If you want to know the difference between Dropbox and other DMCA protected services and Megaupload you should read the indictment[0]
Some highlights:
* The DMCA takedown tool didn't remove copyright content but rather only shortcode links to that content. The copyright content remained on the servers and uploaders could generate new links without re-uploading the content
* On the other hand when child porn or terrorism material were reported, they were correctly removed
* Megaupload knew and could see most of their referral traffic was from warez sites and talked about it internally
* They incentivized copyright content uploaders with payments and poached them from other warez file lockers
* They removed uploader names of copyright files from public pages to make it harder for investigators to track upload groups
* Employees of Megaupload would share warez/music/movies in internal emails with each other by searching Megaupload (a tool only available internally)
* In emails to uploaders that were part of their rewards program (where you get paid more the more your content is downloaded or viewed) they used scene release file sizes to describe reward steps
* In large payments to uploaders they'd leave internal comments like "lots of popular DVD rips", "keygens", "loads of pdfs - looks like scanned magazines" etc.
* Internal emails would ask about finding particular releases and ask someone to use the internal search to locate them - ex. “the sopranos is in French :((( fuck.. can u pls find me some again ?"
* Internal emails openly talked about which warez linking sites they liked the most - problems with viewing copyright content, fulfilling requests for copyright content, etc.
* They were booted from AdSense, other ad networks and multiple payment gateways/providers for knowingly provided paid access to copyright content
There is a lot more there - a lot of these aren't one off incidents. I come away from reading the indictement wondering how Megaupload and Dotcom ever thought they were going to get away with what they were doing - their attempts at protecting themselves, including their legal arguments at establishing plausible deniability and discussing the conspiracy so openly on plaintext emails on a US based server, were amateurish
Wow I had no idea about most of that, I always wondered why them and not RapidShare or some other host that I remember being common for warez file sharing back then.
Dropbox does not specifically encourage, promote or support the sharing of licensed content, moreover, they work with authorities where there is a problem. And of course, their 'boxes' tend not to designed for widespread public use. They are not hiding out in a jurisdiction wherein they can evade legal issues.
Obviously the definition for 'the line' that is crossed is going to be difficult, but it has to be somewhere.
I don't have huge faith that the American legal system is going to do well on this issue for thus single case, however, it's going to have to work it out over time.
As cases make it to the Supreme Court, hopefully there will be more clarity.
AFAIK, Megaupload did not promote our encourage sharing of licensed content. It just filled that niche better than any other site at the time.
Kim Dotcom may have chosen New Zealand for to evade legal issues, but I see nothing wrong with that. If you don't agree with one nation's laws, that is a perfectly valid reason to live elsewhere. He didn't just run his business there, he lives there.
Some highlights:
* The DMCA takedown tool didn't remove copyright content but rather only shortcode links to that content. The copyright content remained on the servers and uploaders could generate new links without re-uploading the content
* On the other hand when child porn or terrorism material were reported, they were correctly removed
* Megaupload knew and could see most of their referral traffic was from warez sites and talked about it internally
* They incentivized copyright content uploaders with payments and poached them from other warez file lockers
* They removed uploader names of copyright files from public pages to make it harder for investigators to track upload groups
* Employees of Megaupload would share warez/music/movies in internal emails with each other by searching Megaupload (a tool only available internally)
* In emails to uploaders that were part of their rewards program (where you get paid more the more your content is downloaded or viewed) they used scene release file sizes to describe reward steps
* In large payments to uploaders they'd leave internal comments like "lots of popular DVD rips", "keygens", "loads of pdfs - looks like scanned magazines" etc.
* Internal emails would ask about finding particular releases and ask someone to use the internal search to locate them - ex. “the sopranos is in French :((( fuck.. can u pls find me some again ?"
* Internal emails openly talked about which warez linking sites they liked the most - problems with viewing copyright content, fulfilling requests for copyright content, etc.
* They were booted from AdSense, other ad networks and multiple payment gateways/providers for knowingly provided paid access to copyright content
There is a lot more there - a lot of these aren't one off incidents. I come away from reading the indictement wondering how Megaupload and Dotcom ever thought they were going to get away with what they were doing - their attempts at protecting themselves, including their legal arguments at establishing plausible deniability and discussing the conspiracy so openly on plaintext emails on a US based server, were amateurish
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/meg...