Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dotcom's New Site "Megabox" Almost Ready

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the changing-channels dept.

Businesses 101

concealment writes "Dotcom confirmed to the Associated Press in a telephone interview that he has completed 90% the work on "new Mega" and "Megabox", a music site that he announced in June. Megabox will allow users to download music for free in exchange for accepting some advertisements, and 90% of the revenue will go to the artists."

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nice idea (1, Funny)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41620773)

if Apple don't get wind and sue the pants off Dotcom for undercutting.

Re:nice idea (1)

dmmiller2k (414630) | about 2 years ago | (#41623613)

Whoops, now it's on Slashdot. Rest assured they've gotten wind of it. Let's see if you're right.

Host country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620785)

So where are these servers being hosted?

Re:Host country? (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 2 years ago | (#41620869)

In another DIMENSION, baby!

Re:Host country? (3, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41620957)

Sealand.

Re:Host country? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about 2 years ago | (#41621421)

Na man their prince just died! DONT YOU EVEN READ SLASHDOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10/11/1611200/prince-of-sealand-dies-at-91 [slashdot.org]

Re:Host country? (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about 2 years ago | (#41622055)

Maybe he means the Danish island?

Re:Host country? (1)

coljac (154587) | about 2 years ago | (#41623905)

New Sealand.

Re:Host country? (4, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41621129)

Well if 90% of the revenue goes to the musicians then I doubt he'll be going through any of the major protection rackets and sticking to smaller/indie stuff. Otherwise there would be no way to guarantee that percent going to them.

Re:Host country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622443)

And in other news, RIAA has already filed the DMCA takedown requests and sued your grandmother for illegal filesharing because she downloaded busta rhymes tracks from it.

Accidental plagiarism (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41624727)

Who verifies that those smaller/indie groups didn't accidentally plagiarize a song owned by one of "the major protection rackets"?

Re:Host country? (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#41629065)

He is Kim.

He doesn't give a flying fuck about indie artists, he will go with whoever pays him money, because he likes showing off.

More likely, though, this is all vaporware and he was just pissed that his name wasn't in the headlines for a week.

Lawsuits (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#41620799)

A technology that challenges the recording industry's firm grim on paying people to make music? A system that gives artists a big cut of the revenue made by monetizing their music? Something that might actually change revenue models? The lawsuits will not stop until this is dead and buried.

Re:Lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620863)

I'm guessing the remaining "10%" to complete is getting the music.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620973)

The Big Names are all signed with a label already, but all is not lost. One approach that might work is to focus instead on newcomers - all the people with a band practicing in the garage or writing music in their bedroom. The vast majority of it will be utter crap, of course - but there is potentially a great deal of it, so all you need is a good recormendation and social networking engine that can filter out the good stuff from the rest, and ensure only the former ever makes the front page.

Re:Lawsuits (4, Interesting)

crontabminusell (995652) | about 2 years ago | (#41621437)

One approach that might work is to focus instead on newcomers - all the people with a band practicing in the garage or writing music in their bedroom. The vast majority of it will be utter crap, of course - but there is potentially a great deal of it, so all you need is a good recormendation and social networking engine that can filter out the good stuff from the rest, and ensure only the former ever makes the front page.

That's almost exactly what the original www.mp3.com was (circa 1998), and it was awesome. It was a very sad day when they were purchased / taken over / whatever and turned into a crap site.

Re:Lawsuits (2)

garyisabusyguy (732330) | about 2 years ago | (#41625423)

MP3.com was awesome, first place I ever heard 'Laziest Men on Mars' and the ever popular 'Terrible Secret of Space'

That said, they added a 'feature' that allowed people to use 'cloud' storage and the Evil Ones (UMG) demonstrated that somebody stored *gasp* copyrighted material there

The company was sued out of existence and was eventually taken over by Vivendi Universal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3.com [wikipedia.org]

Yep, delivering content directly from Artist to Consumer and not allowing the record companies to sequester the bulk of the money to themselves will get you sued... imagine that

Go DotCom, Go DotCom

Re:Lawsuits (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#41621469)

You make the mistake of thinking that people decide what is good. That is now how the music industry works. The cartel tells the people what is good, and they buy it. How will people know what to recommend as good if they do not hear it on the radio and see the cute band members on TV?

