As far as I understood Megaupload's business plan was selling "fast" download access to pirated material. I don't care much about piracy, but intentionally making money on it seems somewhat disgusting to me.
I consider Mega a legitimate cloud storage service. Nevermind what I think about the fiunder, I find it to be one of the most privacy minded services, so I support it and wish it well.
However, what formerly_proven says is correct for the public face of Megaupload.
The interesting case study would be whether, if the public facing business plan wasn't corrupted by private communications indicating the encouragement of privacy, would Megaupload have been a successful, profitable, and lawful enterprise?
Is the continued existence of Mega the equivalent of such a case study?
If yes, then is the only difference that the founders learned their opsec lessons?
(This is kinda where I struggle to separate the two)
The infrastructure might be similar, but the packaged product is different.
"Pay us and you can upload your files and access them anywhere / share them" vs. "Upload files that other strangers will be interested in so much that they will pay for access".
Also, unless I'm wrong Megaupload was indexed and searchable. While to access a Mega file one needs a direct link and these are usually not posted around on the public web. At least I don't see them that much.
Although I believe you that a record of communication proving intent is the most damning part in the eye of the law.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/documents/meg...