Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Message icon:

(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: gif, jpg, pdf, png, kmz, rar, jpeg
Restrictions: 3 per post, maximum total size 1280KB, maximum individual size 640KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
How do people in Korat call the Thao Suranaree Monument in the center of town? (Mundo/Yamo/Supa/Mall):
What makes three plus two?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: thaiga
« on: July 12, 2016, 06:59:02 PM »

Megaupload Relaunch Planned for January 2017

Notorious cloud storage and file sharing website Megaupload may make a comeback early next year: Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom announced on Twitter in recent days that he plans to relaunch the site on January 20th 2017, which happens to be the fifth anniversary of the police raid that took down the original

full article
Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:30:22 PM »

For a moment there I thought I was looking at Snorlax.

Posted by: thaiga
« on: March 01, 2013, 03:23:46 PM »

The U.S. has won a court appeal in its battle to extradite Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom from New Zealand.

Indicted Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom holds a press conference ahead of the launch of a new file-sharing website called "Mega," in Auckland, New Zealand, Jan. 20, 2013. / AP/New Zealand Herald, Richard Robinson

A New Zealand appeals court Friday overturned an earlier ruling that would have allowed Dotcom broad access to the evidence against him at the time of his August extradition hearing. The appeals court ruled that extensive disclosure would bog down the process and that a summary of the U.S. case would suffice.

Dotcom founded the file-sharing site Megaupload that the United States shuttered last year. Authorities there accuse him of facilitating copyright fraud on a massive scale. Dotcom says he's innocent and can't be held responsible for those who chose to use the site to illegally download songs or movies.

Dotcom this year launched a new file-sharing site called Mega.

Posted by: thaiga
« on: January 22, 2013, 04:37:13 PM »

AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND (BNO NEWS) -- Controversial internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom on Sunday launched a new website offering file storage, exactly one year after a U.S. court ordered the shutdown of his Megaupload website, at the time one of the world's largest file-sharing websites.

Dotcom, who resides in New Zealand with German and Finnish nationalities, launched the new cloud storage service called Mega on Sunday. The service was set up similar to other cloud storage services such as Dropbox and WeTransfer.

According to Dotcom, the new site gathered half a million registered users within fourteen hours of its launching, as further reports have claimed the number of users has already passed the million marker. The site offers all-encrypted storage, which will not be able to be opened, even by the host.

Megaupload, which reached 180 million registered users and was listed among the 100 most visited websites in the world, was shut down by U.S. prosecutors in January 2012 after the site's leaders were charged with running an international organized criminal enterprise which was allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy of numerous types of copyrighted works, resulting in more than $500 million in losses to copyright owners.

At that time, authorities using helicopters and special forces raided Dotcom's multi-million dollar mansion in Coatesville, New Zealand. He was arrested along with three others, but as the U.S. is looking for his extradition, the process has been delayed with warrants being considered invalid.

According to the initial indictment, U.S. prosecutors estimate Megaupload collected a total of more than $150 million from its premium users since its launch in 2005. Online advertising on and its associated websites resulted in at least $25 million more in income.

Posted by: thaiga
« on: June 28, 2012, 07:31:36 PM »

Megaupload raid warrant 'invalid', New Zealand judge says
Kim Dotcom ran Megaupload since 2005, reportedly netting $175m in profits

The search warrants used to raid the home of Megaupload owner Kim Dotcom were invalid, a New Zealand judge has ruled.

Action by the FBI to copy data and take it offshore to the US was also deemed unlawful.

"The warrants did not adequately describe the offences to which they related," High Court judge Justice Helen Winkelmann said.

Mr Dotcom was arrested, along with four others, in January.

Millions of dollars in assets were seized or frozen including almost 20 luxury vehicles, dozens of computers and art works.

However, Justice Winkelmann said the warrant for the search fell "well short" of outlining Mr Dotcom's alleged offences.

"They were general warrants, and as such, are invalid," she said.

In response to the judge's decision, New Zealand police said they were in discussions with Crown Law "to determine what further action might be required".

Mr Dotcom's site was said to have made $175m since 2005 by copying and distributing copyrighted material without authorisation.

The site's lawyers have said Megaupload simply offered online storage.

