But in early 2012, following a huge backlash from the public and technology sector, the dream turned into a nightmare. SOPA was not only dead and buried, but Hollywood had made new enemies and re-ignited old rivalries too.

In the period since the studios have been working hard to paint the technology sector not as foes, but as vital partners with shared interests common goals. The aggressive rhetoric employed during the SOPA lobbying effort all but disappeared and a refocused, more gentle MPAA inexplicably took its place.

Yesterday, in ongoing efforts to humanize the behind-the-scenes movie making industry as regular people out to make a living, “Beyond the Red Carpet: TV & Movie Magic Day” landed on Capitol Hill.

Among other things, the event aimed to show lawmakers that those involved in the movie making process are not only vital to the economy, but are the real victims when it comes to piracy. The message is laid out in this infographic from the Creative Rights Caucus.

As co-chair of the caucus, U.S. Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif. will be hoping to maintain momentum on issues such as tax incentives to keep film production in California, but yesterday the words of MPAA CEO Chris Dodd provided the most food for thought.

In comments to The Wrap, Dodd said that the MPAA is no longer seeking anti-piracy legislation from Congress.

“The world is changing at warp speed. We are not going to legislate or litigate our way out of it,” Dodd said.

For an organization that has spent more than a decade and a half tightening up ‘Internet’ copyright law in its favor, the admission is certainly a notable one, especially when the favored alternatives now include winning hearts and minds through education.

“We are going to innovate our way out by educating people about the hard work of people,” the MPAA CEO said.

“In this space everyone has to contribute to ensure that peoples’ content can be respected. Instead of finger pointing at everybody and arresting 14-year olds, the answer is making our product accessible in as many formats and distributive services as possible at price points they can afford. We are discovering that works.”

This tacit admission, that the industry itself has contributed to the piracy problems it faces today, is an interesting move. Over in Australia content providers and distributors have also been verbalizing the same shortcomings and they too have offered promises to remedy the situation.

But the development of new services doesn’t exist in a vacuum and time and again, across the United States to Europe and beyond, the insistence by Hollywood is that for legal services to flourish, use of pirate sources must be tackled, if not through legislation, by other means.

And here’s the key. Successfully humanizing the industry with lawmakers will provide Hollywood with much-needed momentum to push along its agenda of cooperation with its technology-focused partners.

ISPs will be encouraged to engage fully with the six-strikes “educational” program currently underway across America and advertising companies and big brands will be reminded to further hone their systems to keep revenue away from pirate sites.

But perhaps the more pressing efforts will entail bringing companies like Google on board. Voluntary agreements with the search sector can certainly be influenced by those on Capitol Hill, but with Google’s insistence that Hollywood moves first, by providing content in a convenient manner at a fair price, the ball is back in the movie industry’s court.

Dodd, however, is now promising just that, so things should start to get interesting. And in the meantime the MPAA can continue to fund groups such as the Copyright Alliance, a non-profit which regularly testifies before Congress on copyright and anti-piracy matters and of which the MPAA is a founding member.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Last evening stars of the show were treading the red carpet in advance of the movie’s world premiere at the Odeon in Leceister Square, London, and of course questions turned to the inevitable topic.

Sylvester Stallone, who plays Expendables leader Barney Ross, was the first to be questioned. The 68-year-old said that while piracy leaves him sad, for some it had become a habit.

“That makes me feel really sad, but you know I understand that a lot of people have accepted that’s kind of a way of life,” Stallone said.

But while Stallone expressed disappointment, he also suggested that as a big star he probably wouldn’t be so affected. Others would, however.

“I think it’s unfortunate because it isn’t about me, i’m ok, but there’s thousands of people that won’t make movies. They won’t get a chance because they’ve lost a lot of money, that’s the trouble,” the star said.

Interestingly, another star of the movie viewed the leak in a more positive light. Kellan Lutz, who plays former Navy Seal John Smilee, said that while people are downloading illegally, that try-before-you-buy would lead them to still purchase theater tickets.

“So for the people who downloaded it, I actually think they’re gonna wanna watch it in the theaters because it’s a good movie,” Lutz said.

“They’re gonna watch it online, then they’ll be like ‘I gotta watch this in theaters now’, because all the one-liners that kind of go under-layered throughout the action, you just can’t hear that on a little iPad or computer,” the 29-year-old noted.

But while Lutz was looking on the bright side, Lionsgate continued to work flat-out behind the scenes in what they see as a damage limitation exercise.