Re:Lawsuits (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41622215)

Easy: Dotcom makes his money taking payments from people to promote certain artists on the site... he than runs his own promotional gig ensuring those artists show up more often in people's searches, and provides them with kickbacks/extra tools to promote themselves on youtube/facebook/etc.

Seems like it might actually work, although it'll eventually end up in the same situation as the present cartel, just with new owners.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about 2 years ago | (#41622165)

That is basically what Bandcamp is. Anyone can upload their own music, set their own price, or even go with pay what you want. It's mostly crap, but you can find some decent stuff.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

trawg (308495) | about 2 years ago | (#41626513)

One approach that might work is to focus instead on newcomers - all the people with a band practicing in the garage or writing music in their bedroom.

We have a great place here in Australia for this - http://www.triplejunearthed.com/ [triplejunearthed.com] . It has launched the career of many artists.

It is provided by the ABC, our state-owned media broadcaster, as part of their youth radio network Triple J. It is a fantastic service. I've gotten a lot of free music from them and exposure to really awesome bands.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41621127)

Did the recording industry go after IUMA? Honestly I wasn't paying attention. If not, maybe the record labels will laugh it off until such time they decide it's the reason the new Micky Minaje album didn't sell.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41622123)

No, because IUMA was small enough to just supersede, which is what happened.

Re:Lawsuits (2)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#41621183)

We're getting into the territory where Kim Dotcom himself might end up dead and buried.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41623427)

That is a rather large excavation project you're proposing...

Re:Lawsuits (0)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about 2 years ago | (#41621199)

A real artist would not sign a deal with an aggregator. You need a respectful label that is promoting, protecting and licensing your music. Megabox is supposed to be an answer to any of this?

Re:Lawsuits (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#41621409)

A real artist would not sign a deal with an aggregator. You need a respectful label that is promoting, protecting and licensing your music. Megabox is supposed to be an answer to any of this?

The problem is, the 'big label' is farming out the promotion, distribution, and licensing of the real artists to wholey owned subsidies so that the label only shows losses on paper while the subsidiaries, doing business only with each other until it gets to the wholesalers, make the money while driving prices up for maximum profit. For protection, the labels turn to the lawyers, who have the label as their clients, not the artists. If some piece of litigation ends up being good for the artist, that's all well and good, but they're not the client, and such happy accidents are rare.

That was the model for decades and decades. Technology has openned the possibility of alternatives, but the labels probably won't sign off on them at any time due to the simple fact that they'd lose control of the process. It's not in their interest to do so. If they lose control, it shows they're not needed. Can't have that, the label execs would actually have to work for a living...

Re:Lawsuits (1)

Captain.Abrecan (1926372) | about 2 years ago | (#41629251)

Says the label shill. If a band can't figure out how to burn a cd and make a phone call then they are fucking retarded.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41622849)

well.. he announced this and then fbi but the hammer down on him after that. some said that it wasn't a coincidence..

Re:Lawsuits (2)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#41623017)

A technology that challenges the recording industry's firm grim on paying people to make music? A system that gives artists a big cut of the revenue made by monetizing their music? Something that might actually change revenue models? The lawsuits will not stop until this is dead and buried.

> When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

Re:Lawsuits (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#41629061)

Lol, you fell for the trolling so hard, it must hurt.

Advertisement revenue per-view is tiny. Fractions of cents. Even per-click we are talking about a few cents at best, and probably less.

Put your stuff on iTunes and you'll get 70% of the sales price, that is a lot more in revenue.

Oh, unless you are with a major label, but guess what, then they control the distribution rights and you can't put your stuff on Mega-nonsense anyways.

Plus, why the fuck is this news? It's not like this was new in any shape or form. If you google for relevant terms, you find startups like this going back to 2007.

the 90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620845)

Didn't he say they were at 90% a few weeks ago? why not 91% or 92% this week...

Re:the 90% (5, Insightful)

robthebloke (1308483) | about 2 years ago | (#41620873)

Most projects stay at 90% done for 90% of their duration.