Mr Dotcom is currently on bail.
Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: January 26, 2012, 01:05:14 AM »

Hotfile is still up.
Posted by: Lebowski
« on: January 25, 2012, 09:12:31 PM »

It seems that Fileserve/Filesonic and a few others have started to panic a bit in the wake of this business with Megaupload and are currently only allowing people to download what they have uploaded in the first place, ie being real file storage sites. For how long this will last like this is anyone's guess I should imagine, as otherwise these sharing sites will fold as nobody will visit or subscribe. Rapidshare seems to still be operating as normal and some sites have just cut off access to the sites from the US, which is probably the answer for these sites despite the length of the arm of US law.

You'd be surprised how many government agencies are running pirated software on their PC's.

Probably not for me, but know what you mean, as the answer is probably all or most of them.....from police stations to government schools to army bases to the child protection services computers to immigration to airport security, and beyond.   ::)

Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: January 25, 2012, 07:02:09 AM »

Interesting articles, Lebo and thanks for posting the links.  You'd be surprised how many government agencies are running pirated software on their PC's. 

Type this in google and look what pops up.

Microsoft Windows Vista Developer Activation

Posted by: thaiga
« on: January 24, 2012, 10:39:15 AM »

Storage sites unnerved by Megaupload action

The arrest of Megaupload's founders has led to other file storage sites taking action in an apparent attempt to protect themselves from legal action.

Filesonic has disabled its sharing functions, allowing users to access only their own files. has blocked US access to its site entirely, with a message saying "sorry about that".

Experts said that the sites were attempting to show that they were taking piracy seriously.

If those websites are found to be communicating the works - ie facilitating sharing - then that's the key risk in terms of criminal liability," said Adam Rendle, a copyright lawyer from London-based law firm Taylor Wessing.

Filesonic, which is based in the UK and Hong Kong, has not released a statement about its move to block sharing.
However, customers visiting the website were greeted with a message stating simply: "All sharing functionality of Filesonic is now disabled. Our service can only be used to upload and retrieve files that you have uploaded personally."
The closure of Megaupload last week has created a huge reaction across the internet.

The site, which had in the region of 50 million visitors a day, was said by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to be run by individuals who were engaging in a "racketeering conspiracy" and "conspiring to commit copyright infringement".
Megaupload has defended itself by saying that copyright holders had mechanisms which allowed the removal of infringing content - and that legitimate material was shared on the site., which offers a service in which uploaders can receive money depending on how many people download their files, remains fully operational - but US visitors can no longer access its servers.

Other so-called "digital locker" services, such as Switzerland-based Rapidshare, have defended themselves by pointing out their anti-piracy measures.
A Rapidshare spokesman told technology news website Ars Technica that it was "not concerned or scared" about Megaupload's closure.
High-profile large actions'
The BBC contacted other digital locker sites - including those run by Apple and Google.

None would provide comment on any action being taken on their own services in the wake of Megaupload's closure.

However Mr Rendle said that it was unlikely that these competing websites would fall foul of the law.
The two key differences are the scale of unauthorised sharing, and secondly what seems to be a complete absence of legitimate uses," he said.

Michael Moore, a partner at law firm Marks & Clerk, said that Megaupload's closure suggested that copyright enforcers were moving away from targeting individual file-sharers as they had done in the past.

"This is all a trend of going towards the facilitators, the organisers of this," he told the BBC
That's certainly something we're going to see more of. They're really trying to create an image of this guy and tarnish the reputation of file-sharing.

"I think in the future we will see a small number of very high-profile large actions against these facilitators.

"Hand-in-hand with that we will see this public relations battle to show people that file-sharing is bad."
Posted by: Lebowski
« on: January 21, 2012, 10:59:27 AM »


Lebo, do you remember when Napster first came out?  That's kind of where it all started.

Yes indeed, and if I remember correctly, that famous US lawyer succeeded in defending them ultimately.

Funny too, how here in Thailand, you can go to the IT plaza and buy just about any software you want for 120 baht.

Yeah, pretty shameless really. I remember reading somewhere that in the late nineties 95% of software in Thailand was pirated and that in 2010 it was about 75%. Do you remember recently (end of 2010/start of 2011 I think) the police and Microsoft officials doing a sweep through Thailand, including Korat? A lot of businesses/schools/colleges just paid a lump sum to MSN to carry on using their fake Windows instead of being taken to court or whatever.

