MediaFire: We're not pirates like Megaupload

Closing Megaupload for piracy made an impact. Some file sharing services are retreating, but MediaFire says they have nothing to worry about.

That's the news from MediaFire CEO Derek Labian in an interview in VentureBeat. "We don't have a business built on copyright infringement," says Labian. He also slammed Megaupload for "making a ridiculous amount of money with ridiculously bad service," noting the closed file sharing provider allowed people to upload free but charged for large downloads, and paid pirates for content.

[ Free download: 6 things every IT person should know ]

Yet the news of MediaFire's denouncing Megaupload for promoting piracy, while claiming themselves to be "a legitimate business targeting professionals," caught many by surprise. Also surprising to users? That Labian announced MediaFire how closely he works with the feds, including, "Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI." This could just be part of complying with various official requests to remove content challenged by copyright holders, but many worry the cooperation goes further.

Yeah, right

I always thought Mediafire would've been the first to go, honestly.
Erik Ziedses Des Plantes on prefixmag.com

lol. Who's this guy trying kid here? While they don't have an incentive for users pirating crap, the service is clearly used for it.
StupidPeopleShouldntBreed on venturebeat.com

About a year ago I filed DMCA takedown notices to just about every one of these sites on behalf of an artist I represented. MediaFire was the *only* website to ignore that request, and the pirated files are still there.
tunelab.com on venturebeat.com

Pirates bein' pirates

thank god it looks like they'll be safe. I need to get episode downloads SOMEWHERE!
laurenhowes on livejournal.com

MegaUpload's loss is MediaFire's gain?
Dave Park on prefixmag.com

i was in the middle of getting the whole BBC shakespeare collection and then fileserve died ughhhhhhhhhhhh
xhoney_bee on livejournal.com

This is the file storage business

People use Ford trucks to haul illicit substances around - should Ford be quaking in their boots?
dave on venturebeat.com

So let me ask you, if 80% of all Ford Trucks are used destroy others property, does it makes sense to question the legitimate use of Ford Trucks?
Steven Noyes on venturebeat.com

Just because they don't see themselves in the same space as Megaupload doesn't mean the Justice Department feels the same way. Move those servers!
ani_di_franco on livejournal.com

Can any file hosting service that offers free space really be sure of their user's intentions?

MediaFire CEO: Unlike Megaupload, our business model isn’t built on piracy

As the strange case of file-sharing site Megaupload continues to unfold, many wonder if the federal government will begin to clamp down on similar sites that function like Megaupload, with easy sharing and hosting of copyrighted files.

Already, two well-known file-sharing services, Uploaded.to and Filesonic have disabled several features of their sites this weekend because of the Megaupload scandal. Others are sure to follow.

But Derek Labian, CEO of popular cloud-based file-hosting site MediaFire, told VentureBeat in an interview today that he isn’t too concerned about the government going after his company because, unlike Megaupload, MediaFire doesn’t incentivize piracy.

“We don’t have a business built on copyright infringement.” Labain said. “Like many other cloud-based sharing services like Box.net and Dropbox, we’re a legitimate business targeting professionals.”

When it comes to Megaupload, Labian described Kim Dotcom and his organization as “shady” and said the $175 million in revenues the company made should give people pause. He noted that Megaupload’s structure gave users monetary rewards for uploading pirated content. Users of the service could upload without a cap but users who want to download a large file (or download it faster) would have to pay for it. Those who uploaded the best files would be given free account upgrades or even cash.

“Megaupload was making a ridiculous amount of money with a ridiculously bad service,” Labian said. “We frankly don’t see ourselves in the same space.”

A little more background on MediaFire: The privately funded company out of Woodlands, Tex. was founded in 2006 and has steadily offered better ways to host and share large files. Because it offers an incredibly easy to way to share 200MB files for free with other people, the company has attracted employees at 86 percent of the Fortune 500 for sending files that are too large for e-mail. It offers unlimited downloads and file storage, and if you want to upload larger files with long-term storage, you can pay $9 a month for a Pro account or $49 a month for a Business account.

But the company’s free file-sharing solution can also be used easily for sharing copyrighted files, especially music, with friends, relatives or anyone on the web. A Google search for a song name, an artist name and “MediaFire,” for example, will likely bring you to a copy of that file that can easily be downloaded from a MediaFire page.

When asked about the Googling issue, Labian said that MediaFire is a “private service” and the only reason Google indexes a MediaFire page is when it has been shared by a user on a third-party site. He said MediaFire isn’t at fault for this and said Google should look into the issue.

“We try to steer clear of things that would attract scrutiny,” Labian said. “If people are pirating on our service, we don’t want those people to use it.”