As reported yesterday, the company has been issuing thousands of takedowns to remove unauthorized links to the movie online. This is in addition to legal action being taken against several torrent and other file-sharing sites.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

While some do so because they find the legal alternatives too expensive, there’s a large group that simply has no legal options available to them.

The latter is the case in India, where the Netflix original series “House of Cards” can’t be seen legally since the movie streaming service hasn’t rolled out there yet. As a result, Indians can only watch the popular series on demand through unauthorized channels.

According to House of Card’s Kevin Spacey, the Indians are turning to these pirate sources in large numbers. During the International Indian Film Academy Awards in Tampa, Florida, he noted that the TV-show is suspiciously popular in India.

“House of Cards is really big in India, I discovered,” Spacey said at the red carpet event on Saturday.

The actor isn’t all too happy about this popularity, and accuses the Indians of thievery. Since Netflix’ streaming services aren’t available in India yet, they literally don’t have the “right” to see it.

“Except isn’t it funny that Netflix doesn’t exist there yet. Which means that you’re stealing it,” Spacey added.

Whether Spacey is unhappy with the show’s fans in India, or the fact that they have no legal options is not entirely clear. However, the only real solution to the problem is to ensure that Indians can watch the show too, without breaking the law.

The problem that’s highlighted by the House of Cards actor remains one of the major challenges for the TV-studios. For decades, the industry has gotten used to delaying international premieres for month or years, something that fans no longer accept.

Luckily, a lot of progress has been made in recent years, with most popular U.S. TV-series premiering on the same day in dozens of countries around the world.

While “availability” is no silver bullet that can stop piracy altogether, it’s a crucial first step to take.

Update: Perhaps Spacey was a bit too quick with his “stealing” allegations. House of Cards is available on Zee Cafe in India, although not on demand. This means that there is a legal option for those who have access to the channel via cable or satellite.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Well over two years have passed since and still it remains uncertain if former users will ever be able to retrieve their files.

A reporter who used Megaupload to store work-related files did take legal steps to secure his files. However, despite six requests asking the court to find a solution for the return of his data, there is still no progress.

Hosting provider Carpathia previously estimated that it cost them $9,000 a day to keep the hardware in storage. The company even threatened that without compensation, it could have no other option than to wipe the data. This is also what Dutch hosting company Leaseweb did to the hundreds of Megaupload servers it had stored.

The bulk of Megaupload’s data is stored at Carpathia though, and to learn whether those servers remain intact TF reached out to the hosting company for a status update. Unfortunately, our repeated requests remained unanswered.

Megaupload lawyer Ira Rothken was willing to provide some insight into the issue, and says that according to the information they have the servers remain in storage. Not at the original location, but in a warehouse of the hosting company in Virginia.

“Our understanding is that the Megaupload servers previously hosted at Carpathia are stacked in a disconnected state in a secure Carpathia facility in Virginia,” Rothken tells TF.

The U.S. Government is no longer claiming the Megaupload servers as they have copied all crucial data. However, the MPAA and the Department of Justice previously objected to a deal between Carpathia and Megaupload, where the latter would buy their own servers back.

This effort was stopped because the U.S. didn’t want Kim Dotcom to have access to the files. Hoping to get out of this stalemate the Court then suggested that all affected parties should get together and come up with a solution, thus far without success.

“In separate written requests in the past year both Carpathia and Megaupload have asked Magistrate Judge Anderson – who was appointed by Judge O’Grady to mediate the cloud storage server data issue – to preside over follow-up negotiations on data preservation and consumer access,” Rothken tells TF.

“The US DOJ has shown little interest in such negotiations and the Judge has not been inclined to set any additional meetings,” he adds.

In other words, there are no signs that former Megaupload users will get their files back in the near future. The question now is for how long hosting provider Carpathia will keep the servers in storage.

If Carpathia follows the example of Leaseweb and destroys the data, Megaupload’s business will be wiped for good before the criminal proceedings get into the meat of the matter. Perhaps that’s what the U.S. planned all along?

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Soon after the raids former Megaupload user Kyle Goodwin, a sports reporter who used Megaupload to store work-related files, took legal steps to secure his work.

Helped by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Mr. Goodwin filed at least six requests asking the court to find a workable solution for the return of his data, but thus far without success.

The U.S. hasn’t been particularly helpful in the matter and previously suggested that disadvantaged users shouldn’t bother the Government with complaints, but sue Megaupload instead.

