Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
I didn't know they paid for content that is popular, but that's no different to what Youtube does as far as I can see.
|
They *didn't* pay for content that was "popular"; they paid for illegal content. That is why the created alternate url's for content under takedown notice. They *solicited* illegal uploads, too.
There are actual quotes in the article, citing instances where they paid to "disqualified" content uploaders because they liked what they uploaded.
The popularity lists were artificial, they tweaked them to make it look like the primary business was legitimate uses. Essentially they camouflaged the illicit behavior by minimizing its visibility and puffing up the much smaller legal uses.
Can't go much deeper underground than that without resorting to invitation-only private nets, which by nature would be orders of magnitude smaller and hence less profitable. Go deeper underground and you're no longer raking in hundreds of millions.
It's a footprint thing; you're either big enough to rake in Megaupload megamoney, and you get noticed--and squashed--or you're small enough to stay below the radar and make much less money. Risk = reward.