Another reason Labian said he wasn’t worried about the government stepping in is because the company maintains a “good relationship” with various government bodies, including “Homeland Security, ICE, and the FBI.” Following DMCA protocols, whenever MediaFire is notified of a copyrighted file being shared inappropriately, the company immediately takes it down.

As for the future, MediaFire is optimistic about what’s to come. Labian said the company has been working for a year on its next set of products, which will emphasize collaboration and focus on business users. He teased what was coming by saying that cloud storage providers Box.net and Dropbox significantly disrupted the cloud storage space, but MediaFire would do it next.

“This is a tough market to be in, but we’re constantly looking to innovate,” Labian said. “Sharing will always be important, but it’s not the only important aspect for our customers.”

Anonymous Denies Links to MegaUpload Clone

With MegaUpload.com now out of the picture, people claiming to be connected to the hacktivist group Anonymous are claiming that they will launch an online locker site of their own called AnonyUpload.com.

The news came just after file sharing site Filesonic has disabled its function and MegaUpload was taken down. The website, which is not fully-functional at this time, only has Paypal and social networking buttons working. When you visit the site, you will be greeted with a landing page that requests for funding. The site’s builders posted a statement, saying that they are hoping it to be online by January 25 if they have the proper funding.

AnonyUpload promises to offer users the same services as of that of MegaUpload, enabling users to share files by uploading them to the site.

Anonymous, the hack-attack group famous for its distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks on corporate websites and its activism regarding freedom of speech, posted a tweet denying any link to the website.

“FYI – We have NO affiliation with this site, and by the looks of it, this is a SCAM – anonyupload.com,” tweeted @YourAnonNews.

Computer security experts said that whether or not Anonymous truly created the AnonyUpload website, it should be avoided. “My advice would be to avoid the AnonyUpload site, and certainly not donate any money,” writes Sophos’ Graham Cluley. “You don’t know whose pockets you might be lining, and as AnonyUpload’s own blurb makes clear there are ‘many reasons’ why their service is ‘not good.’”

Google cut off Megaupload's ad money voluntarily back in 2007

The federal government's 72-page indictment of file hosting site Megaupload is stuffed with odd bits of information. Take page 34, for instance, which features a single paragraph about Google's AdSense program. It reads:

On or about May 17, 2007, a representative from Google AdSense, an Internet advertising company, send an e-mail to [Megaupload founder Kim] DOTCOM entitled "Google AdSense Account Status.” In the e-mail, the representative stated that “[d]uring our most recent review of your site,” Google AdSense specialists found “numerous pages” with links to, among other things, “copyrighted content,” and therefore Google AdSense “will no longer be able to work with you.” The e-mail contains links to specific examples of offending content located on Megaupload.com. DOTCOM and his conspirators have continued to operate and financially profit from the Megaupload.com website after receiving this notice.

Sometime later, Megaupload launched an internal advertising agency so that it collect even higher amounts of cash from placing ads on its download pages.

But the paragraph is more interesting for what it tells us about Google. Policy wonks may remember that the company has been absolutely vilified in recent months for taking advertising money from pirates, counterfeiters, and other unsavory characters. The implication—and sometimes it's far more than an implication—is that Google opposed recent legislation like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) only because it couldn't pass up the sweet nectar of forbidden cash.

Dirty pirates

Such criticism doesn't come simply from copyright holders; it goes all the way to the top. At a remarkably one-sided anti-Google hearing on SOPA last year, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee eviscerated Google in his opening statement, contrasting it with “responsible companies." Take it away, Lamar Smith (R-TX):

Another one of the companies represented here today has sought to obstruct the Committee’s consideration of bipartisan legislation. Perhaps this should come as no surprise given that Google just settled a federal criminal investigation into the company’s active promotion of rogue websites that pushed illegal prescription and counterfeit drugs on American consumers....

The company also disregarded requests to block advertisements from rogue pharmacies, screen such sites from searches and provide warnings about buying drugs over the Internet... Given Google’s record, their objection to authorizing a court to order a search engine to not steer consumers to foreign rogue sites is more easily understood.

Hollywood has been beating the same drum ever since. The Directors Guild of America, the Teamsters, and others authored a recent letter supporting SOPA. In it, they wrote:

We are well aware that opposition voices, funded and encouraged by a few enormous Internet companies like Google that stand to lose billions in illicit profit (as shown by Google’s willingness to pay a $500 million fine for knowingly placing ads on illegal pharmaceutical sites), if the bills are allowed to become law, have grown louder and shriller in an effort to sway public opinion and derail the political process. They have successfully diverted support from the bills by blanketing the Internet with mistruths and lies and using fear tactics and blacklists to overwhelm and intimidate those who should stand up for protecting American creativity and American workers.