Although, conversely, you might find this report in the LA Times from 2006 interesting which lays out what Bill Gates and MSN's attitude to piracy is these days despite it's public zero tolerance stance. Bill Gates says that even though so many fake copies of Windows are sold he would rather they pirated his software than any other and it's better to have a fake Windows than linux as in the future more will pay for genuine gear and be used to his software so they'll probably buy that.

Oddly as well, MSN have a service on the net where you can go to register a fake copy of Windows and turn it into a real copy and pirates who later turn legal get a better deal than those who buy legal first hand software as the conversion kit is $75 cheaper than buying a real one. The link below is related to XP but there are also ones for Windows 7 too.

And there is also a link to a Bill Gates interview 'We love Microsoft Software Piracy in China'

Back to the topic of music though, it seems that musicians know seem to have to make their money from playing live, which is not necessarily a bad thing, plus all the royalties from radio stations etc.

Films will be about the box office figures or someone like Warner Brothers will have to make a site where people can subscribe a small amount and download bona fide blue ray films of Warner Brothers stuff before anyone else can sort it, say 3 weeks after the film has come out, or do something like that. The film and music industries have to change and meet the challenge as this style of piracy isn't going away anytime soon and it's no good them bleating about it whilst throwing the teddy out of the pram.

The times they are a changing and nobody can stop it, netzian's power. It's also interesting to see how quick those Senators have backed off from the piracy bill after realising this could be a 'finger-burner' for their future and have gone into damage limitation mode.

Posted by: thaiga
« on: January 21, 2012, 10:40:04 AM »

US Congress puts brakes on anti-piracy bills

US lawmakers stopped anti-piracy legislation in its tracks, delivering a stunning win for Internet companies that staged an unprecedented online protest this week to kill the previously fast-moving bills.   Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said he would postpone a critical vote that had been scheduled for Jan. 24 "in light of recent events." Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, followed suit, saying his panel would delay action on similar legislation until there is wider agreement on the issue.

"I have heard from the critics and I take seriously their concerns regarding proposed legislation to address the problem of online piracy. It is clear that we need to revisit the approach on how best to address the problem of foreign thieves that steal and sell American inventions and products," Smith said in a statement.

The bills, known as PIPA (PROTECT IP Act) in the Senate and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the House, are aimed at curbing access to overseas websites that traffic in pirated content and counterfeit products, such as movies and music.

The legislation has been a priority for entertainment companies, publishers, pharmaceutical companies and other industry groups who say it is critical to curbing online piracy, which they believe costs them billions of dollars a year.

But technology companies are concerned the laws would undermine internet freedom, be difficult to enforce and encourage frivolous lawsuits.

Public sentiment on the bills shifted in recent weeks after internet players ramped up their lobbying.

White House officials weighed in on Saturday, saying in a blog post that they had concerns about legislation that could make businesses on the Internet vulnerable to litigation and harm legal activity and free speech.

Then on Wednesday, protests blanketed the internet, turning Wikipedia and other popular websites dark for 24 hours. Google , Facebook, Twitter and others protested the proposed legislation but did not shut down.

The protest had quick results: several sponsors of the legislation, including senators Roy Blunt, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, John Boozman and Marco Rubio, have withdrawn their support.

In a brief statement on Friday, Reid said there was no reason why concerns about the legislation cannot be resolved. He offered no new date for the vote. Reid's action comes a day after a senior Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the measure lacked the 60 votes needed to clear a procedural hurdle in the 100-member Senate.
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: January 21, 2012, 08:31:31 AM »

Obviously there are legal ways to upload and share whole movies - or Google wouldn't allow it:

Or will Google be the next to be raided and closed?
Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: January 21, 2012, 06:21:39 AM »


Lebo, do you remember when Napster first came out?  That's kind of where it all started.

Funny too, how here in Thailand, you can go to the IT plaza and buy just about any software you want for 120 baht.
Posted by: Lebowski
« on: January 21, 2012, 12:56:21 AM »

It's all very well busting a single site, or even hundreds of them for this, but you can't stop it. Someone else will fill the void that is left.

