Discografia Cherokee Megaupload
Number of employees155Website(defunct)Footnotes / referencesMegaupload Ltd was a -based online company established in 2005 that operated from 2005 to 2012 providing.On 19 January 2012, the the domain names and closed down the sites associated with Megaupload after the owners were arrested and indicted for allegedly operating as an organization dedicated to. Subsequently, 330 million (approximately US$42 million) worth of assets were frozen by the of Hong Kong.
The company's founder, resident, has denied any wrongdoing, and the case against Dotcom has been the subject of controversy over its legality. In 2017, a New Zealand judge ruled that Dotcom should be extradited to the United States, but Dotcom remained at liberty in New Zealand pending the results of an appeal. On 5 July 2018 the New Zealand court of appeal found Dotcom and three of his former colleagues were eligible to be extradited to the U.S. His lawyer said they would appeal to the New Zealand Supreme Court. The shutdown of Megaupload led to on a range of websites belonging to the U.S.
Government and copyright organizations by the group.On 19 January 2013 ( 2013-01-19), Megaupload was re-launched as under the domain name mega.co.nz (later moved to mega.nz). The re-launch date was chosen to coincide with the one-year anniversary of Megaupload's takedown by the U.S. Contents.Company and services The company's registered office was on the 12th floor of the Shanghai Industrial Investment Building in Room 1204 in, Hong Kong.The company web services included Megaupload.com, a service; Megapix.com, an; Megavideo.com and Megalive.com, services; and Megabox.com, a music hosting service.
Other services included Megaclick, Megafund, Megakey and Megapay, all of which were advertisement and financial services. Along with this, four blogs were created including Megabest and Megaking. Two additional services—Megabackup and Megamovie—were in development before their closure.
WebsiteDescription of ServiceMegavideo.comMegavideo.com was an associated, ad-supported. Mega Manager screenshotMegaupload also released its upload/download manager, Mega Manager, a that featured a link-checker for Megaupload links as well as options to manage uploaded files, and to access the online control box that was on MegaUpload.Megakey Megakey was an application which removed bandwidth limitations on Mega services during 'happy hour' periods. In return, the users running Megakey agreed to supply some personal identification and data and to allow the substitution of ads on third party websites they visited with those of Megaupload.Megabox Megabox, a new form of media downloading site, was the first of its kind. Kim 'Dotcom' described Megabox as 'very similar to iTunes' except that it operated in a web browser using HTML5 technology and loaded 'much faster than iTunes or anything else out there'.
Filebox FileBox was a that could be embedded onto any external webpage. It allowed users to upload content to Megaupload without having to visit the website itself or download the Mega Manager.Reception Unavailability Although incorporated in Hong Kong, the company did not operate in Hong Kong. From 2009 onward, users with Hong Kong were banned from accessing the site.
The reason for the block was never disclosed by Megaupload, but Hong Kong Customs officials have suggested that the block was an attempt to hinder law enforcement investigation.As of 23 May 2010, access to Megaupload was intermittently blocked by the internet authorities in Saudi Arabia by their regulator. Megavideo was also intermittently blocked in the due to pornographic content being accessible through the service.From 9 June 2011 onward, the Malaysian government through ordered all ISPs in Malaysia to block Megaupload and Megavideo. Some ISPs reportedly blocked all the sites on the list while other ISPs throttled connection speeds.In July 2011, access to Megaupload and Megavideo were blocked in for customers, after a court order was obtained, citing illegal copies of the 2011 film on file hosting sites.On 19 January 2012, U.S.
Federal prosecutors in the state of shut Megaupload down and laid charges against its founder and others for allegedly breaching laws.For a short time after the closure of the site, users could access material via Google's. One day after the indictment Google and Archive.org voluntarily removed the site mirrors to avoid the responsibility of hosting a website taken down for. Criticism In January 2011, published a report entitled 'Traffic Report: Online Piracy and Counterfeiting', which said that Megaupload and Megavideo were, along with, the top three websites classified as 'digital piracy', with more than 21 billion visits per year.
Megaupload responded by stating: 'Activity that violates our terms of service or our acceptable use policy is not tolerated, and we go to great lengths to swiftly process legitimate takedown notices'. Mark Mulligan, an analyst at, pointed out that the number of visits did not necessarily indicate the number of downloads of illegal material.Megaupload Toolbar was said to redirect users to a custom error page when a error occurred in the user's browser. It was also said to contain spyware. FBM Software said that the Megaupload toolbar is free of.When a file is uploaded to Megaupload and another file with the same hash is already found to exist, the uploader is asked if they would like to link to the already existing file. Therefore, a single file may contain multiple links to it.