Just yesterday, MPAA boss Chris Dodd talked about how "hurt" he was about SOPA criticism in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter. But it wasn't long before he was taking whacks at Google's finances.

Obviously what happened is those—particularly Google—who are opposed to the legislation, they don’t want [the law] to happen because [search related to piracy is] a major revenue raiser for them, not because of freedom of speech or breaking the Internet. They make a lot of money off that and I understand they don’t want to be hurt economically.

Google responds

Google policy counsel Katherine Oyama tried to fight back against this perception at the hearing, saying that Google spent more than $60 million in 2010 alone to police bad ads, and that the company voluntarily took action against 12,000 sites in 2010 and another 12,000 in 2011 for violating its ad policies on infringement.

The Megaupload indictment appears to show that Google proactively took measures against the site as far back as 2007—even though the account must have been generating quite a bit of money. (While most of the $175 million in alleged Megaupload revenues came from subscriptions, $25 million came from ads.)

This isn't to say that Google is some sainted company. Critics rightly point to the fact that it agreed to forfeit $500 million to the government over advertising it accepted for illicit online pharmacies. It ditched its hardcore net neutrality allies to do a deal with Verizon. And its "don't be evil" motto has been violated time and time and time again.

But some of the criticism has turned into Google Derangement Syndrome; as the government's own indictment shows, Google has for years made (yes, sometimes inconsistent) efforts to address infringement and counterfeiting using its ad programs. Trying to pretend that this debate is solely about Google's piratical cash hoard, or that Google is the only entity that opposed SOPA, is exactly the kind of hyperbole that SOPA backers now say they want SOPA opponents to abandon.

Beware of Fake Megaupload Sites

The people behind Megaupload might be working hard to get the site back up, but so are scammers.

Sites were popping up on Friday claiming to be the reincarnation of Megaupload, the popular website taken down by U.S. federal authorities on Thursday. But most of the imitators so far look like phishing sites, said Don Bowman, CTO for Sandvine, an Internet traffic equipment vendor.

One site has only an IP address for its locator, rather than a website name people can remember, but claims to be the location for the new Megaupload. "We are working to be back full again," the site says.

It's unlikely, however, that a site as popular as Megaupload would use only an IP address. For one thing, everyone visiting the site would be hitting the same server. Before it was shut down, Megaupload accounted for nearly 1 percent of traffic in North America, putting it in league with Facebook, Bowman said.

Spelling errors, such as one that warns people to beware of "pishers," are another sign that a page is likely to be fake, Bowman said. One way to test a site is to use a fake password when logging in, he said. If the site accepts the wrong password, it means phishers are running it in hopes of capturing real user names and passwords.

A lawyer for Megaupload told Reuters Friday that the company hopes to get the site back online. Megaupload's servers were likely distributed around the world. Depending on the site's backup policies, if one or two jurisdictions didn't participate in the raid, the site could come back online soon, Bowman said.

But reviving the site also depends on who is available and willing to take the risk involved, Bowman noted. "It depends on whether they're more interested in maintaining that revenue or remaining at large," he said. Authorities on Thursday said they'd arrested four people affiliated with the site, which they say illegally distributes copyrighted content, and had warrants out on three more people.

One of the people behind Megaupload could try to sell the site and content to "some other nefarious character that might buy the assets and keep it running," Bowman said. "That's what happened with the Pirate Bay."
Eager to Have Megaupload Back

Some people are eager to see the site come back, not to illegally access copyrighted content but for legitimate reasons.

Kyle Goodwin runs OhioSportsNet, a site that plays video he records of high school sports games in Cleveland. His videographers film games and upload them to MegaUpload as an easy way to transfer the video to Goodwin, who edits and posts them on his website. He was storing video on MegaUpload as well as on an external hard drive, but last week his hard drive died.

"The thing that really makes me mad is that I didn't see any type of warning, otherwise I would've hustled to download what was there," he said. "As of now, my videos are totally gone."

Legitimate users like Goodwin aren't the only ones who lost out. "Somebody out there is out probably tens of millions a year in hosting and bandwidth fees," said Bowman.

As the minutes tick by, the chances of Megaupload regaining its former position diminish, according to Bowman. "Either they get it back online shortly or everyone forgets about it and moves on," he said.

Megaupload latest target of US anti-piracy campaign

File-sharing website Megaupload is the most high-profile target yet of a US campaign which has seen the seizure of hundreds of sites accused of offering pirated music or movies or counterfeit goods.
The US authorities have seized more than 350 website domain names since launching an anti-online piracy campaign dubbed "Operation In Our Sites" more than 18 months ago.

