Dotcom says Megabox will launch this year, hints at another surprise

By Lee Kaelin on August 13, 2012, 4:00 PM

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom has revealed he is continuing with plans to launch the Megabox music service this year, despite being in embroiled in a massive legal dispute with the US Government over charges of racketeering and massive piracy.

“I know what you are all waiting for. It's coming. This year. Promise. Bigger. Better. Faster. 100% Safe & Unstoppable,” he proclaimed on Twitter. He later tweeted “yes... Megabox is also coming this year ;-),” suggesting that Megabox launching might not be the only surprise he has planned.

Dotcom revealed the venture in an interview with TorrentFreak last December, proposing an entirely new model that would reward artists with 90% of any earnings from songs sold through the service. In a move relatively unheard of in the media industry, Dotcom also pointed out that thanks to Megakey, artists would even be paid for songs they published on the service as a free download.

"You need to understand that some labels are run by arrogant and outdated dinosaurs who have been in business for 1000 years. These guys think an iPad is a facial treatment, the Internet is the devil, and wired phones are still hip. They are in denial about the new realities and opportunities," he said last December.

Many assumed those plans were put on indefinite hold after he was arrested in January. At the same time, Megaupload’s domain was seized, taken offline and all assets frozen. He was then charged with racketeering, copyright infringement, money laundering and criminal copyright infringement in what the US Government called the largest piracy case ever brought before the courts.

Dotcom is still fighting extradition to the US, with the court date set for March 2013. The New Zealand High Court recently ruled that the search warrants issued as part of the January raid on his home and other properties were invalid, with court hearings in Auckland this week set to decide the outcome of that decision, as well as his request for the return of his computers to assist with his defense.




User Comments: 13

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Good to hear he's not going anywhere! Megabox sounds like a step in the right direction.

Guest said:

Ahhhh, now it all makes sense to me.

Media moguls were scared of this so they paid to get him arrested, even though the manner in which he was arrested was completely illegal.

I hope Kim comes through out of all of this and Viacom can suck it.

noel24 said:

Maybe dinosaurs are in denial, but they can succesfully lobby for Navy Seals strike down under and burial at sea. Be carefull...

psycros psycros said:

As sleazy as Dotcom often comes across as, all he did was provide a file sharing service. That's it. He was under no obligation to police it, and when asked to remove content Megaupload always did - maybe not <I>immediately</I>, but they complied. That's a far cry from the real pirate sites that answer to nobody. Was this oddball making a fortune by providing no-questions-asked hosting? Absolutely. But was he personally engaging in copyright violations himself? There's no evidence of that so far. The fact that industry groups have the power to order illegal seizures of people and property anywhere on Earth should be of serious concern to all of us.

Guest said:

so the plot thickens. this is turning into a good novel!

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

As sleazy as Dotcom often comes across as, all he did was provide a file sharing service. That's it. He was under no obligation to police it, and when asked to remove content Megaupload always did - maybe not <I>immediately</I>, but they complied. That's a far cry from the real pirate sites that answer to nobody. Was this oddball making a fortune by providing no-questions-asked hosting? Absolutely. But was he personally engaging in copyright violations himself? There's no evidence of that so far. The fact that industry groups have the power to order illegal seizures of people and property anywhere on Earth should be of serious concern to all of us.

Who you call an oddball is a convicted criminal who has perpetrated numerous financial crimes.

Whether he engaged in illegal activities this time remains to be seen when he is tried in court. And both sides will have an opportunity to present their evidence.

Most of us here have engaged in piracy, but probably would never think to actually steal money from a company, or commit financial fraud, yet this man did both these things. So taking that into account, why would we assume that he would not engage in further illegal activities, and promote those activities in order to make more money?

Look its fine to slam the means of his arrest, but please don't portray the man as just some big kid who skirts the law. The man is a repeat white collar criminal who has physically stolen millions and millions of dollars. Just because he's in a different field than Enron or Goldman Sachs doesn't make him any less of a criminal.

The scope of their crimes only reflect their means and access, not any sort of moral barrier.

Guest said:

He was convicted for insider trading, but that has nothing to do with this article.

You can't base current convictions on old ones and say oh he must have been doing illegal things look at his history.

The fact is he was illegally arrested due to media lobbyists and he's got a pretty damn good chance of winning this thing. They didn't follow the law whatsoever when they apprehended him and took his assets.

With the video of his raid recently released you can clearly see the excessive force used in his arrest, not to mention they had no jurisdiction to arrest him.

While the man has been convicted before, you should be rooting for him to succeed in this case because if he doesn't it shows the media lobbyists don't need to follow the law.

Why do you think they are trying to lock down the internet with spying movements like ACTA/CISPA/SOPA etc.... They don't want to lose their grip on propaganda and money.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

He was convicted for insider trading, but that has nothing to do with this article.

You can't base current convictions on old ones and say oh he must have been doing illegal things look at his history.

The fact is he was illegally arrested due to media lobbyists and he's got a pretty damn good chance of winning this thing. They didn't follow the law whatsoever when they apprehended him and took his assets.