This has caused some controversy, since when a DMCA takedown notice is issued only the link that was provided is removed; not necessarily the file itself. Megaupload song controversy On 9 December 2011, Megaupload published a music video entitled 'The Mega Song', showing artists including, and endorsing the company. Appeared in earlier versions of the video.
The music video was also uploaded to YouTube, but was removed following a takedown request by the record company (UMG). Megaupload said that the video contained no infringing content, commenting: 'we have signed agreements with every featured artist for this campaign'. Megaupload requested an apology from UMG, and filed a lawsuit against the company in the, on 12 December 2011. UMG denied that the takedown was ordered under the terms of the, and said that the takedown was 'pursuant to the UMG-YouTube agreement,' which gives UMG 'the right to block or remove user-posted videos through YouTube's CMS (Content Management System) based on a number of contractually specified criteria.' The video was subsequently returned to YouTube, with the reasons for the UMG takedown remaining unclear.
YouTube stated: 'Our partners do not have the right to take down videos from YT unless they own the rights to them or they are live performances controlled through exclusive agreements with their artists, which is why we reinstated it.' Lawyers for initially said that he had never agreed to the project, but on 12 December, he denied any involvement in the takedown notice. 2012 indictments by the United States. The seized domain name redirected to this photo of the joint, and notice of U.S. Crime charges.On 19 January 2012 the seized and shut down the file-hosting site Megaupload.com and commenced criminal cases against its owners and others. The lead prosecutor, had formerly served as Vice President, Anti-Piracy and General Counsel, of the, where he oversaw global anti-piracy enforcement and copyright policy. On 20 January froze more than 300 million Hong Kong dollars (US$39 million) in assets belonging to the company.
Arrests in New Zealand Acting upon a US Federal prosecutor's request, the arrested Dotcom and three other Megaupload executives in a leased $30 million mansion at near on Friday, 20 January 2012 (, UTC+13). This was pursuant to a request from the U.S. That the four be extradited for racketeering and money laundering. The raid was timed for the birthday celebration of Dotcom. Assets worth $17 million including art works and cars were seized. The four men arrested were (founder; 38 years old, from Germany), Finn Batato (CMO; 38, from Germany), Mathias Ortmann (CTO and co-founder; 40, from Germany) and Bram van der Kolk (29, from the Netherlands).On 23 January, Dotcom appeared in Auckland's North Shore District Court for a bail hearing. The crown argued against bail on the basis that he was a flight risk with a helicopter on his front lawn, while defence lawyers argued that the helicopter could not fly far enough to reach another country.
They also said that Dotcom denied any criminal wrongdoing. Judge David McNaughton expressed concern at the discovery of two shotguns at Dotcom's mansion during the police raid, and deferred a decision on whether to grant bail, saying that he needed more time to review the submissions. The request for bail was turned down, with Judge McNaughton saying that 'he was denied due to the risk that Mr. Dotcom would flee jurisdiction and the possibility that if he reached Germany he wouldn't be extradited to face the charges'. The first page of the indictment, listing the defendantsThe indictment alleged that Megaupload differed from other online.Media reports covering the case highlighted several points from the indictment used to support claims of illegal activity. The indictment provided instances alleged to show criminal behaviour, as well as indicating design points of Megaupload's as being evidence of:.
In practice, the 'vast majority' of users do not have any significant long term private storage capability. Continued storage is dependent upon regular downloads of the file occurring. Files that are infrequently accessed are rapidly removed in most cases, whereas popular downloaded files are retained.
(items 7–8). Because only a small portion of users pay for storage, the business is dependent upon advertising.
Adverts are primarily viewed when files are downloaded and the business model is therefore not based upon storage but upon maximizing downloads. (items 7–8). Persons indicted have 'instructed individual users how to locate links to infringing content on the Mega Sites. Have also shared with each other comments from Mega Site users demonstrating that they have used or are attempting to use the Mega Sites to get infringing copies of copyrighted content.' (item 13).
Persons indicted, unlike the public, are not reliant upon links to stored files, but can search the internal database directly. It is said they have 'searched the internal database for their associates and themselves so that they may directly access copyright-infringing content'.