Considering this rigid stance it came as a surprise that the Department of Justice recently requested a secret order to help copyright holders to obtain Megaupload data. Last week information from a sealed order showed that the U.S. asked the court’s permission to share evidence with copyright holders to “appropriately address victim rights.”

The Government argues that victimized copyright holders need this data for potential lawsuits. However, the EFF believes that the MPAA, RIAA and other trade groups are not the only ones who qualify for the ‘victim’ label.

“We think it’s pretty clear that former Megaupload users such as Mr. Goodwin are also victims in this case,” EFF attorney Julie Samuels tells TorrentFreak.

To highlight this issue, the EFF submitted a letter to the court this week on behalf of Mr. Goodwin.

“While we appreciate the government’s intent to appropriately address victim rights, we submit that the court should also ensure that the rights of the many users of the service who have lost their property but who have not been accused of copyright infringement, including Mr. Goodwin, are also addressed in any next steps in this case,” EFF’s letter reads.

With the letter EFF hopes to focus the court’s attention on the pressing situation of Megaupload users who lost access to their files. Ideally, these users should get an opportunity to access their work, which they have the legal rights to.

“We hope that our letter will get the attention of the court and that it will find a way to properly compensate Megaupload users who are waiting to retrieve their files,” Samuels tells us.

The clock is ticking, as Megaupload user data on 630 servers was destroyed permanently earlier this year. Another 1,103 Megaupload servers remain stored at the U.S. hosting company Carpathia, but it is uncertain for how long.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As the leading mixed martial arts promotion in the world the UFC is hugely protective of its content. In recent times it has spent considerable sums lobbying in an attempt to have U.S. copyright law changed in its favor. Owned by Zuffa, the UFC would like to see streaming turned into a felony, with the aim of protecting their lucrative PPV events.

But while the instant money comes from their live shows, the UFC also makes money from selling post event DVDs and in order to protect that market the company hires several anti-piracy outfits to take content down.

The most visible of these actions are the DMCA notices Zuffa has outside companies send to Google. According to the search engine’s Transparency Report, Zuffa has used three companies to have more than 535,000 infringing links removed from Google’s indexes. Most of the time these are pretty standard fare, as the notice below illustrates.

While the above is an example of a highly targeted takedown (very specific URLs containing torrents to the actual infringing content) there is a growing trend at anti-piracy companies to employ a carpet-bombing mentality, rather sending in the required precision strike.

The terrible results of this broad brush approach can be seen in this very embarrassing notice sent by Zuffa / IP Arrow to Google on August 14. As can be seen from the screenshot, Zuffa is claiming that some pretty awful content is their property, and (worst still) the original copies can be found at UFC.com, which they obviously can’t.

So how is this needless embarrassment being caused? No prizes if you guessed “automated crawlers.”

Instead of pinpointing specific pages carrying UFC torrents for example, the crawlers will target any other pages (even those created dynamically by search engines) that link to them, meaning that the generated DMCA notices deindex hundreds of other items that have nothing to do with the specific rightsholder. This, while often leaving the actual torrent page intact.

For example, this DMCA notice sent by Zuffa targets many URLs which initially appear to have nothing to do with UFC content. We’ve highlighted just one as an example.

On closer inspection the X Factor page has a section at the bottom titled “related torrents”. Sure enough, links to other pages that carry UFC content are listed. Instead of taking those down though, Zuffa’s anti-piracy company shot the messenger instead.

This carpet-bombing approach to takedowns is no doubt causing legitimate content to be censored too, so one might hope that embarrassing content in public DMCA takedowns will be enough for these companies to be a little more accurate in their work.

Anti-piracy companies working in this field have a difficult job, no one is doubting that. But wiping the freeway off the map when a mere side road has caused offense is hardly an acceptable strategy.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Petabytes of user data and backups, mostly from European users, were permanently deleted and the servers were re-provisioned to other customers.

Leaseweb defended their actions by pointing out that no party had shown any interest in the data, but this was later contested by Megaupload’s legal team.

Worried that the 1,103 servers that remain stored at Carpathia Hosting may also be wiped, Megaupload has now written a letter to the U.S. District Court with the request to take action. Not only for the sake of the millions of users whose personal files are at stake, but also to preserve crucial evidence.

