It looks like he's recently tried to change his image from mega villian to "freedom fighter." At least that's what he calls himself on his Twitter account. Although it does seem like a troll towards the people who have been after him.
I suspect that Kim Dotcom is something of a Walter Mitty figure, one of those people who fundamentally sees the world and his place in it very differently to how the rest of the world see him. As a result I don't think he'd view this as a change (which would involve him accepting that he'd been a heel in the past), I think he'd say he's still the way he's always been.
At the end of the day though I think he's in it for himself. He only wants to disrupt the music industry and free artists so long as it makes money for himself. He's clearly a smart and driven guy but I'd need to see a lot more than we've seen now to believe he's any sort of altruist.
He has been doing the exact same thing for almost 2 decades now. He started out on BBS and distributed "warez" over a bbs he ran and then famously turned everyone in the scene in to the police when they caught him and cut him a deal. He did the same thing with megaupload by providing a platform and making money from it and I am sure megabox will be like that as well. Lots of marketing hype and huge, romantic promises and lots of shades of grey and nothing much behind it, least of all a legitimate business.
Some of the stunts he pulled in between his BBS days and megaupload was to royally scam "letsbuyit.com" which he got convicted for and then he tried to open a "very high-wealth individuals" automatic trading system which obviously bombed. And back in the day he flamed the German CCC and loved to flash the word "hacker" as if he belongs. He sold a company he founded, DataProtect, to the renowned TÜV Rheinland and it turned out to be a scam and crashed. And before that he got caught dealing stolen calling cards.
He is and has been a trickster, an opportunist, a self-proclaimed "hacker" and above all an egomaniac who now, by sheer luck alone, finds himself on the more fortunate, romantic Robin-Hood side of things but his basic principles and ideas and greed haven't changed one bit.
Nevertheless, he is worth defending. There's more at stake than just the man. The things they do to Dotcom are indicative of the current involvement of US politics with the IP lobby. This relationship is having repercussions all over the world. Faced with a failing business model, IP companies are investing their ever-scarce capital into political rent-seeking, the consequences of which would be the destruction of privacy and creative freedom.
Furthermore, we must not forget that even the "guiltiest" and scummiest men deserve the full protections the law affords. Shortcuts around due process cannot be justified by saying, correctly or not, "This guy is a total sleeze and guilty as hell".
Also due process was followed as far as I know. Read the indictment. There was enough evidence to have his assets seized just like any other business if there is enough evidence to believe there are ongoing illegal activities. And yes the NZ government did agree to this also, otherwise his arrest in NZ wouldn't have happened.
Apollogies for using that phrase. I did not know it had the power to offend.
The issue specifically is the apparently illegal search warrant/raid. Well, actually to be honest that by itself does not particularly disturb me, mistakes are always made. The issue is the number of people I see on HNs dismissing what they see as technicalities because they know he is guilty.
The justice system is designed to afford protections to the obviously guilty because without that, it is no different than mob justice.
Due process was not followed here in NZ, and that's what the real issue is here. (and court proceedings)
Dotcom was not originally an appealing victim, but our overdeveloped sense of fairness here in NZ was always going to help his cause, and he has increasingly shown himself to be largely authentic. An authentic rogue that is - nobody is pretending that he isn't flawed or doesn't have a chequered history.
As a German I always cringe when I see Kim Schmitz speaking or a video of some stupid stunt. He isn't even a convincible trickster or a sophisticated con man! He is just an immature joke, a narcistic simpleton. He compares himself with Martin Luther King without even blinking an eye. If life would be a movie you would criticize his character as totally unbelievable and badly written.
That he managed to live in a 15 million Dollar mansion and is cheered on in many corners of the web makes me despair.
As someone who (casually) knew Kimble back in the BBS days I confirm everything kahawe wrote.
He shows his true face when things get heated. Legalities aside he has repeatedly turned around and backstabbed whoever was nearby, in order to cover his own ass. Definitely not the kind of person you want to do any business with.
Dont forget his business endeavous with Megacar, Kimpire, Ultimate Rally etc. For many of which he got up-front money from people who trusted him and then got screwed over by Kim in the end.
Hes doing it all over again, all the time until somebody finally locks im away.
I initially got to know him from playing Quake2, where he was a very skilled player (although he had a very strong PC and internet connection for the late nineties). He even set up a big 1on1 quake2 league, promised big prizes and many of the worlds top players signed up and played to later get screwed by him because of course, the winners got nothing. He used it solely as a vehicle of self promotion.
