22 votes

Dotcom’s Megabox to Launch “A Few Months” After Mega

http://youtu.be/Kw04ckfO-yA

With his upcoming project titled Megabox, Kim Dotcom is hoping to put the major music labels out of business. The music service promises to shift the balance of power away from multi-billion dollar corporations to the artists who actually make the music. Initially Megabox was scheduled to launch this year, but Dotcom informs TorrentFreak that it will take a few more months to get it ready.

December last year Kim Dotcom revealed his plan to put the “dinosaur record labels” out of business.

In a guest post for TorrentFreak, Dotcom said his revolutionary music platform called Megabox was about to go public, but due to a well-known intervention from the U.S. Government that launch never happened.

https://torrentfreak.com/...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

*deleted*

*deleted*

Then u don't mind

Troy, then u won't mind if I come on your property and replace your Ron Paul sign with an Obama sign. Because I gave consent to the company making Obama signs.

That is what he's doing, he's stripping ads from other people's property and replacing it with his own.

DotCom is a crook and MegaBox is just another tool for stealing

Okay, I'm getting a bit tired of these Kim DotCom postings on this site. This man is simply a crook. Look at how his "MegaBox" program works. He strips ads from people's websites, and replaces it with his ads. Of which, he slices a bit off to pay artists, and the rest to himself.

So people like me that build websites, and companies that make their living off of ad revenue do all the work creating the site, creating the content, and driving traffic there. Only to have this crook strip my ads or the company's ads off of my own site, and replace it with his own that he makes a profit off of.

Quit supporting this douche on the dailypaul. If he wants ad revenue, tell him to build a website people want to go to, and make his ad revenue off his own damn content and hard work, and not other peoples.

Read this for more info:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/megabox-is-probably-illegal/

Megakey generates income by replacing about 15 percent of advertisements displayed on Web pages visited by those who have it installed with ads hosted by Megabox. So rather than the website receiving income from these ads, Megabox reaps the rewards.

Now tell me, is this what you support? Allowing people to take 15% of your revenue without contributing any of the content across all sites the user browses to?

not to my understanding

Can you provide links or anything to support that claim? Specifically, I am interested in your idea that he serves up somebody elses website, scrubs the ads, and inserts his own.

EDIT

Thanks, I see you added a link to read.

It's basically malware

You install a plugin in your browser. And it finds ad boxes on the page the user is visiting, and replaces it with his own.

I see what you mean by drawing comparison to 'malware"

But is not malware and definately not illegal if installed by consent and I don't really see a problem with this program.

Sounds about correct to me. A

Sounds about correct to me.

A web browser can render a page any which way it fancies. Nothing states it has to render exactly as the original creator intended. If some consumers want to use a web browser that renders only the content Mr. DotCom's algorithm deems "not ads", that's their prerogative. It is in many ways similar to ad-skipping features on TiVo style boxes, which someone really ought to give away for free to those viewers willing to watch one tenth the number of ads, but this time supplied out of band by the TiVo style box itself.

Competition from other companies with a similar business model will limit the number and intrusiveness of the ads Mr. DotCom can get away with showing, until some sort of balance is reached between ad intrusiveness and costs to consumers.

While content creators will likely be left to weave ads ever tighter into editorial content to make them inseparable, by, say, replacing pop song lyrics like "I kissed You on the Champs Elysees" with "I kissed you under McDonald's golden arches." The James Bond franchise have basically been doing similar in movies space for decades, and more and more shows and movies are following suit. As is Rap music (PitBull's deal with Kodak......). Don't know if the rest of the rappers are getting paid for all their references to "dom Perignon", Benzes and AKs, but perhaps they ought to try.

How long

How long before the Feds accuse him of sexual assault?

"Against Intellectual

"Against Intellectual Property" by Stephen Kinsella. http://mises.org/document/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property. Thanks once again to the Mises Institute for providing such a wealth of knowledge free of charge. Anyone who uses it should however donate to support their work. They are the single greatest source of libertarian thought and Austrian economic education.

In the non-digital world,

In the non-digital world, copying is standard for innovation and creativity. For example, industries such as fashion, football, standup comedy, cuisine, financial innovation and porno are built on copying.

"The Knockoff Economy: How Imitation Sparks Innovation"

The movie industry is doing well because you cannot copy the live movie theatre experience.

Changes in the music industry are meeting resistance. More music is being produced than at any time in history. The production, quantity and quality of music is thriving. Money will be made from live performances, social media and merchandising.

All I know for sure is everything is changing and there is money to be made for the people who adapt.

"With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz

ya gotta see this..

An in depth interview with Kim Dotcom. It was on the suggested watching.