Can't stop the net and it's users, authority will always be playing catch-up and most people think that the music and film industry has shagged everyone for so long that a bit of payback is justified.

Posted by: Baby Farts
« on: January 20, 2012, 08:35:46 PM »

This is a Fing joke.  Do any of you ever go to the websites they attacked?  So they retaliate for not being able to download pirated software, and infringing on copyrights etc.  DOS attacks are easy to do.  The FBI site is back up again..... :evilgrin.

Seriously, if you were a software programmer who paid his dues in education and time spent on a developing a particular software, and later discover people are downloading it and pirating it for free, how would you feel? All your hard work and product should just be given away for FREE.   :uhm

Posted by: thaiga
« on: January 20, 2012, 03:29:29 PM »

The Department of Justice has charged Megaupload with a “mega conspiracy” that, it alleges, netted the company’s executives a vast cache of money and luxury cars.

The indictment (see below for the full text in Scribd) refers to Megaupload’s offenses as the “Mega Conspiracy.” The company has been charged with five different counts concerning copyright infringement and money laundering. According to the indictment, Megaupload’s offenses include:

1.Running, which streams copyright infringed television shows and movies
2.“Willfully reproduced and distributed” copyrighted content on its servers
3.Offering money as an incentive to upload infringing content between the dates of Septmeber 2005 and July 2011
4.Not terminating copyright offending accounts, as it states it can do in the Megaupload terms of service
5.“Made no significant effort to identify users” of the site, uploaders of copyrighted content, or the content itself
If found guilty, the defendants could spend up to 20 years in jail and might be liable for up to $175 million in fines.

“It’s really that inducement scenario that harkens back to the days of Napster,” said Owen Seitel of Idell & Sietel LLP, an entertainment and IP law firm. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the site totally shut down and never came back.”

By inducement, Seitel is referring to the action of offering financial compensation in exchange for uploading copyrighted content. On big sites like these, he explained, there is bound to be copyrighted material floating on the servers. But there are “safe harbors” that third-party content sites can take to protect themselves. One of these is complying with “notice and take down structures,” or flagging when copyrighted content comes into the system and then removing it. According to the indictment, Megaupload did not comply by flagging or removing content.

What’s really eye-opening about this indictment is the property that the Feds have seized from the defendants. It lists a number of bank accounts, PayPal accounts, 15 Mercedes-Benz vehicles, a Rolls-Royce with the license plate “GOD,” a rare Lamborghini and a Maserati. It seems the defendants had a number of vehicles with creative license plates including “HACKER,” “POLICE,” “STONED,” “GOOD,” “CEO,” and the ominous “GUILTY.” (See below for the full list.)

In addition, the indictment alleges the company or its associates spent a total of almost $8 million on yacht rentals in the Mediterranean from April to June 2011.

Seitel explained “indictments by their nature are overreaching” and that these allegations should be taken with a grain of salt.

Prior to being shut down by the DOJ, Megaupload released a statement calling the accusation of mass copyright-infringement “grotesquely overblown.” Indeed, a number of music celebrities have come out in support of Megaupload, prior to today’s events. The company’s new CEO, Swizz Beatz, is a musical artist himself and is married to singer Alicia Keys.

“It doesn’t surpise me to see celebrities on the side of the people when they’ve already been paid,” said Seitel, “It’s really not their content getting ripped off, it’s the studios’.”

In response to the indictment, hacker collective Anonymous took down the Department of Justice’s website, along with other music label sites. According to a tweet by @YourAnonNews, an impressive 5,635 Anonymous members contributed to the site attacks. It is rumored the group is planning to attack The take down tactic being used is called LOIC, otherwise known as a low orbit ion cannon. LOIC is a public system that can be used to perform denial of service attacks.

The five different counts Megaupload faces include conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering, criminal copyright infringement by distributing a copyrighted work being prepared for commercial distribution on a computer network & aiding and abetting of criminal copyright infringement, and criminal copyright infringement by electronic means & aiding and abetting of criminal copyright infringement.