With the video of his raid recently released you can clearly see the excessive force used in his arrest, not to mention they had no jurisdiction to arrest him.

While the man has been convicted before, you should be rooting for him to succeed in this case because if he doesn't it shows the media lobbyists don't need to follow the law.

Why do you think they are trying to lock down the internet with spying movements like ACTA/CISPA/SOPA etc.... They don't want to lose their grip on propaganda and money.

If you honestly believe that a long history of illegal acts that a person is convicted of has no bearing on their future actions, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that the absolutely have a bearing. In a court of law? Not at all. But in reality? Absolutely.

All of us speculating about his guilt or innocence are basing these judgments on our own feelings and past evidence. I think he is guilty because he has proven in the past to be an unethical person who will commit crimes to get money. Based on your post, you seem to think he's innocent because of the tactics used by the RIAA and the NZ gov't to arrest him.

You are basing your opinion on the matter based on the same non-admissible evidence that I am. You just happen to be on the opposite side of the fence from me. but you're assuming that your subjective feelings on the matter are somehow more valid than mine.

I am not disagreeing with you that the RIAA is a shady organization that is trying to hold on to an outdated business model. But at the same time, I think that he willingly broke the copyright laws that are currently in effect. He may have thought that by paying lip service to the law he was following it, but that remains to be proven or disproven in a court of law.

That's what this boils down to. The law. Not whether or not me or you think the law is valid, but whether or not the law should be followed. Once you agree that the law should not be followed because you feel that the people who promulgated the law were not in the right, what stops other poeple from breaking other laws they they feel are incorrect?

This is obviously a discussion way outside the scope of message boards, but ultimately that's what it boils down to, who gets to decide which laws are just and which are not. And while you may think that this law is not just, what is stopping from someone else from violating the law in such a manner which you think is not just, but from their perspective is valid because they happen not to agree with it?

1 person liked this | LawFuel LawFuel said:

No question that Kim Dotcom's activities lead to a range of legal and moral questions, or that the RIAA biz model and SOPA may have had a lot to do with timing. From our point of view in NZ, and as a law news organisation, the actual implementation of the over-the-top raid at the behest of an industry group, the FBI and others is something that comes across as offensive and out of keeping with the sort of country people think NZ as being -regardless of any "mega conspiracy". The truth about the Dotcom affair will, as always, be somewhere in the middle but - I suspect - more towards KDC than the FBI.

Tygerstrike said:

Im kinda impressed with this fat blob of a man. Hes been arrested, fought his way down a long road, and ended up following the Law anyways. Im sure he will be still have to face the courts due to his current embezzelment charge and the copyright infringment. But otherwise, hes doing the right thing. Getting the artists thier money.

TJGeezer said:

gwailo247 - "Once you agree that the law should not be followed because you feel that the people who promulgated the law were not in the right, what stops other poeple from breaking other laws they they feel are incorrect? "

But that is precisely the issue. The court has ruled that the seizure of this man's property was illegal under New Zealand law. If the man is now extradited, it only shows that U.S. interests can disregard New Zealand law, inside New Zealand. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that should be allowed in a sane society.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

gwailo247 - "Once you agree that the law should not be followed because you feel that the people who promulgated the law were not in the right, what stops other poeple from breaking other laws they they feel are incorrect? "

But that is precisely the issue. The court has ruled that the seizure of this man's property was illegal under New Zealand law. If the man is now extradited, it only shows that U.S. interests can disregard New Zealand law, inside New Zealand. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that should be allowed in a sane society.

No, that is not the issue. You're talking about a COURT OF LAW deciding that a law is invalid. He was talking about individuals not following a law because they don't agree with it. There is a huge difference between the two. I have no problems with the former, I have huge issues with the latter.

As far as NZ law, talk to their politicians, just as the Swedes need to talk to theirs, the UK to theirs, the Australians to theirs. Everyone is blaming the US, but it seems they need to talk to their own governments and ask them to grow a backbone.

ANTIjailbreak ANTIjailbreak said:

yeah I dont know if any of you used this site called megaworld but that site was only to show you the mega sites there was. it showed the ones in operation at the time and the ones coming. the ones coming it said was megabackup, megabox, megamovie, so I think eirther megamovie or megabackup is coming as well. megamovie was suppossed to be a competitor to netflix. there is something interestng though that you should read. MAFIAAFire Redirector is an extension for the Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome web browsers. The software redirects links from domains that have been seized by governments to backup sites, in order to bypass the blocking. The software is open source.

MAFIAAFire offers domain owners a preemptive way to "safeguard" themselves from government-sponsored domain seizures. Domain owners can register their main site and their mirror site on the site MAFIAAFire.com before their domain is seized. If their domain gets seized, the add-on will automatically start redirecting to the mirror site. Theoretically, this means that site owners will have zero downtime if their main domain is seized and their users have the MAFIAAFire Redirector add-on.

In May 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security has requested that Mozilla remove MAFIAAFire from its extensions directory, a request which Mozilla resisted. now if kim dotcom had hes sites through this plugin then it all would still be around. how cool is that. if im missing something here then please let me know.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.