Re:the 90% (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 2 years ago | (#41623077)

Because the definition of "complete" changes daily for 95% of the project's duration.

Re:the 90% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41647921)

Indeed. "The last 10% of a project takes the other 90% of the time."

Re:the 90% (5, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 2 years ago | (#41621091)

Software development is like a Microsoft progress bar. It jumps from 0% to 90% instantly, stays there a while, jumps to 99%, and then freezes.

Re:the 90% (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41621163)

A friend and I spent sixty weeks developing a shop-in-the-box solution back in 1998-9, for fifty six of those weeks it was at the "90% done" stage.

Sweet! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#41620875)

Hope this isn't region-restricted like Amazon music store and Beatport! I could really use this!

Re:Sweet! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621605)

Region restriction was the final straw that drove me to start downloading music in the first place. Until that time I was buying music from iTunes and (grudgingly) accepting DRM. Not being able to buy music I wanted because I lived in the wrong place was the end of my forbearance.

Re:Sweet! (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 years ago | (#41622365)

Indeed... I find that having iTunes accounts in multiple countries helps there, now that the DRM's gone. I tend to get most of the rest by listening to stuff off of youtube....

sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620905)

actually sounds pretty cool. Wonder how he'll seed it? Seems something like this would need a large database, just like facebook needed, for initiation. I know if there are only artists and songs I haven't heard of, are not worth listening to, or similar I'll just stop using the site.

Re:sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622845)

actually sounds pretty cool.

Advertising is evil: a psychopathis entity is using psychology to shape your mind and do their bidding. WTF is "cool" about that?

Any business model that relies on advertising deserves to die and is most assuredly not "cool".

Re:sounds cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41624149)

yes because web sites should never make any money. adds are fine just ignore them.
if the ads are to intrusive or you are to weak willed to ignore them use ad block plus and no script

a foreshadowing of (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 years ago | (#41620929)

the end of an era. As the **aa continue to hack and slash at the hydra of new media, to chase the proverbial 'ali' around the ring in rope-a-dope fashion, artists will embrace it as a closer connection to their fans and a more reasonable approach to selling their art.
 
    The legacy of an era of rented music and anti piracy legislation, DRM and house-raids will end with the sound of a single coin rattling in a tin cup as so many artists shun the industry that has ruled over them like cattle.

And heres a fancy dream: An open source appliance that can replace a jukebox in my favourite pub, that willingly connects to a DotCom enterprise and allows me to reward artists in realtime using bitcoin or cash for their efforts. But alas, its fun to dream.

Re:a foreshadowing of (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621079)

You had me up until BitCoin. All currencies are made up, I just chose to keep my money in one thats backed by more than a few greedy geeks with video cards.

"Bitcoin or cash" (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41624871)

An open source appliance that [...] allows me to reward artists in realtime using bitcoin or cash for their efforts.

You had me up until BitCoin.

If you prefer a currency backed by taxation (e.g. USD) rather than cryptography (e.g. BTC), all you need to do is turn off Bitcoin support in your appliance and accept that a larger percentage of your smaller donations will go to the payment processors to pay transaction fees.

Re:a foreshadowing of (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | about 2 years ago | (#41621201)

The same thing was said when blank cassette tapes were made available for public purchase, and this argument was brought up again when blank CDs were made available for public purchase. Yet miraculously the music industry still continues to exist, and bands still go the traditional route of signing to big labels.

Re:a foreshadowing of (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41621323)

Yet miraculously the music industry still continues to exist

Yes, unfortunately. This seems to be really a case where the old regime needs to be nuked, before something better can be build.

Burn down the old outhouse, instead of trying to install new plumbing in it.

But cockroaches can survive nukes . . . how about fire . . . ?

Re:a foreshadowing of (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 years ago | (#41621467)

You are of the mistaken impression that record labels actually produce music, or musical artists. They don't.

