That was his point. He was playing the consumer champion via a technical limitation that is easily rectified. It is just posturing.
Dropbox and others use SHA for the of same purpose and manage fine. The files aren't deleted if they match a banned hash but simply can't be shared. See the Dropbox article the other day.
As to your example, that's the flaw in the Megavideo model which means that content owners would never consider it as a distribution platform. Kimble is playing it as a personal storage platform but monetising it as a distribution platform. If it really was a personal storage platform then they could have taken the measures that Dropbox et al do. But they didn't want to because they would have lost users. Not all users wanted to stream copyrighted content admittedly but many did. Steps are available to reduce copyright violations as others already do but Mega chose not to take them.
Down vote away. Those are simply the facts about that part of the case. I'm saying nothing about the rest of it.