“In addition to destroying petabytes of Megaupload user data, LeaseWeb’s actions have impaired our clients’ defense, as the servers contained vast amounts of potentially exculpatory evidence directly relevant to the U.S. criminal case,” the letter reads.

Megaupload tells Judge John Anderson that through its inaction, the U.S. Government is to blame for the lost data at LeaseWeb.

“While LeaseWeb’s deletion of relevant evidence in the face of explicit preservation requests is inexcusable, the United States is equally culpable. The Government was plainly on notice of the need to preserve the LeaseWeb servers.”

Megaupload explains that the authorities failed to reach an agreement to preserve the servers and wouldn’t unfreeze some of Megaupload’s funds to cover the storage costs. As a result, the Government failed in its duty to save the data from being lost.

“As Megaupload has long maintained, by freezing the Defendants’ assets and denying Defendants access to or possession of the servers, the Government has exercised de facto control over the servers and is therefore in constructive possession of them.

“Under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny, the Government had an affirmative duty to ensure the preservation of the LeaseWeb servers and the exculpatory evidence they may have contained. The Government failed to do so.”

After the LeaseWeb debacle, Megaupload now fears that the servers still hosted in the United States are also at risk of deletion. To prevent this from happening, they urge the Court to restart the negotiations so a workable solution may be reached.

“The destruction of the LeaseWeb servers demonstrates the urgent need to reach a workable solution for data preservation as soon as possible, lest the 1,103 servers currently in Carpathia Hosting’s possession meet the same fate. We therefore respectfully urge the Court to reconvene the interested stakeholders and renew negotiations as quickly as the Courts schedule permits.”

Megaupload previously reached an agreement with Carpathia Hosting to buy all servers for $1,000,000, but the Government said it did not trust Megaupload with the data and would rather see it deleted.

To find out what role the U.S. authorities have played in LeaseWeb’s decision to re-provision the servers, Megaupload’s lawyers have also sent a letter to the Dutch hosting company and the U.S. Department of Justice. Both parties were asked to share all correspondence following the raids.

“In light of this destruction of evidence, it is critical for us to understand the extent to which LeaseWeb consulted with the U.S. Department of Justice or other U.S. authorities prior to wiping the data. We therefore request copies of any correspondence or communications between LeaseWeb and U.S. officials, whether direct or through Dutch authorities, from January 19, 2012 to the present.”

Over the past months there has been very little progress in the U.S. case against Megaupload. The Court still has to make a decision on Megaupload’s motion to dismiss the indictment as well as the possible return of remaining Megaupload user data.

Through the current letter, Megaupload’s defense hopes to get the data negotiations re-opened, but whether a solution will be reached has yet to be seen.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

However in the coming few years, that factory in China could see its precious plug-making business go down the drain as ordinary people with their own 3D printer put it to the task of producing a replacement plug in a matter of minutes. But in order to do that, they’ll need a blueprint of some sort, especially if they aren’t the best at designing their own.

This scenario raises many questions, with the first being where that plug design originated. It could be brought from an official online store, or it might originate from a professional plug designer, with someone buying the plug and putting it into their 3D scanner to create a file ready to send to their own 3D printer so they can make a couple more for the other sinks in their home. Rather innocent, you would think, until it ends up elsewhere on the internet, namely a BitTorrent site, for others to download and duplicate.

This scenario is a near perfect mirror image of what’s happening today – or so Hollywood would like us to believe. Whether or not Hollywood is telling the truth is a debate that’s been happening worldwide for a number of years, and looks set to continue for some time. Yet there’s no doubt in my mind that Hollywood’s dilemma will be a mere drop in the bucket (or sink) when compared to the potential loss of income that manufacturing worldwide will experience when 3D printing becomes as mainstream as BitTorrent, smartphones, and tablets are today.

When someone torrents a movie, it’s most likely a few multi-billion dollar studios and multi-millionaire actors and actresses that are feeling the pinch, notwithstanding the fact that studios and actors get to make a quick buck at the box office. Last I checked, plug designers don’t get a shot at that sort of fame and fortune on the red carpet when the latest in sink-sealing technology is announced.

The manufacturing and transport companies, materials suppliers, and Bob at the local hardware store, among others, would also feel the pinch with the reduction in supply of plugs to the market. That pinch would translate into tangible changes to the economy at both a local and international level – something Hollywood has not been able to convince many of when they plead their case of lost jobs and profits thanks to piracy.

