Megaupload Worked On A Multi-Billion Dollar IPO | Hacker News Reader

Megaupload Worked On A Multi-Billion Dollar IPO

torrentfreak.com

63 pointsllambda18 comments

If this is true, the whole case just got one notch more interesting. And IPO would mean that the company and it's business model would have to be vetted by lawyers and bank people, that's something someone with an illegal business model could not be interested in. So it could be cited as a fact that megaupload genuinely tried to have a legit (maybe shady) business.

If I remember well, there were rumors that Megaupload had plans for some streaming service of its content too (fact check me on that please). That would have been a threat to almost everyone in this sector, so I can imagine that some people were a little bit worried about a company like Megaupload becoming public. After that they would have been a member of the club, have a load of cash after the IPO and have a product and content to offer, I can imagine quite a few names who wouldn't have been happy with that.

Fact check:

Megaupload was working on something called Megabox, which was a "DIY artist distribution service that would have completely disrupted the music industry." -- Tech Crunch http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/was-megaupload-targeted-bec...

Opinion/Theories:

I sincerely believe that Mega Upload was working on this product, as they were making connections with legit, mainstream artists. For example:

-Swiss Beatz was the CEO of megaupload at the time of the shutdown (although he had just been named CEO 24 hours before) http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/swizz-beatz-revealed-...

-Remember the Megaupload Mega Song that was taken down by UMG? Among the featured artists were Kanye West, Snoop Dogg, will.i.am, P. Diddy, Chris Brown. Here is the video, the song is actually pretty terrible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9caPFPQUNs

Yep, that's it! Thanks! And takes a lot foil hatiness out of my intial post. :-)

You mean, Megavideo?

More like everyone making mony with content braodcasted or streamed in wht manner ever. :-)

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean you don't have enemies.

I wonder if being a public company would've made it a lot harder for the US gov to call it "organized crime" or something silly like that.

My feeling is the primary difference would have been that there would have been shareholders, apart from the legitimate users we hear about today, who would have been furious that their investment had been tampered with by the govt. So maybe in that sense it would have required the state to have a stronger case before taking action.

Not being an American I might have missed a huge example of the opposite, but I haven't seen the US gov shut down and destroy a public company. Sue them, yes, but destroy, no. So, presumably, had Megaupload gone public, my guess is that it would still exist, while being sued. It would still have resources to defend its self. What has happened here, or what was attempted here was the destruction of a business and the removal of its ability to fight back. I cant see that happening to a public company.

OK, Megaupload can be argued to be shady, but surely the action against is is equally shady.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3529331

Shady? What do you mean? This is America! Guilty until proven innocent!

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but public companies engaging in crime is not uncommon.

Yes, but when Goldman Sachs engages in fraud and damages the economy, they can plea bargain with the SEC for a paltry sum and never have to answer for their crimes.

I think that was sort of the point; with credible economic backing, some types of crime are civil matters for the courts. Without them, those same crimes are criminal mafia pirating conspiracy wow.

Saying because you want to go public, your company is legit is a pretty weak argument to me.

There have been plenty of "shady" companies who've gone public. The one that comes to mind most recently is Weedmaps:

http://bit.ly/ILSmST

Above obfuscated link is spam to some social news website.

Actual link is http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/12/popular-marijuana-compan...

How is WM shady? These are not moral issues, they are economic/social issues. (In my humble opinion, anyway.)

How much of Megaupload's usage is downloading copyrighted content?

This article is a little corny. "multi-billion $ IPO" and "reverse IPO" are mutually exclusive. The author spends most of the time talking about accountants and bankes when the primary issue is legal. And the author fails to recognize that such a tenuous business would have a hard time finding investors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com