(item 14). A comprehensive takedown method is in use to identify, but not deployed to remove infringing content. (item 24). Infringing users did not have their accounts terminated, and the defendants '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' (items 55–56).
An incentive program was adopted encouraging the upload of 'popular' files in return for payments to successful uploaders. (item 69e et al.). Defendants explicitly discussed evasion and infringement issues, including an attempt to copy and upload the entire content of YouTube. (items 69i-l. YouTube: items 69 i,j,l,s)Counter arguments advanced Defense attorney Ira Rothken says that the raid was unjustly swift and did not give his client the opportunity to defend himself, quoting a similar case involving YouTube as an example of a completely different turnout.Legal commentators point out that while the indictment may be correct and Megaupload might have acted as a criminal conspiracy as said, a number of points in the indictment are based upon selective interpretations and legal concepts (described in one article as 'novel theories' of the law ) and could be challenged in court.
A analysis stated that the author was 'struck by how far the indictment goes to find something nefarious'; likewise a analysis concluded that while the had a significant history of 'flounting the law', evidence has potentially been taken out of context or misrepresented and could 'come back to haunt other online services who are providing perfectly legitimate services'. Both analyses concur that other evidence could show criminality; the concerns were not irrefutable. The legal concerns included:. Indictment cites lack of a site search as evidence supporting criminality, but in other copyright cases having a site search has been described as evidence in support of criminality and in not 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, the presence of a search feature was interpreted as evidence of inducement.
Commented that '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, but the indictment says this was evidence of concealing, rather than avoiding downloads of, infringing materials. 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 particular, in the Supreme Court looked at 'substantial noninfringing uses'; mere lack of monitoring was not by itself sufficient to show wrongdoing or inducement.
It may not be possible (or reasonable to require) the host to know and identify what activity is legitimate or not, as file sharing may be used by many content creators. Deletion after a limited period of non-download is suggested as evidence of a motive.
But many legitimate sites such as 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', in other words there should be evidence of actual wrongdoing, not merely evidence of popular use. Many legitimate files are popular and popularly shared, and an 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 illegitimate 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 be legal for some users and not for others. So the fact one case requires file removal and the other only requires link removal may well be correct conduct. The indictment includes charges.
But these include 'basic payments' for web hosting, suggesting '—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 civil cases.Safe harbor provisions The US provides for sites that promptly take down infringing content. Safe harbor does not exist if the site has and does nothing about it. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from on 15 July 2012.
Retrieved 22 January 2012. Anderson, Nate (17 May 2007). Ars Technica.
Archived from on 8 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. 19 January 2012. Archived from on 6 September 2012. Retrieved 19 January 2012. 21 January 2012.
Archived from on 23 July 2016. ^ Masnick, Mike (1 May 2012). Retrieved 4 May 2012. Roy, Eleanor Ainge (20 February 2017). Retrieved 5 July 2018. 20 January 2012.
From the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 24 January 2012. ^. 5 September 2011.
Retrieved 22 January 2012. Williams, Owen (20 January 2013). Retrieved 19 December 2017. From the original on 18 July 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2012. Registrant Name: Megaupload LtdRegistrant Address: Room 1204, 12/F, 48–62 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong. Retrieved 19 February 2012.
Wan Chai Hennessy Road Rooms 2101–2102, 21/F, Shanghai Industrial Investment Building, 48–62 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong. (PDF). Archived from (PDF) on 15 November 2012. Retrieved 19 February 2012. Archived from on 23 July 2011. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
^ (PDF). Washington Post. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
From the original on 24 January 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Tung, Liam (31 January 2012). Archived from on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012. Tooley, Matt (20 January 2012).
Archived from on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2012. Foreman, Michael (3 February 2012). Archived from on 22 February 2013.
Retrieved 3 February 2012. Archived from on 12 April 2007. Peoples, Glenn (11 March 2013). Retrieved 27 November 2013. From the original on 28 January 2013. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Hong Kong Government.
20 January 2012. From the original on 2 August 2012.
Retrieved 23 January 2012. ^ Marshall, Rick. Digital Trends.
From the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 7 February 2012. (in Malay). From the original on 19 February 2013.