Its pretty revealing. Enjoy

http://youtu.be/ZvrRaeHD5TE

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

Copying Is Not

BS

If you're only going to debate with YouTube clips....then back at ya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JSrrxb85FY

Here it is without the

Here it is without the youtube clip:

Copying is not theft.

Do artists have a right to

Do artists have a right to control the use of their created works?

Yes or No?

For example, if you build a

For example, if you build a bike, you have the right not to let anyone take that bike from you.

If a guy down the street builds a bike that looks identical to yours, you do not have the right to violate his rights by initiating acts of violence against him because his peaceful activities copied yours.

There is not a simple 'yes' or 'no' because these phrases can be referencing different situations.

This video explains everything....

I don't know much about it but it's a 20 minute interview and he says he tried to stop pirates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF48PjCtW4k

What a Crock of ....

I don't have high hopes from someone so ethically challenged as Kimdotcom. When you build an empire upon serving up stolen content (music, movies etc), your character is revealed....

I tend to agree

I don't know anything about this Megabox, but if it is anything like the other torrent services, I am sure that the creators understand that its popularity is due to its facility to easily transfer content which would otherwise cost money.

I don't like the dysfunctional music industry any more than anyone else, but I don't see circumventing it in ways where the artists go without remuneration as being a good solution either.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

Just an observation....

My understanding is he provided a service that allowed people to store THEIR files to share with others. He took all the steps to delete pirated content when brought to his attention and gave access to music and movie studios to police and delete their stolen content when found.

How can you blame him if others abuse it? It would be like blaming the gun or liquor manufacturer if someone abuses their product.

Are you actually going to

Are you actually going to make the case that this wealth came from a simple file storage site and that he has no moral culpability for his actions?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089954/Megaupload-f...

He was a massive violator/enabler of property theft. From my understanding, he charged admission to access to a vault of copyrighted material and that is how he made his $. Now, outed and charged, he searches for continued relevance by become a shining beacon of artists rights.

I work in the music industry (no, not an EVIL record label) and see first hand the disastrous effects of file sharing/pirating.

I'm in no position to defend all record company actions (there are ethically challenged people and executives everywhere) but record companies exist for a real market reason and to argue otherwise simply shows that you don't know what your talking about. Whenever I encounter "Evil Record Companies" talk, that is just a ruse for the person justifying their blatant and obvious theft of copyrighted material.

I honestly can't believe I'm having to defend basic individual and property rights on the Daily Paul.

Would you extend "moral culpability" to liquor and gun ....

manufacturers? Where do you end the responsibility of an individual that follows the law and someone else uses their service or product to harm others?

Can't believe you can't tell the difference between individual rights and third-party actions.

deleted

read below

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

Ok

so I just read most of that article, and while I agree with his overall sentiment, I find his rational to be somewhat self serving. You might think that I am making this argument to support copy right, but I can assure you that I am not.

I don't believe that copy right serves the greater good at all, but at the same time I don't believe that sharing the work that was created by someone else irrespective of their wishes for it, and without any expression of appreciation for it as being beneficial to the individual or society either.

To be honest I'm pretty unsure about this issue. I have been thinking about it for a few years and haven't found any resolutions for it. I read and hear the arguments of the proponents for and against copy right, and while the "against" win IMO, I think that the philosophy of the majority of people who rebel against it is cultivated out of self interest rather than an interest in a true work-ability for the whole of society.

Freedom is a byproduct of acceptance - judge not.

I'm torn on the issue, too

but thought i would link as food for thought.

in particular i am in awe of the similarities between stage actors that accused video technology of infringing on their artistic property. and now hollywood is huge.

not to mention stage musicians who feared phonograph and records. and the music industry that we defend today, were the napster's of their time. stage musicians felt ripped off that their music was being recorded, etc...

Call it rationilization if

Call it rationilization if you will, but I own my computer and every piece of it...including the hard drive. Any time I download a song(or movie, game etc) I am not actually downloading anything, I am just rearranging the data on the hard drive that I already own. Now just to be clear...I dont download anything illegally(though I used to once upon a time back before it was "illegal" to do so. Here is what I think....its my hard drive to begin with, I should be able to arrange data on it however I wish since I already purchased it. Is doing so stealing somone's intellectual property? No more than making a cassette copy of a song is. It would be theft if you tried to sell it or get material gain of some type, but do you call a 13 year old kid making a mix tape for his first girlfriend theft? Of course not...all he is doing is sharing music he likes. Now does indiscriminate "sharing" hurt the artist's income? Absolutely, but the dynamic of the internet has changed everything and trying to make laws to keep the status quo as it was wont work. Lets take for example a program I downloaded, the purpose of this program is to change settings in the computer I use to run a project car of mine(fuel, spark timing, nitrous control etc.). I was able to dowload this software free of charge and use it to get the car running as I wanted it. However, the free version of the software locked some features out(some of the most useful). So I played around with the software for a month or so and upgraded to the full version so I could access those features. In that situation I decided after trying it that the software was good enough to buy it...a trial run showed me my money was well spent...much like the free ebooks you can get on amazon that pull you in to buy the sequel. This model allows you to decide if the product is worth your money. The truth is you buy a CD and end up only liking maybe one or two songs(with a majority of the groups). That old way is long dead...this is the age of singles, Itunes of course has a good model going and I generally get the songs I like enough from there, but I am sorry...I dont see sharing songs you own with friends as a crime, any more than listening to a radio station is(isnt that the first and ultimate file sharing service? Ad revenue through a file sharing program or over the radio is still ad revenue right?)