**AA and all the runty labels that bow before them haven't cared about music in many many years. They craft drama inducing characters involved in intertwined story lines of good looking people (for various definitions of good looking) loosely framed by their supposed ability to sing and play musical instruments (or just their ability to talk, in the case of rappers). Can a few of them actually sing/play? Probably, but that's getting less and less relevant by the day. As long as they're cute, and their songs are played 150 times per day, kids will eat it up and beg their parents to buy albums, tshirts, concert tickets, etc etc etc.

I think what we're seeing is a dichotomy split between the above, and actual musicians. People who play music because they love it will (eventually) earn a decent wage through services like this one. We saw a small part of that in the Pandora article from a few days ago.

Short version, if you prefer : **AA is to music as WWE is to wrestling.

What kind of wrestling league would Dotcom start? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41624941)

**AA is to music as WWE is to wrestling.

In this analogy, what's the more authentic alternative to pro wrestling promotions like WWE and TNA that will allow wrestlers to "(eventually) earn a decent wage"? Let me guess: you're thinking of the MMA circuit.

Re:a foreshadowing of (1)

Milgrams37 (2628411) | about 2 years ago | (#41622673)

The assumption your post (and DotCom) make is that the artists want to be separated from their labels. Smaller artists who haven't/can't break through, they'll try it. Long time established artists who feel controlled by their label, may embrace it. But for the many artists who have groomed and marketed by their label because they are marketable, they'll stay put to have their albums pushed on the radio stations, their images splattered all over various media, and their various merchandising adventures hyped (e.g. clothes, pet project record labels, alcohol, bobble heads, etc.). For many of the artists today, it's not about the music. It's about the cash. The cash is in proper branding and marketing.

Re:a foreshadowing of (1)

robsku (1381635) | about 2 years ago | (#41629017)

Personally I don't care about these The Monkees copies a bit - why would I? Big labels can keep them for what I care, but *if* substantial number of real artists went from them to modern alternatives, like this could be, and most new artists would not even sign with big labels - well, that would be a truly great thing for people into real music :)

It'll happen sooner or later, the destruction of dinosaur business model the big labels depend on to remain big... I still hope there will be some market for obtaining physical records (I'm one of those who likes to own such things, silly as it might be), but unlike now the companies producing the physical copies for sale would be employed by artists and the artist would pay a cut of his profit to them for the job - reasonably and fairly, though that kind of thing will probably end up being small niche market :)

Rough winds for record companies (1)

abhi2012 (2739367) | about 2 years ago | (#41620939)

.....and they ain't gonna be happy about it!!!!

90% indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41620947)

90% of the job takes 90% of the time. The remaining 10% takes another 90% of the time...

Re:90% indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621827)

You must be a project manager with a PMP certification. 180% time estimate sounds legit.

When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (4, Interesting)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41620959)

I miss Megaupload for its entirely legal uses.

It just was the easiest way to share larger files with people who normally don't use any kind of file-sharing technology. If someone was challenged by a USB drive, or multiple email attachments, I'd sent them the megaupload link and say "download it here."

This was generally for non-sensitive information shared with a large decentralized group working on both for-profit and non-profit products. When does the internet get a new anarchy file host, where no one cares what you upload and they keep it around if it's popular?

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (4, Informative)

gellenburg (61212) | about 2 years ago | (#41621011)

You mean like:
  - Dropbox
  - Google Drive
  - Amazon S3
  - Evernote
  - PogoPlug
  - YouSendIt

And the countless other file lockers and document/ file distribution services that are out there?

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621141)

it was a rhetorical question.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621477)

It wasn't a very good one.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621709)

No. It wasn't. It was just dumb.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622093)

You mean like:

  - Dropbox

  - Google Drive

  - Amazon S3

  - Evernote

  - PogoPlug

  - YouSendIt

And the countless other file lockers and document/ file distribution services that are out there?

It's too bad none of those are popular, nor sound anything like what they do (dropbox being a notable exception).

Why don't any of those have the word "file" or "upload" in them? You know, like:
  - megaupload
  - wupload
  - fileserve
  - hotfile
  - upload.to
  - filesonic
  - mediafire
  - netload.in

And the countless other hosting services that are out there? I feel that corporate shills are actually worse than government shills, but that when you combine the two of them you get these uber-deceitful pseudo-shills that are hard to identify. Like you.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

poity (465672) | about 2 years ago | (#41623713)

your preferred list of sites with the word "file" or "upload" in them have either click-through ads or captcha or 30-60 second wait times or all three. why would anyone prefer them over dropbox or google drive?