20 July 2011. From the original on 10 February 2013.
Retrieved 14 December 2011. 21 July 2011. From the original on 14 September 2012. Retrieved 23 December 2011. From the original on 17 July 2001. Retrieved 19 November 2012.
Kravets, David (19 January 2012). From the original on 9 February 2013. Retrieved 19 January 2012. (PDF). January 2011. Retrieved 14 December 2011. Archived from on 6 September 2012.
Retrieved 14 December 2011. 11 January 2011. From the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. 13 August 2008. Archived from on 11 May 2011.
FBM Software.com. Archived from on 28 June 2009. Retrieved 8 November 2009. From the original on 14 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2011. 9 December 2011. From the original on 7 January 2012.
Retrieved 13 December 2011. Mills, Elinor (15 December 2011). From the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
From the original on 3 February 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2012. Estes, Adam Clark (15 December 2011). From the original on 7 January 2012. Retrieved 13 February 2012. MrKimDotcom (7 December 2011).
Retrieved 19 January 2018. 10 December 2011. From the original on 29 July 2012.
Retrieved 13 December 2011. Michaels, Sean (13 December 2011). The Guardian. From the original on 1 August 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2011. 12 December 2011.
From the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2011. Ars Technica.
16 December 2011. From the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011. 17 December 2011. From the original on 12 July 2012.
Retrieved 18 December 2011. 16 December 2011. From the original on 14 July 2012.
Retrieved 17 December 2011. Sisario, Ben (13 December 2011). The New York Times. From the original on 11 July 2012. Retrieved 16 December 2011. 15 December 2011. From the original on 11 September 2012.
Retrieved 17 December 2011. Yung, Chester (21 January 2012). The Wall Street Journal. From the original on 29 June 2013. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
20 January 2012. From the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 20 January 2012. Johnston, Kirsty (21 January 2012).
Sydney Morning Herald. From the original on 12 September 2012.
Retrieved 21 January 2012. Fisher, David (22 January 2012).
The New Zealand Herald. From the original on 10 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
Yahoo!News NZ. 22 January 2012. Archived from on 22 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. 22 January 2012. From the original on 12 January 2013.
Retrieved 22 January 2012. Leask, Anna (22 January 2012). The New Zealand Herald. From the original on 9 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. 19 January 2012. From the original on 18 July 2012.
Retrieved 19 January 2012. 23 January 2012. From the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2012.
Craymer, Lucy (24 January 2012). Wall Street Journal. From the original on 29 June 2013.
Retrieved 24 January 2012. From the original on 26 May 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012. 3 February 2012.
Download eps dxf converter free software. This 100 MB software converts entire image formats and also other file formats such as videos, e-books, and documents. DXF to JPG software options is now available for different operating systems.Easy DWG/DXF to Image Converter – Free DXF to JPG Converter for Windows. DetailsRating: 5/5Price: FreeAmong the various software options available today, the most popular one of the year 2016 is Convertio DXF to JPG.
From the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 3 February 2012. From the original on 31 March 2012. 22 February 2012. From the original on 19 July 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
5 March 2012. From the original on 24 July 2012. Retrieved 5 March 2012. 30 April 2012.
From the original on 30 July 2012. Retrieved 4 May 2012. 28 June 2012. From the original on 19 April 2013. Retrieved 30 June 2012. 10 July 2012. From the original on 14 January 2013.
Retrieved 10 July 2012. 16 August 2012.
From the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2012. 24 September 2012. From the original on 19 April 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2012. Retrieved 8 July 2014. Bayer, Kurt (8 September 2014).
The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 9 September 2014. The New York Times. 24 December 2015.
Scribd.com. (PDF). Retrieved 22 January 2012.
^ Sandoval, Greg (20 January 2012). Retrieved 20 January 2012.
^ Kang, Cecilia (20 January 2012). Washington Post. ^. Los Angeles Times.
20 January 2012. ^ Masnick, Mike (1 October 2007). From the original on 14 September 2012.
Retrieved 22 January 2012. Anderson, Nate (10 November 2011). Ars Technica.com.
From the original on 13 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. ^ Martin, Benton; Newhall, Jeremiah (6 March 2013). 'Criminal Copyright Enforcement against Filesharing Services'. Missing or empty url=.
Paragraph 20, page 9 of the indictment. 18 February 2012. From the original on 19 January 2013. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
1 March 2012. Archived from on 29 July 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2012.
Washington Post. 20 January 2012. Archived from on 31 January 2012. Barakat, Matthew (20 January 2012).