It’s no secret that our lives are increasingly moving into a more mobile and digital environment, but the vast majority of downloadable content out there is designed for digital consumption such as software, music, movies and TV shows. Illegally downloading this sort of content only hurts a few comparatively small industries, but it’s those industries who legitimate downloaders and pirates alike, blame for their own downfall. High prices, DRM, geoblocking, and outdated business models typically draw the most complaints from consumers.

So, the trillion dollar question for the manufacturing industries will be how they plan to tackle the looming impact 3D printing will have on their livelihood and sustainability. Of course it’s worth noting that only a small portion of the industry will initially bear the brunt of the impact. Examples that come to mind include the humble plug I’ve mentioned, children’s toys, and building materials. I also wouldn’t mind a new protective shell case for my iPhone either. But not everything can be printed, so manufacturers who use materials that cannot be replaced by 3D printing will most likely be spared.

There’s positives and negatives to winning, and there’s positives and negatives to coming second, and the music and film industries have been the winners when it comes to being the first to feel the effects of piracy. It’s been beneficial for the industry and consumers alike, with innovations like iTunes and Netflix appearing to help patch the gaping hole that is revenue flowing out of studios’ coffers. The shift to downloading and streaming has introduced increasingly harsh competition for that market, helping to drive down prices and ease restrictions, giving consumers more options in the process.

So will these new business models come into play when manufacturers begin crying foul over their products being downloaded and printed? One would like to think so. It is a different consumer market that manufacturers will have to cater for, which could see massive job losses worldwide should manufacturing of some products, like plugs, become almost non-existent because people can simply print their own.

Will manufacturers become the new clients of BitTorrent tracking companies in their quest to target pirates downloading their products? Perhaps not plug manufacturers, but don’t count out toy manufacturers who could lose hundreds of dollars to just a couple of parents printing their children’s toys to save some money for extra food on the table.

Just as iTunes and Netflix rose from the soon-to-be smouldering ruins of the industries they cater for, will other such companies offering free, open source, or purchasable printable plugs, take advantage of the possible gap in the market and provide legal solutions to consumers hungry for the latest in sink-sealing science? I’d say the chances are very high, but there’s one vital issue of manufacturing which Hollywood doesn’t have to deal with.

That issue is called DIY. I might need a new plug for my sink, but what if I want it to have a better shaped top which doesn’t get caught on things, causing the plug to come unstuck and the contents of the sink to disappear, and worse, there’s nothing out already there that meets my needs. I might want a new iPhone case, but what if I wanted one that had a much larger, chunkier lip to provide more protection for the screen, or a more rounded edge for easier holding?

Chances are I, and many others, would have a crack at designing and printing the plug or the case myself. I’d have something which met my personal needs. I could also print a few more plugs and cases for my friends, because I’d own the designs. While I’m not stealing anything, I’m also not buying anything either, which directly impacts the manufacturers of the plugs and iPhone cases, and everyone in between them and the store I might have brought them from. Hollywood doesn’t have to worry about this conundrum because no one ever customizes a movie to suit their needs.

The recent headlines regarding the download and printing of firearms is one of what will soon be many examples of the negative applications of 3D printing seeing the light of day in the media. That’s a challenge society will have to deal with, with particular emphasis on the legalities of such items being printed.

However, if Hollywood’s experience is anything to go by, the ongoing legislation battles and relentless website takedowns have had limited success at best, while also damaging consumer relations. Downloading a movie doesn’t cause injury to anyone, but a printed weapon or firearm most certainly could when it falls into the wrong hands.

However 3D printing has the unparalleled opportunity to improve life in isolated communities and developing countries in a multitude of ways, and legislators will have to exercise extreme caution if they come to the conclusion that restrictions on the technology are required because of these benefits. Hopefully those manufacturers who defy the status quo and explore new ways to capitalize on the new technology will set new standards for their competitors to follow. Plus, who knows? Hollywood might learn a thing or two as well.

A fascinating discussion worth having in the future will be how 3D printing influences the relationship China has with the United States, among many countries. China is the world’s manufacturing powerhouse, and whilst many US companies have their products manufactured in China, there is the possibility of certain products made in China for overseas companies returning to their homeland for production thanks to 3D printing. On a side note, China is well known for making fakes and cheap imitations of all sorts of goods, ranging from cars to smartphones, that were developed in many other countries. Could the 3D printer give those companies and countries some revenge? I certainly wouldn’t count that out.