Free account limits (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41625055)

Might it be that someone has already stored more than 2 GB in the free Dropbox and 5 GB in the free Google Drive and has to upload the rest to Mediafire and the "file" and "upload" sites?

Re:Free account limits (1)

Inda (580031) | about 2 years ago | (#41628419)

Does anyone actually only have the 2gb on Dropbox? With the small hoops Dropbox has asked me to jump through, I have over 8gb free on Dropbox.

Google Drive for the win though. Nothing beats Google for pure speed.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622119)

WIth Megaupload was no hassle at all other than the captcha asked to the downloader.

You didn't need to register, login, identify or install anything and worked from anywhere. Just upload your files and get the links to share them.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622203)

You mean like:

  - Dropbox

  - Google Drive

  - Amazon S3

  - Evernote

  - PogoPlug

  - YouSendIt

And the countless other file lockers and document/ file distribution services that are out there?

None of these compare to MU in terms of ease of use and sharing capabilities.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41623067)

dropbox has size limits on how much you can share at a given time.
yousendit I gave a shot. 50 mbytes is the maximum you can send without paying. if I was going to pay 15 bucks per month.. why the fuck would I bother with such filehosting service? hotfile has 400mbyte limit

that's not to say that I liked using megaupload, but for most of the time it worked and didn't ask too much.

a particular annoyance with most such share a file sites is that they'll shit on you by having an file chooser dialog right there on the front page even when it'll just take you to a registration page! it's shitting on your because if you choose the file from a file chooser you'd expect the file to fucking upload and the upload button not take you to a registration page - it's full known to the flow that it will take you there, so why the fuck have the file choose dialog there in the first place at that point in the flow.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41625621)

And the countless other file lockers and document/ file distribution services that are still out there?

There, fixed that for you. What do you think a conviction of MegaUpload is going to mean to these guys? How many already dropped out or changed so they are now unusable (only download what you uploaded, severely hampering download speed, etc.). You can use e.g. 7-Zip to make a PowerPoint presentation a lot smaller, but it's easier to just have the link to a .ppt

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41621173)

I like Google Drive. 5GB and counting, baby!

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621311)

I like Skydrive, 25 GB baby!

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#41621781)

ooh! Worth looking at, then! :)

No naked cartoon characters in a SkyDrive (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41625167)

For one thing, SkyDrive is tied to a Microsoft account. According to "Prohibited Uses" in the Code of Conduct for a Microsoft account [microsoft.com] , all drawings of cartoon characters must be clothed. Arthur Read and Simon Seville are OK, but Tigger and Spyro are not.

For another, "Your computer doesn't support the free SkyDrive app". Apparently, the only Linux distribution it supports is Android, and my laptop runs something based on Debian. I signed into the web version with my Hotmail account, and I got a confusing message that "Your Microsoft account is missing some key info".

Finally, I logged in, and it was 7 GB, not 25 GB. What did you have to do to get 25 GB? Spam it to all your Windows Live Messenger (formerly MSN) buddies? Or is there a specific piece of "key info" that one must provide?

Re:No naked cartoon characters in a SkyDrive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41626029)

http://lifehacker.com/5905111/upgrade-from-7gb-to-25gb-of-free-microsoft-skydrive-storage

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#41621365)

Have you looked at Mediafire or PutLocker? They offer good filehosting for free (on both the upload and download sides) the way MU did.

As for MegaBox... I'll believe it when I see it. :)

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41621425)

oh so YOU were the guy who used Megaupload for legal uses. We were wondering who that was.

The rest of us used it to download Avengers and Call of Duty: MW3.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41625793)

The rest of you are fucking stupid.

Use a torrent. I downloaded both those things at 1.5M/sec offa the pirate bay. and i didnt have to prove i was human, login, or screw with any ads. One search and 3 clicks.

megaupload type sites of any sort wont ever get you that.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41627669)

oh so YOU were the guy who used Megaupload for legal uses. We were wondering who that was.

