should have access to this information, so I propose allowing to change "On 19 January 2012, U.S federal prosecutors in the state of Virginia shut Megaupload down and laid charges against its founder Kim Dotcom and others for allegedly breaching copyright infringement laws." to "On 19 January 2012, U.S federal prosecutors in the state of Virginia shut Megaupload down (IP 107.21.243.42) and laid charges against its founder Kim Dotcom and others for allegedly breaching copyright infringement laws." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.41.11.136 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time of the shutdown in January 2012, Megaupload was hosted at an IP address in Virginia, 174.140.154.12, see Talk:Megaupload#FBI_shuts_down_site. According to CNN, "Megaupload has servers in Ashburn, Virginia, and Washington, which prompted the Virginia-based investigation."[28] The IP addresses are not the major issue, since the FBI has decided that it has jurisdiction over the matter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems reliable, just don't agree with the shutdown being an FBI decision, but a legal matter. If they see it in this way guess the banner there is in accordance, it looks like a childish pride instead of an adult explanation (even the jurisdiction being in USA, it would be expected a respectful notice to legal users, in all the languages the service supported[29]).
The FBI jurisdiction over this matter has been questioned, see the sourcing at [30].--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload gets a "Phoenix Down", FBI is accused of corruption[edit]

Recently I heard the news the Megaupload is returning from Kim Dotcom's Twitter. Also, on news, it is stated Kim Dotcom and others had no access to the evidences against him (which means there were none that could be used without being objected out), plus they didn't follow U.S. laws while arresting him, bringing to surface the suspicion of corruption of FBI, perhaps bribed by Hollywood (Most likely, UMG). In fact, this most as well be true! I mean: I used to upload stuff there! I went to upload an unofficial Mirror's Edge 2D made in flash, and it was blocked out several times halfway through the upload because the "file is probably infriging copyright". So, there's the "first lie" of FBI, when they said the site is meant for copyright infrigiment, while actually it was the most advanced by then (As others had no way to tell copyrighted files unless a complaint was filed after upload).

Therefore, I propose two edits: One in here, stating this possible return. And second is here and in FBI, stating this scandal and how FBI fell into corruption. FBI deserves punishment for this. And a stain in their history will be writen even in books. -- Anonymous 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.93.254 (talk)

Kim Dotcom claimed in a recent interview with TorrentFreak that Vice President Joe Biden directed attorney Neil MacBride to target the site.[31] This was denied by the U.S. Attorney's Office [32] and could be mentioned in the article. The possibility of the Megaupload site returning is still WP:CRYSTAL. Kim Dotcom has been tweeting at https://twitter.com/#!/kimdotcom , but Twitter is not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That Twitter page is really operated by real Kim Dotcom. Example look at this and this. Thank you. Best regards, Einottaja (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC) :)

Megaupload company slogan[edit]

It is not disputed that the Megaupload song on YouTube contains the words "M E G A, upload to me today", but YouTube videos are not a reliable source, and the song does not explicitly support the claim that this is the company slogan. This needs to have a reliable source which says this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Megaupload old Facebook-page had this slogan too, but it seems that Facebook-page is taken down due to Megaupload raid.[1] Best regards, Einottaja (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And you said it is not reliable source, but I would say it is. It was downloadable on Megaupload.com top files list. Also that video is uploaded by Kim Dotcom, Megaupload founder. Best regards, Einottaja (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and here are the sources:
Einottaja (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is giving "The page you requested was not found." --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
This's what I said: Megaupload old Facebook-page had this slogan too, but it seems that Facebook-page is taken down due to Megaupload raid. --Einottaja (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request (Legal Case)[edit]

The sentence "Files not downloaded are rapidly removed in most cases, whereas popular downloaded files are retained." makes no sense. How can a file "not downloaded" be "rapidly removed"? --- later.... Okay, I get it now: it means files infrequently downloaded. I'll fix it.

Page Views (in history)[edit]

Currently, in the Statistics section of this article, it says: "Page Views (in history): over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000" You'd think that between 19 June and today, at least one reader would understand that having 1024 views (a septillion or a quadrillion, depending on your preferred scale) is impossible, and would take the time to change that number back to what it said after the reference was added in January 2012. I'll fix it and point to this section in the edit summary. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Return of the pink Cadillac?[edit]

He may get back his car collection, including the 1959 pink Cadillac. This news story says "Cars, cash and property seized from Kim Dotcom by police in the 2012 raid at his Coatesville mansion could be returned to him within the next 14 days." still an element of WP:CRYSTAL here, but worth watching out for.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Arrests in New Zealand Header[edit]

Hi, I'm fairly new to wikipedia editing. I was wondering what are your thoughts or what is the guidelines and process about two different articles that have similar to exact same content? I ask this because the sections Megaupload_legal_case#Arrests_in_New_Zealand and Megaupload#Arrests_in_New_Zealand are nearly identical. They are both not nearly identical making it confusing for the reader. Should this be collaborated or moved together? --Frankthetankk 00:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankthetankk (talkcontribs)

Megaupload legal case was spun off into a separate article in August 2012. The problem is that when any new development occurs in the case, both articles will have to be updated. Seizure of Megaupload is also a dubious spinoff article. There is a case for a WP:MERGE here, with this article carrying all of the information.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Time Format Context[edit]

In the lead, last paragraph, Mega's launch time is given in 12h time. MOS:TIME states that "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used". But I cannot figure out what the context is.

Kim Dotcom was born in Germany, but his company was based in New Zealand, but it was fought in a US court case.

By which standard do we go for this article? – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

is->was[edit]

"was" is appropriate for companies (not software), that get bankrupt (or "shut down"? is the company still alive as a zombie/shelf company?)) And "was" seems ok here. Article says to look at the talk page, I scanned quickly and didn't see (maybe in the archives)? If the service was shut down, then it's not longer online either. I propose "Megaupload was a company for online".. Mega, the successor (a different company and domain) is however alive and "is" is ok three. comp.arch (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Megaupload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Megaupload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2017 version question[edit]

What is the exact date for the opening of the new Megaupload website? It's January 2017 now, and I'm still waiting. Thanks.70.189.241.157 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Back in July 2016, Kim Dotcom said that he was planning a relaunch of the original Megaupload in 2017. This BBC News story says that the service "would be formally launched on 20 January - five years to the day since his home was raided by police." However, there doesn't seem to be any real chance of this happening according to more recent news stories, so it is a good example of why WP:CRYSTAL applies to events postulated to occur in the future.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. 70.189.241.157 (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording in the article is going to have to be changed soon, because a January 2017 relaunch now looks unlikely.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Eh, that's too bad. I was looking forward to the Megaupload comeback; I still miss Megaupload. I remember using it right before it shut down in January 2012 (I remember that incident as well). 70.189.241.157 (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megaupload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Megaupload. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)