I forgot to mention royalty

I forgot to mention royalty paying sites like pandora etc. I listen to Pandora about 10-20 hours a month and have bought dozens of albums based upon new music I've been introduced to. Pandora is a business that serves ads in order to make $....royalties for the audience drawing music are entirely appropriate.

Do artists have a right to

Do artists have a right to control their creative outputs? I believe they do. If they choose to give their CDs away to seed the market, so be it. If they don't and they'd like to be compensated on their terms at a market clearing price for their efforts, that is their right that needs to be respected also.

Nobody here is talking about kids making mixtapes for their girlfriends....we are talking wholesale downloading of entire musical catalogs IN ORDER TO AVOID PAYING MONEY FOR THEM. If it isn't nailed down and can be easily taken/stolen, sadly, it will be and that is exactly the business that the subject named individual was engaged in. I also don't buy the line that says he tried to shut down the pirates..."gee, I've got these millions rolling in because PEOPLE WANT THE BOOTY/LOOT/CONTENT", not because its simply another cloud storage service.

Regarding the reordering of bits fallacy...don't equivocate. You are simply changing the definition of what we're talking about to avoid dealing with the issue at hand: ACTUAL WORK PRODUCT. The bits are simply the medium for the artistic product. If you had "re-arranged" your drive's bits to look exactly like the source for Windows 8 or Google's secret (and massively expensive to develop) search algorithm, you would be in hot water quick and rightfully so. Nobody wants to listen to bits, they want the payoff, the product and they can now easily take that product by copying its bits without recompense to the content creator/author/publisher.

You hit the nail on the head with the iTunes example, there are easy and affordable ways to purchase singles or albums now through multiple sites.

One thing you might not realize about radio stations is that they actually pay royalties whereas the file sharing sites do not. Apples and oranges.

"Do artists have a right to

"Do artists have a right to control their creative outputs?"

Up to a point. For instance, musicians make most of their money with live shows. If they decide to record their music and sell it on a CD to make more money, that is their choice. However, they must accept the consequences of distributing intangible digital information.

If a person buys a CD, that CD and the data written upon it becomes the personal property of that person. You cannot own property conditionally. In that sense, you are suggesting that digital music cannot be owned, merely loaned. That is ludicrous and sickening.

I'm not talking about bootlegging, which is a completely different scenario. I'm talking about file-sharing. It isn't piracy. It isn't stealing. These are terms based in propaganda which are used to achieve political goals. They are no different than "terrorist".

It is SHARING. A fundamental concept taught as righteous to most all children. But it is a lie, for as adults, we must recognize that sharing is illegal. I reject that. My property is my own. Neither you nor anyone else will force me to abide by the arbitrary parameters under which you define ownership.

The distribution of replicable digital information is a fairly new thing. It creates new challenges and demands a new outlook. Record companies and movie studios will fight until the end to destroy reason and impose outdated and inefficient structure to our entertainment. Why? Because they are outdated and inefficient and on the road to ultimate destruction. They will hold on to every bit of power they can grasp before their ultimate and natural demise. Read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" to see the full picture.

Due to the internet, the future of entertainment is in the hands of the artists themselves. The good ones will adapt to this new, exciting environment and thrive. For instance, Radiohead released their album "In Rainbows" five years ago with a "pay what you will" system on their website. Radiohead made more money on that album than with every other album they ever released combined.

File-sharing is a blessing that creates numerous benefits for artists. The greatest example is that it gives access of content to people who would otherwise be unable to afford it. That in turn creates a large userbase of people sampling the content. What this sparks is the natural phenomenon of "word of mouth" advertising, which is the most effective of any type of advertising. Talented innovators will thrive in this system, expanding the culture of entertainment. Schlock-jockeys will fail.

In conclusion, you will never be able to stop us until internet freedom is destroyed. An opponent of file-sharing is an opponent of the internet, our last tool for liberty.