The rest of us used it to download Avengers and Call of Duty: MW3.

A lot of legal software publishers hosted the latest versions of their software on megaupload.

I know, I downloaded a bunch. Sure, i've downloaded some hard to find copyrighted stuff from there also, but most the time, I was downloading legal software from megaupload.

Shit, I used the public bus to go pick up marijuana, maybe we should shut down the bus system because it's used for illegal activities?

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621713)

Except that mega upload was a piece of shit for legit file sharing purposes and plenty of far superior services are available.

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 years ago | (#41629035)

It just was the easiest way to share larger files with people who normally don't use any kind of file-sharing technology.

There are many competitors in that area, and more convenient, too. Dropbox is my weapon of choice, and it integrates with the filesystem. How much more convenient than "cp MyFile.zip ~/Dropbox/public/" can you get? (or drag&drop for those who don't like consoles).

Re:When does the net get a new anarchy file host? (1)

pantaril (1624521) | about 2 years ago | (#41629443)

I miss Megaupload for its entirely legal uses.

It just was the easiest way to share larger files with people who normally don't use any kind of file-sharing technology. If someone was challenged by a USB drive, or multiple email attachments, I'd sent them the megaupload link and say "download it here."

I miss it for the illegal uses also. For example there were lot's of manga scanlations available on megaupload. Scanlation is fan-based translation of japanese manga. Now when megaupload is gone, those files are wery hard or imposible to track elsewhere. With no official (legal) english translation available, those manga series are effectively lost to me.

Kill the fuckin middleman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621057)

I'm committed to only paying for media that doesn't support lobby groups who undermine the democratic process.
To the artists who don't sign up to this (or services like it), your fair cut is going to the artists who do. No more excuses.

Kill the fuckin middleman once and for all! Artists and Consumers win.

I'll happily buy from megabox, humble bundle, Louis CK. Kickstarter or any individual artist's site with no DRM selling at a fair price.

Not happy about megaboxes advertising framework, but it's just a case of running it in a clean VM and pulling the files out, fair enough,
The kids love ads anyway.

Re:Kill the fuckin middleman (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621121)

Just so you know, megabox is a also a middleman. Peace out.

Re:Kill the fuckin middleman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41621463)

Dude. Did you just reply to yourself? Did I just reply to myself?

AC

Re:Kill the fuckin middleman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622399)

Take your meds.

Dotcom has GUTS (2)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#41621171)

I give him a high-5 for not giving up.

90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 cents (3, Insightful)

QuestionsNotAnswers (723120) | about 2 years ago | (#41621967)

Let me sell you this copy of Photoshop for $10.
It is OK because I give 90% to Adobe.

Let me sell you this perfectly forged $1 note for 90 cents. It is OK because I give the government 81 cents.

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41622481)

On the other hand, it is likely easier to get that 0.01 cent out of a customer than the 99 cents. You may still make the artists more money, while spreading the art more widely.

Micropayment processing (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41625189)

On the other hand, it is likely easier to get that 0.01 cent out of a customer than the 99 cents.

Even after the cost per transaction that payment processors charge?

MegaGrooveShark, then? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#41622683)

I'll be very surprised if the business model won't be similar to GrooveShark's - in which case you'd only get the 90% of 0.01 cents if you went into an agreement with with the service. Otherwise you'll be advised to talk to your legal team about drafting formal complaints about URLs leading to the infringed work. And then you get to do that over and over again as the work just gets re-uploaded by the users. So, you see, either you spend a lot of money on legal complaints, or you just let things be and get zilch, or you can contract up and get a pittance while being blazoned around has having a contract with the service. Oh, and the more artists sign, the less you actually get (unless you over-proportionally get more plays).

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#41622871)

Er, nobody is the forcing the artists to put up their songs on Megabox. So the point is moot.

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41623099)

it's for artists to upload, not for you to sell your random mp3's. as such it's a spotify alternative for indie music sort of..

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41624133)

Ill give you this copy of photo shop, and its ok as i copied it.