A US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency spokesman said Friday the shutdown of Megaupload was an operation led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and not formally part of "Operation In Our Sites."

But the ICE spokesman said it was in line with the campaign against online piracy which began in June 2010 with the closure of 10 sites offering pirated movies, some within hours of their release in theaters.

A founder of NinjaVideo.net, one of the websites snared in the first phase of "Operation In Our Sites," was sentenced to 14 months in prison Friday for allowing illegal downloads of copyright-protected movies and TV programs.

Matthew David Howard Smith, 24, of North Carolina, was one of four people facing prison terms in connection with NinjaVideo.net, which reaped $500,000 during its two-and-a-half years of operation, according to US officials.

Megaupload, however, operated on a different scale entirely, according to the US Justice Department and FBI, generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and causing more than $500 million in harm to copyright owners.

"Operation In Our Sites" has targeted websites offering not only pirated movies like NinjaVideo.net but also music, software, clothes, electronics, games and counterfeit pharmaceuticals.

In the largest single seizure to date, in November 2011, the US authorities closed down 150 sites found to be selling counterfeit merchandise.

A November 2010 operation targeted 82 websites selling mostly Chinese-made counterfeit goods, including golf clubs, Walt Disney movies, handbags, scarves, shoes, sunglasses and other items.

Among the sites whose domain names have been seized are cheapscarfshop.com, Burberryoutletshop.com, louisvuitton-bags-forcheap.com, dvdcollectionsale.com, handbagcom.com and mydreamwatches.com.

A visitor to the sites is met with a message reading: "This site has been seized by ICE -- Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court."

It informs visitors that copyright infringement is a federal crime carrying a penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, while trafficking in counterfeit goods carries a 10-year sentence and a $2 million fine.

According to US officials, of the 350 domain names seized since June 2010, 116 have been forfeited to the US government following a legal process which allows for the owner of a seized domain to petition the move in federal court.

If no petition is forthcoming, the domain becomes US government property.

As part of their investigation, US agents purchase goods from the sites to determine whether they are counterfeit and obtain seizure orders for the domain names from US magistrate judges, according to US officials.

Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), said "Operation In Our Sites" and the Megaupload.com shutdown raise free speech and other issues.

"What about the users?" McSherry asked. "I don't think there was any question that there was at least some, perhaps a lot, I don't know, of perfectly lawful content on the Megaupload site.

"And if I'm your average user and I just lost my vacation photos I'd be pretty upset," McSherry said.

"I have lot of concerns about the US government seizing sites in general but one of them is the collateral damage for regular folks who are just trying to back up their CD collection," the lawyer for the San Francisco-based EFF said.

"It seems to me that whether or not there was due process for Megaupload or not, there certainly wasn't due process for all of Megaupload's users," she said.

McSherry also welcomed a decision Friday by leaders of the US Congress, in the face of online protests, to put on hold legislation that would have given increased powers to US law enforcement to combat online piracy.

"I hope that Congress is really going to take note, not just postponing but hopefully killing these bills," she said.

Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives said Friday they would delay consideration of the bills which Google, Wikipedia and other Web giants have denounced as a threat to Internet freedom.

Megaupload Returns Online After Department of Justice Seizes Defendants' Property

In the latest development in the fast-breaking Megaupload case, the Department of Justice is reporting that it has seized a huge stash of expensive items from defendants facing charges of criminal file-sharing. Goods include a fleet of cars: 15 Mercedes Benz vehicles, a Rolls-Royce, a Maserati and a rare Lamborghini. The DOJ also seized bank accounts and PayPal accounts, 60 computer servers and a slew of large-screen TVs, among many other items.

Especially noteworthy are the license plates the DOJ says the defendants used on the cars. The plate on the Rolls reads "GOD," while other cars have license plates such as "GOOD," "EVIL," "STONED," "GUILTY," "MAFIA" and "HACKER."

The popular file-sharing site was shut down this week by federal prosecutors in Virginia, who accused the defendants of causing more than $500 million in damages for copyright holders of pirated music, movies, video games and other content. Hip-hop producer Swizz Beatz was revealed as a silent partner and the company's CEO, though he was not included on an initial list of seven defendants. Four of the seven were arrested Friday morning in New Zealand, after a standoff at Dotcom Mansion – named for the site's alleged founder, who goes by the name Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz). The other three defendants reportedly remain at large.

In response to the DOJ takedown, the hacker group Anonymous has taken credit for cyberattacks yesterday that disabled the websites of the DOJ, the RIAA, Universal Music Group and others. Meanwhile, Megaupload is attempting to go back online, using an IP address while awaiting a new domain name. In a week marked by Web-based protests of the proposed legislation known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the move raises questions about the potential success of such efforts to eliminate content piracy.