YouTube has a thousand to a million times more copyrighted content than Megaupload ever had. And no, not all of it is via partnerships with the copyright holders. Kim's problem apparently was that he didn't bribe Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y....
To this day, rights-holders don't even have to take legal action or issue a formal DMCA takedown to have videos taken down or siphon off the profits of those who use their content. It is even automated.
The indictment explicitly answers your questions about why Megaupload was different from other file sharing services.
Compliance is a critical part of the DMCA. Once a site knows about infringing content, they lose safe harbor provisions.
Also, how do you think lobbying Congress would even hypothetically help YouTube in court? The DMCA doesn't have any different provisions for YouTube than it does for Megaupload.
With regard to Megaupload, this much is simple. The Justice Department can freeze an investigation under pressure from Congress. Whether an investigation comes to its conclusion or not is strongly under the influence of Congress.
> “[T]he obedient US colony in the South Pacific just decided to extradite me for what users uploaded to Megaupload, unsolicited, and what copyright holders were able to remove with direct delete access instantly and without question.”
They did have an "Abuse Tool" available. The problem was, it was intentionally flawed. It was a sham, intended to make it appear like they were compliant, when they were not. It didn't remove infringing content. It just removed the link. Also, Kim intentionally limited content holders in the number of requests they could send. So, pirates using the system just created more links to the same infringing content.
Can you elaborate? Is there concrete evidence of this or just a general feeling that it must have happened?
If Congress was considering a federal ban on all electric cars in the United States, I'd want Tesla's government relations figures on Capitol Hill talking about it.
The problem with that is the lobbyist has a voice proportional to the money spent by the lobbyist's client. If, for example, I wanted to ban electric cars, I wouldn't even be able to get an appointment anywhere near Capitol Hill. Or if I did, nobody would listen. Just a pat on the head and perhaps some gallery passes to watch the legislature. If 1,000,000 of us across the US wanted that, we wouldn't get on Capitol Hill either. But if a car company or $special_interest_lobby wants a meeting -- they get it because those people are contributing millions to campaigns and PACs. Lobbyists even write many bills for congressmen.
If there was consideration on a federal ban for electric cars (or whatever,) then Tesla and the other car companies can write a letter to their congressman and have it ignored like the rest of us. And if they don't like it, then they can vote like the rest of us. They can even run advertisements trying to convince people to agree with them.
Money and lobbyists should not be able to amplify the importance of a particular viewpoint.
Paid lobbying should be illegal. It's one half step away from outright bribery. The other side of that coin is the administrative state official who makes rules favorable to a particular company, then "retire" from public service to take a highly paid, "consultant" role at the very company they helped. Or in Pharma especially, the so-called "Iron Triangle" -- https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/3519281-is-there-an-i...
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/the_return_of_the_...