Here’s the full list of seized goods, not counting bank accounts:

•2010 Maserati GranCabrio, VIN ZAMKM45B000051328, License Plate No. “M-FB 212” or “DH-GC 470”, registered to FINN BATATO;
•2009 Mercedes-Benz E500 Coupe, VIN WDD20737225019582, License Plate No. “FEG690”;
•2005 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2093422F165517, License Plate No. “GOOD”;
•2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM AMG 5.5L Kompressor, VIN WDB2093422F166073, License Plate No. “EVIL”;
•2010 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG L, VIN WDD2211792A324354, License Plate No. “CEO”;
•2008 Rolls-Royce Phantom Drop Head Coupe, VIN SCA2D68096UH07049; License Plate No. “GOD”;
•2010 Mercedes-Benz E63 AMG, VIN WDD2120772A103834, License Plate No. “STONED”;
•2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03651, License Plate No. “V”;
•2010 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A608055, License Plate No. “GUILTY”;
•2007 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG, VIN WDD2163792A025130, License Plate No. “KIMCOM”;
•2009 Mercedes-Benz ML63 AMG, VIN WDC1641772A542449, License Plate No. “MAFIA”;
•2010 Toyota Vellfire, VIN 7AT0H65MX11041670, License Plate Nos. “WOW” or “7”;
•2011 Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, VIN WDB4632702X193395, License Plate Nos. “POLICE” or “GDS672”;
•2011 Toyota Hilux, VIN MR0FZ29G001599926, License Plate No. “FSN455”;
•Harley Davidson Motorcycle, VIN 1HD1HPH3XBC803936, License Plate No. “36YED”;
•2010 Mercedes-Benz CL63 AMG, VIN WDD2163742A026653, License Plate No. “HACKER”;
•2005 Mercedes-Benz A170, VIN WDD1690322J184595, License Plate No. “FUR252”;
•2005 Mercedes-Benz ML500, VIN WDC1641752A026107, License Plate No. DFF816;
•Fiberglass sculpture, imported from the United Kingdom with Entry No. 83023712;
•1957 Cadillac El Dorado, VIN 5770137596;
•2010 Sea-Doo GTX Jet Ski, VIN YDV03103E010;
•1959 Cadillac Series 62 Convertible, VIN 59F115669;
•Von Dutch Kustom Motor Bike, VIN 1H9S14955BB451257;
•2006 Mercedes-Benz CLK DTM, VIN WDB2094421T067269;
•2010 Mini Cooper S Coupe, VIN WMWZG32000TZ03648 License Plate No. “T”;
•1989 Lamborghini LM002, VIN ZA9LU45AXKLA12158, License Plate No. “FRP358”
•2011 Mercedes-Benz ML63, VIN 4JGBB7HB0BA666219;
•Samsung 820DXN 82” LCD TV;
•Samsung 820DXN 82” LCD TV;
•Samsung 820DXN 82” LCD TV;
•Devon Works LLC, Tread #1 time piece;
•Artwork, In High Spirits, Olaf Mueller photos from The Cat Street Gallery;
•Sharp 108” LCD Display TV;
•Sharp 108” LCD Display TV;
•Sony PMW-F3K Camera S/N 0200231;
•Sony PMW-F3K Camera S/N 0200561;
•Artwork, Predator Statue;
•Artwork, Christian Colin;
•Artwork, Anonymous Hooded Sculpture;
•2009 Mercedes-Benz ML350 CDI 4MATIC Off-Roader;
•Sharp LC-65XS1M 65” LCD TV;
•Sharp LC-65XS1M 65” LCD TV;
•TVLogic 56” LUM56W TV;
•Sixty (60) Dell R710 computer servers.
Posted by: thaiga
« on: January 20, 2012, 02:29:59 PM »

You havent had your shredded wheat today have you  :wai

San Francisco - The hacker group Anonymous said it launched its largest-ever online attack in retaliation for the US government's shutdown of one of the world's largest file-sharing websites, Megaupload, for alleged copyright infringements.

More than 5,000 of its members had collaborated to bring down the websites of the Justice Department, the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the hacker collective said Thursday. All three sites were inaccessible Thursday.

The group said in a message on its Twitter account @YourAnonNews that 5,635 people were using denial-of-service attacks to target the websites, including those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the White House, although both those sites appeared to be working.

The action came after federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against seven people connected with Megaupload, which they said earned 175 million dollars while costing copyright holders more than 500 million dollars in lost revenue.

