I was hearing this from a friend of mine that Mega Upload the site I liked very much was shutdown from the U.S Government. The F.B.I shut it down for one reason is that it was costing the entertainment industry close to one billion dollars from The Feed from Attack of the Show source. It’s been stated that it was shutdown without no trail by law and it has received allot of complains from users of mega upload. The question that I’m thinking the same from journalist…Why have they shut a website if its not owned by the U.S, The F.B.I and the feuds had to go through arresting Mega Upload Founder Kim Dotcom was criminally charged by online privacy, now through this now, He’s going to getting departed back in Germany.
This is the list of the charges he’s been convicted of:
Potential legal concerns suggested:
Since that happened the online activist hacking group Anonymous got pissed and hacked the U.S Department of Justice and crashed their servers, The servers was offline for merely 70 minutes it happen the day after SOPA was dropped by the house, it’s only took the group hours after the site was shutdown, it’s been said that it was one of the biggest online attacks in history. I couldn’t believe when I was reading it in a column in The Herald. It easy for me to say that if it wasn’t on trail by law or anything it couldn’t be stop. I know I been to the site couple of times in the past but I don’t feel guilty that watched a movie from their site one time or another. I liked however that the servers was pretty fast. I like it, but If your posting something that the artist or movies directors is not getting paid for posting material without permission then this case, It’s consider crime, I know not allot of people are not willing to pay full price for media, for anyone that you your doing right without permission is still a crime, If you steal then there’s a price to pay for your actions.
- The indictment cites lack of a site search as evidence supporting criminality. However in other copyright cases having a site search is suggested as supporting criminality and in Atari v. RapidSharenot having a site search was agreed by the court as evidence of responsible activity given that some infringing content might exist and be searched for if one existed. In the case of Isohunt, thepresence of a search feature was interpreted as evidence of inducement. TechDirt described this as “court guidance”, adding: “To use the lack of a feature, that previously was shown to be a problem, as evidence of a conspiracy is crazy. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
- The “top 100” list excluded copyrighted titles. The indictment claims this was evidence of concealing, rather than avoiding downloads of, infringing materials.
- Streamed video could not be watched for over 72 minutes without pay. The indictment claims this was intended to monetarise, not discourage, infringing movies (which are usually longer).
- The indictment asserts as evidence that no effort was made 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.
- In MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. the Supreme Court looked at “substantial noninfringing uses”. A finding of inducement to infringe in that case was based on wider evidence of intent. Mere lack of monitoring was not by itself sufficient to show wrongdoing or inducement.
- Deletion after a limited period of non-download is suggested as evidence of a motive. But file sharing can include large files shared during a short-term legitimate event, and many legitimate sites such as Imgur remove unused content after a while to free up server space. If files were routinely deleted after a short period it could equally suggest legitimate use – because it serves users who share legitimately for a short while, and enforces removal afterwards.
- Much of the indictment, in the words of one analysis, “seems to be based on the simple assumption that encouraging more usage means they must be encouraging infringement”, and that there should be evidence of actual wrongdoing, not merely evidence of popular use. Many legitimate files are popular and popularly shared, and an implicit assumption that paid use largely equates to infringing use would need evidence. 
- Failure to remove all links following a takedown request is often legitimate. For example the same content may be uploaded by legitimate and illigitimate users. Removing the infringing link does not affect legitimate uploaders. Removing the infringing file would wrongfully cause it to be deleted for legitimate users too.
- Similarly, once child pornography is identified, it is always illegal for all users. But other material may not be. So the fact one had the file removed and the other had links removed may simply be correct conduct.
- While infringing activity may be occurring, it may not be possible (or reasonable to require) the host to know and identify what activity is legitimate or not. File sharing may be used by many content creators.
- Emails show infringing activity took place. But it takes place on other sites such as Youtube.
- The indictment includes money laundering charges. But these include “basic payments” for web hosting, suggesting “lumping in” – adding matters that are in no way illegal to make a case look bad.
- Megaupload had indicated willingness to attend court in the U.S. already, and answer any civil cases.