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41625213)

You're not accusing GIMPshop of being a copy of Photoshop, are you?

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41625803)

No, i'm talking copying Adobe products without permission, as i don't acknowledge the concept of IP rights.

Re:90% of 0.01 cents is far worse than 1% of 99 ce (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41627691)

Let me sell you this copy of Photoshop for $10.
It is OK because I give 90% to Adobe.

Let me sell you this perfectly forged $1 note for 90 cents. It is OK because I give the government 81 cents.

He's not selling illegal music.

He will be selling music that artists have signed up for. And he does have quite a few big artists with him on this.

You think he is so stupid that he's going to put up a service that is based off selling music he has no rights to? Seriously, during his court trial?

Let me guess, he killed you many times during MW3?

Because I keep seeing a bunch of statements that aren't even what is going on getting modded up. Like yours. It's not insightful, you are trolling.

MegaUpload Mk. II (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about 2 years ago | (#41627863)

Can't wait for that.

Build it from ground out so it is protected from 'legal' harassment from the MAFIAA and the US law enforcement authorities who think they own the world, and be sure to place servers etc. so they're completely unreachable and untouchable from those points of view. They should be well-conected network-wise of course and not hide that even the pirates are welcome to share files here.

After all, sharing cam-recordings or various rips just might not be illegal at all if the creator releases them as they're significantly different from the protected product they're derived from. It has long been established that you can write a very detailed summary and even repeat verbatim various quotes from a movie without being infringing in any way. So how much detail can you go into? Where's the limit exactly?

It might be illegal to record a cam in a movie theater, and it is most likely illegal to make a rip of a movie with the intent to distribute. The authorities should concentrate their efforts there instead of the utterly futile combat again file sharing services. At least in the early days of a new product, availability of opportunity to perform these activities is extremely limited; not many theaters are showing it, making it less likely that someone will be able to record it, and the early rips comes from advance copies sent to reviewers etc. which means it should be a piece of cake to trace each pirated rip back to the source and make sure that person never receive an advance copy again. As piracy is mostly due to non-availability of the product in certain areas/formats in its early days, this would be hugely affected by a relatively small effort.

Fighting file sharing in general is a doomed-in-advance futile effort that make enemies of your customers to the tune of huge expenditures that basically only makes the problem worse.

Let's hope Hava Negila is not among them! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41628541)

> download music for free in exchange for accepting some advertisements

This is the lie from that tall, fat criminal. The reality is, netizens download music for free and in exchange pretend to accept some ads, which they block completely unseen at the endpoint using web browser extensions. The net result is that both advertisers and the jewish investors, who run all music labels, are defrauded out of their money. Another victory for active anti-semitism 8-(

Hopefully Israel soon finds a way to crush the P2P madness underfoot, because piracy of audio-visual media is now a full-blown cyber "Crystal Nacht", where the hateful goyim mobs are robbing jewish business-owners of their property wholesale. I cannot understand why Israel, which was able to wreck Iran's heavily guarded nuclear programme with the Stuxnet computer worm, is failing to protect multi-billion jewish studio interests by releasing an anti-P2P malware that would shock and awe and humiliate the thievous goyim worldwide? Young goyim generations recently have become too cheeky, they need tough love education to help them return to righteousness!

Radio, anyone? (1)

roger_that (24034) | about 2 years ago | (#41629113)

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that this sounds suspiciously like the business model of Radio. It will be interesting to see if they have the ability to keep track of where to send all the checks, unless they have a very small playlist.

Megakey (1)

MadMoses (151207) | about 2 years ago | (#41631379)

According to German IT news site heise.de[1] , to get the free music, users have to install a "megakey"-software on their computers, which acts like an ad-blocker for your browser, but instead of just blocking ads on websites, it will replace 15% of ads with Megabox ads.

Does anyone else see a problem with this? For me, that's a no-go.

[1]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Neuseelands-Premier-entschuldigt-sich-bei-Kim-Dotcom-1718814.html [heise.de]

The most important question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41660307)

Will he bring back a new porn site, the internet is still hurting from the loss of megaporn

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>