Who would have thought that a simple plug could change the way products are manufactured and sold. While an iceberg will need to melt before it can fit through the drain a plug blocks, it will sit proudly on the summit in the meantime. This discussion really is just the tip of the iceberg, and I believe the misfortunes of Hollywood will be blown out of the water when manufacturers start circling the drain.

Only time will tell.

@JimmyRyanNZ

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

Petabytes of user data and backups, mostly from European users, were permanently deleted and the servers were re-provisioned to other customers. Kim Dotcom was outraged by the scandal and said Megaupload specifically requested that the host should preserve the data.

“They deleted petabytes of data in the face of Megaupload’s data preservation notices. Our legal team asked them multiple times not to delete the data while the U.S. court is deciding the pending cases including the rights of our users,” he said.

LeaseWeb counsel Alex de Joode disputed Dotcom’s account of the events, and the company released a statement explaining their actions. According to de Joode, Megaupload showed no interest in the data at all.

“During the year we stored the servers and the data, we received no request for access or any request to retain the data. After a year of nobody showing any interest in the servers and data we considered our options. We did inform Megaupload about our decision to re-provision the servers,” the counsel wrote.

“As no response was received, we commenced the re-provisioning of the servers in February 2013. To minimize security risks and maximize the privacy of our clients, it is a standard procedure at LeaseWeb to completely clean servers before they are offered to any new customer.”

Both sides clearly have different versions of the truth, but who is right? To back up his claims Kim Dotcom decided to share one of the date preservation request emails that Megaupload’s legal counsel sent to LeaseWeb during March 2012, less than a year before the data was deleted, and a similar request from EFF dated April 2012.

“LeaseWeb declined receiving data preservation requests regarding Megaupload servers and here is the proof that they did receive them on several occasions from EFF and the Megaupload legal team,” Dotcom informs TorrentFreak today.

“Megaupload continues to request that LeaseWeb preserve any and all information, documentation and data related to Megaupload – as destruction by LeaseWeb would appear to be in violation of amongst other things the applicable civil litigation data preservation rules and would interfere with evidence in a criminal matter[...],” Megaupload’s counsel Ira Rothken explains in the letter.

The email adds that “In addition, the Mega data on the servers at Leaseweb contain private and sensitive customer data and is subject to applicable privacy and data retention laws. Megaupload is negotiating with the United States to discern feasibility of consumer data access and the conditions for the same.” 

The letter goes on to state that Megaupload is trying to get permission and funds to take over the servers from LeaseWeb, as it tried to do with US-based hosting company Carpathia last year.

“Megaupload would like to try to negotiate an amicable solution to the above legal conundrum with LeaseWeb via a purchase of the servers storing the Mega data and future payments amongst other things – similar to an agreement recently signed by Mega with Carpathia in the US.”

The EFF, who are representing a Megaupload user in the U.S. court case, made a similar preservation request to LeaseWeb USA in April, asking the company not to delete any data.

“We now write to formally request that you preserve that material both for purposes of contemplated future litigation and as a matter of obligation and courtesy to the innocent individuals whose materials have unfortunately been swept up into this case,” the EFF letter reads.

From the above it’s clear that LeaseWeb’s public statement contradicts the data preservation correspondence above, and that despite these requests LeaseWeb decided to wipe the data and re-provision the servers. But there’s more.

Adding to the controversy, Kim Dotcom today informed TorrentFreak that they have additional information the legal team is analyzing relevant to whether LeaseWeb violated the law. The new information allegedly shows that LeaseWeb may have broken applicable law in their handling of the servers after the raid.

“I can tell you that we are contemplating legal action against LeaseWeb,” Dotcom says.

While it’s clear that LeaseWeb’s initial statement in response to the data deletion was not correct, at this point it is impossible for us to report on the basis of the potential legal action. Dotcom says he will reveal more on that later.

LeaseWeb, meanwhile, maintains that it has done nothing wrong. The company operates under Dutch law and says it had no obligation whatsoever to preserve the data any longer than it did. In addition, the company says it informed Megaupload about the re-provisioning in January 2013. It further claims that it never received a lawful proposal to acquire the dedicated servers, as Megaupload suggested in their email.

Responding to LeaseWeb’s claim, Dotcom reveals that in April 2012 the Australian domain registrar INSTRA contacted the hosting company with a proposal to buy the Megaupload servers, to preserve them for later use. However, LeaseWeb allegedly refused to negotiate with the company, who are now one of the main investors in Megaupload’s successor Mega.

