Can you provide some source for the claim about the volume of sales MU had?

The original indictment put it at $25mm from ads and $150mm from subs, so my original statement is wrong.

But, I misspoke--the point I intended to make is that MU was making far more from download users than upload users. I made it sound like subs weren't a part of that, but they were. It's a question of what they were actually paying for.

Technically the subscriptions were paying for storage, but the indictment also cites MUs on database as showing only 5 million out of 60+ million registered users ever uploaded anything.

I mean, is it really a file sharing service if the vast majority of your paying customers don't share any files?

Sounds exactly like a file sharing service. My Google documents are also downloaded much more than uploaded, very often by people who don't upload anything at all.