Associated Press. Archived from on 24 January 2012. From the original on 17 July 2012.
Retrieved 31 January 2012. Ingram, David (22 January 2012).
From the original on 23 January 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012. Perry, Michael (23 January 2012). Retrieved 19 January 2018. Ars Technica.
16 April 2012. From the original on 7 July 2012. Retrieved 28 April 2012. Sisario, Ben (30 May 2012). The New York Times.
From the original on 11 July 2012. Retrieved 27 November 2013. p. Albanesius, Chloe (20 January 2012). From the original on 31 January 2013.
Retrieved 31 January 2012. Albanesius, Chloe (20 January 2012). From the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012.
Gallagher, Sean (30 January 2012). Ars Technica. From the original on 17 January 2013.
Discografia Cherokee Megaupload 2016
Retrieved 31 January 2012. Albanesius, Chloe (30 January 2012). From the original on 31 January 2013.
Retrieved 31 January 2012. Carpathia Hosting. 30 January 2012. Archived from on 30 January 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012. Tsukayama, Hayley (30 January 2012). Washington Post.
From the original on 5 February 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2012. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
30 March 2012. From the original on 20 December 2012. 15 April 2012. From the original on 17 December 2012. 19 June 2013. Williams, Christopher (20 January 2012). The Daily Telegraph.
From the original on 20 January 2012. Financial Times. From the original on 21 January 2012. ^ Biddle, Sam (19 January 2012). From the original on 20 January 2012.
Retrieved 31 January 2012. From the original on 19 July 2012. Smith, Gerry (19 January 2012). The Huffington Post.
From the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 31 January 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2013. The Australian. 20 January 2012. From the original on 30 December 2012.
Retrieved 20 January 2012. Perlroth, Nicole; Hardy, Quentin (20 January 2012). The New York Times.
From the original on 5 September 2012. Kang, Cecilia (22 January 2012). The Washington Post.
From the original on 17 September 2012. 20 January 2012. From the original on 5 January 2013. Dvorak, John C. (20 January 2012). From the original on 8 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012.
Greenwald, Glenn. From the original on 4 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2012. From the original on 21 July 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. From the original on 7 September 2012.
Retrieved 22 January 2012. Christian Science Monitor. 21 January 2012.
From the original on 2 January 2013. ^ Brodkin, Jon. Ars Technica.
From the original on 1 January 2013. Retrieved 22 January 2012. Albanesius, Chloe (1 January 1970).
From the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2012. 22 January 2012. From the original on 13 July 2012. Retrieved 23 January 2012. 23 January 2012. From the original on 17 July 2012.
Retrieved 23 January 2012. 23 January 2012. From the original on 17 July 2012.
Retrieved 31 January 2012. Ludwig, Sean (22 January 2012). From the original on 20 July 2012. Ars Technica. 20 January 2012. From the original on 10 July 2012. 6 February 2012.
From the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 8 February 2012. 7 February 2012. From the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 8 February 2012. 7 February 2012. From the original on 15 July 2012.
Retrieved 8 February 2012.External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to.Websites operated by Megaupload. at the (archived 18 January 2012). at the (archived 19 January 2012). at the (archived 11 January 2012). at the (archived 19 January 2012).
at the (archived 4 January 2012).Articles. 20 January 2012.
20 January 2012. 22 January 2012.Court Documents. (Docket Report), No.
1:12-cr-00003, E.D.V.A., 5 January 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via ( ). (Docket Report), No. 1:12-cr-00003, E.D.V.A., 5 January 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via. (PDF), USA v. (Court Filing), E.D.V.A., No. 1:12-cr-00003 (Docket 96, Attachment 1), 30 May 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via. (PDF), USA v.
(Court Filing), E.D.V.A., No. 1:12-cr-00003 (Docket 96, Attachment 2), 30 May 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via. (Docket Report), No. 1:12-cr-00003, E.D.V.A., 5 January 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via. (PDF), USA v. (Court Filing), E.D.V.A., No.
1:12-cr-00003 (Docket 115), 3 July 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – via. (PDF), USA v.
(Court Filing), E.D.V.A., No. 1:12-cr-00003 (Docket 118), 18 July 2012, retrieved 23 July 2017 – viaOther.
New Zealand Police. (PDF). Washington Post. 16 February 2012.