Regarding the email about the re-provisioning that Leaseweb says it sent in January, Megaupload’s counsel Ira Rothken informed us that he has no record of ever receiving it.

“Leaseweb was put on written notice repeatedly to preserve data relevant to both pending criminal and civil litigation, including potential civil litigation involving Leaseweb, whether one couches it in terms of e-discovery litigation holds or just being a good corporate citizen we believe that Leaseweb acted inappropriately under the circumstances when they destroyed data,” Rothken tells TorrentFreak.

“If they were really concerned about money they could have backed the data up to tape and made a minimal claim for reimbursement against the millions of dollars in Megaupload’s frozen assets.”

“Ultimately we blame the United States who exercised constructive control over Megaupload’s assets and who had the obligation, resources, and ability to preserve all relevant and exonerating evidence including the data located at Leaseweb and failed to do so,” Rothken adds.

It’s clear that Dotcom, who is still outraged and saddened by the mass data deletion, is determined to get to the bottom of the issue. He hopes that through a court proceeding the truth will eventually come out.

To be continued.

Update: Leaseweb issued a public response stating the Megaupload’s request was made before the servers were stored.

“The MegaUpload request was part of a larger discussion while the servers were still racked. On March 29, 2012 the servers were stored and preserved, the initial MegaUpload request pre-dates this. I see therefor no discrepancy between our statement and the facts,” the company states.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

It’s been a frustrating situation for the millions of affected users and one that has taken a turn for the worse today, with the news that one of Megaupload’s main hosting companies has decided to delete all the data they had stored.

Dutch hosting company Leaseweb has informed Kim Dotcom that all 630 servers they rented have been wiped clean. This means that petabytes of data belonging to Megaupload users is now gone for good.

“This is a huge disaster,” Dotcom tells TorrentFreak, explaining that the servers mainly contained files from European users as well as the associated backups.

Leaseweb’s decision has come as a shock to the New Zealand-based entrepreneur, not least because Megaupload has been trying hard to reconnect users with their data. In fact, Dotcom’s lawyers specifically asked the hosting provider not to delete anything until the U.S. court comes to a decision.

“They deleted petabytes of data and did not warn us at all. Our legal team asked them multiple times not to delete the data while the U.S. court is deciding about the rights of our users,” Dotcom says.

“It’s such a betrayal. They could have given us some warning. We could have informed the court that a deletion is imminent. But Leaseweb did not even give us or our users a fair chance.”

Soon after the raid Megaupload’s legal team started to discuss the option of giving back users their uploaded data, but the U.S. refused all suggestions. Megaupload and the U.S. hosting company Carpathia did come to an agreement to hand over the servers, but the Government blocked this plan in court.

“This is what the U.S. government wanted all along. That’s why they seized all of our assets and would not even release funds to pay our hosting partners,” Dotcom now says.

The fate of the data stored at Carpathia is now in the hand of a U.S. judge, who still has to come to a decision. The hosting provider, meanwhile, is paying $9,000 per day out of its own pocket to store them.

“Carpathia has done the right thing and stored Megaupload servers at their own expense. That’s what Leaseweb should have done after making millions of profits from Megaupload,” Dotcom says.

“This was totally unnecessary and evil.”

Dotcom doesn’t know whether Megaupload can or will take steps against Leaseweb. The lawyers are looking into the matter, but Megaupload’s founder is most of all very sad and disappointed.

“All I can say right now is that everyone is very upset. This is the worst day since the raid for me because I was fighting every day to get users their data back. EVERY DAY!” Dotcom concludes.

Update: Leaseweb’s Alex de Joode confirmed that they deleted all Megaupload data stored on their servers. The company says it reached out to Megaupload but received no response. The company then decided to re-provision the servers.

“The storage of the 630 servers – while a relatively small burden – must serve a purpose. During the year we stored the servers and the data, we received no request for access nor any request to retain the data. After a year of nobody showing any interest in the servers and data we considered our options. We did inform MegaUpload about our decision to re-provision the servers.”

“As no response was received, we commenced the re-provisioning of the servers in February 2013. To minimize security risks and maximize the privacy of our clients, it is a standard procedure at LeaseWeb to completely clean servers before they are offered to any new customer.”

“We absolutely regret the setbacks Kim Dotcom has had since MegaUpload was taken offline, but we hope he as an entrepreneur will understand our side of the story and the decisions deliberately taken.”

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.