Megaupload founder, Kim Dotcom, whose real name is Kim Schmitz, was among four of the accused arrested Friday in New Zealand.

Megaupload users could upload music, movies, television programme and digital books, a large part of which were illegally copied, US authorities charged.//DPA
Megaupload op: Anonymous downs FBI, DoJ, music sites in biggest attack ever
Posted by: Johnnie F.
« on: January 20, 2012, 12:47:22 PM »

7 Charged as F.B.I. Closes a Top File-Sharing Site

In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.

Coming just a day after civil protests in the United States over proposed antipiracy bills, the arrests were greeted almost immediately with digital Molotov cocktails. The hacker collective that calls itself Anonymous attacked the Web sites of the Justice Department and several major entertainment companies and trade groups in retaliation for Mega-upload’s seizure. The Justice Department’s site and several others remained inaccessible for much of Thursday afternoon.

Megaupload, one of the most popular so-called locker services on the Internet, allowed users to anonymously transfer large files like movies and music. Media companies have long accused it of abetting copyright infringement on a vast scale. In a grand jury indictment, Megaupload is accused of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions.

Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder, Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz), have been arrested in New Zealand, the authorities said; the three others remain at large. Each of the seven people — who the indictment said were members of a criminal group it called “Mega Conspiracy” — is charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. The charges could result in more than 20 years in prison.

As part of the crackdown, more than 20 search warrants were executed in the United States and in eight other countries. About $50 million in assets were also seized, as well as a number of servers and 18 domain names that formed Megaupload’s network of file-sharing sites.

Ira P. Rothken, a lawyer for Megaupload, said in a phone interview on Thursday that “Megaupload believes the government is wrong on the facts, wrong on the law.”

The case against Megaupload comes at a charged time, a day after broad online protests against a pair of antipiracy bills in Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House, and the Protect I.P. Act, or PIPA, in the Senate.

The bills would give federal authorities expanded powers to crack down on foreign sites suspected of piracy. But technology companies and civil liberties groups say that the powers are too broadly defined and could effectively result in censorship. On Wednesday, Google and Wikipedia joined dozens of sites in political theatrics by blacking out some content and explaining their arguments against the laws.

Anonymous, which has previously set its sights on PayPal, Sony and major media executives, was more blunt in its response. The group disabled the Justice Department’s site for a time, and it also claimed credit for shutting down sites for the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, two of the most powerful media lobbies in Washington, as well as those of the Universal Music Group, the largest music label, and BMI, which represents music publishers.

“Let’s just say, for #SOPA supporters their #SOPAblackout is today,” Anonymous wrote in a Twitter post. In an e-mail, a spokesman for the group said it was responsible for the Web attacks.

The Megaupload case touches on many of the most controversial aspects of the antipiracy debate. Megaupload and similar sites, like Rapidshare and Mediafire, are often promoted as convenient ways to legitimately transfer large files; a recent promotional video had major stars like of the Black Eyed Peas singing Mega-upload’s praises. But they have become notorious inside media companies, which see the legitimate uses as a veil concealing extensive theft.

Mr. Dotcom, a portly 37-year-old with dual Finnish and German citizenship, has made himself a visible target. He splits his time between Hong Kong and New Zealand and casts himself in flamboyant YouTube videos. His role as one of the most prominent Web locker operators has earned him a half-joking nickname in Hollywood: Dr. Evil.

According to the indictment, he earned $42 million from Mega-upload’s operations in 2010.

The indictment against Mega-upload, which stems from a federal investigation that began two years ago, was handed down by a grand jury in Virginia two weeks ago but was not unsealed until Thursday.

It quotes extensively from correspondence among the defendants, who work for Megaupload and its related sites. The correspondence, the indictment says, shows that the operators knew the site contained unauthorized content.

The indictment cites an e-mail from last February, for example, in which three members of the group discussed an article about how to stop the government from seizing domain names.

The Megaupload case is unusual, said Orin S. Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, in that federal prosecutors obtained the private e-mails of Megaupload’s operators in an effort to show they were operating in bad faith.

“The government hopes to use their private words against them,” Mr. Kerr said. “This should scare the owners and operators of similar sites.”

New York Times