He is not who you think or wish he is but I will just let you see for yourself... he probably gets lucky each new decade with people who haven't been on the web in the decade before. He is not even remotely a "hacker" nor a "freedom fighter". And a "hero", are you crazy? kimble, is that you trying to make yourself look like people actually like you?
He could make a profit with a smal percentage or via registration or per publish.
Problem is alot of artists who are in deals will not have the rights to there music to sell this way and those that do pay high percentages online in general, so viable for new talent in some ways.
Whether or not Megabox itself is a good thing, there's every reason to want to use a middleman when distributing music. Do you enjoy setting up web servers, employing web designers, handling CC transactions, selling ad space, etc? Or do you really enjoy making music and don't mind giving away a 10% slice to have someone else do all that?
I run a small music web server as a favour to a friend[1], and honestly it's a pain in the neck to manage it. If we could hand the whole lot over to whatever is the next MySpace, then we would.
Bandcamp is a fantastic service that doesn't get nearly enough mention in these kinds of conversations. They've really already perfected this direct to fan model. They've even implemented a merch store into the service, allowing you to do all of your business through it.
Oh, I don't doubt it. But it's still not 'direct' if there's a middleman.
I don't disapprove of using middlemen. They exist for a reason. I just disapprove of buzzword-y claims that aren't true. Tell it like it is. It's still just as exciting.
Interested to see what 'MegaKey' is. There are only a few obvious ways to make money with free music: advertising and up-selling subscriptions. If he's managed to come up with a better way that's great. Maybe it will force Spotify and the other 'free' music services into splitting revenue more fairly rather than the current model of giving most of it to the major labels and screwing the indies.
The last time I checked, when Megaupload was still online and Megakey was being tested, it worked by replacing existing Internet-ads with ones served through the Mega-network when a person surfed the web. Essentially, it's a voluntarily installed ad-ware.
Ah, so it's a Gator[1] clone. Great, something else to warn people about. Gator was allegedly installed "voluntarily", but it turned out that wasn't how it usually happened...
The legal snafu with MegaKey is that it REPLACES ads, which, depending on situation, could easily be illegal contract interference. If it steps on banner ads and contracted ad real-estate on websites (Facebook, for example) he's stealing revenue. I'd assume if he were confronted with this, he'd play the "champion of the people" card, stating the original ads were placed there by greedy, unethical corporations and thus he's a hero. (Last part is my opinion, first part is an actual legal problem ;)
Thanks this if the first I've heard of it. I could see that being an interesting proposition for many people (the ones who refuse to pay for any music). As someone who still buys music and subscribes to Spotify Premium there's no way I would use it.
At I guess I would say it's going to be advertising. e.g. megaupload except 90% of profits on downloads the artist has endorsed goes to them. Instead of 100% to megaupload.
Probably with targeted upsells for more content from the artist as well.
I vaguely remember reading something about it at the start of the year after his arrest. If I recall correctly, the idea was you installed a program that replaced the ads on websites as you browse. By doing so you earned access to music. Something like that.
Youtube already does that. If you flag that you own a video you'll get money from free views on it. But it barely works because it's too easy to abuse. Real artists often can't monetize their own videos because an abuser uploaded it first and claimed as his. Youtube is being abused to hell and google can't control it.
I wonder which genius solution megabox have to suceed where google failed. Or if it's just marketing.
It seems to me that artists should have a unique advantage over other people when it comes to uploading their video to youtube first. The only way they should really have an issue is if they choose not to upload it initially, but release it to the public some other way first.
I doubt it will be anywhere close to the quality that bandcamp currently offers. Given that this is Kim Schmitz we're talking about, I guess this will taste more like Grooveshark, operating in a very gray area, instead of a really caring about artists and listeners. But we'll see.
Besides I couldn't be more satisfied with bandcamp - this is a great place for artists and music enthusiasts alike. Everything from the flexible pricing options to the wide range of available formats and details like the lightweight and flawless HTML5 audio player and overall site design are very much appreciated. And perhaps most importantly there's actual talent to be found on bandcamp - it's hard for a competitor to build a similar community.
I may be wrong and this is very subjective and speculative but as far as I can imagine the average megaupload user I would expect to see a lot of low quality "DJ Überbazz"-kind of artists on Megabox instead of the ecclectic selection you would find on bandcamp. On the listener side - and again, if the Megaupload user base is anything to go by - I would imagine people that aren't that much into obscure indie artists and rather expect to find popular artists from major labels. For obvious reasons I guess that won't happen though - unless, of course, Megabox aims for Grooveshark's approach to featuring the repertoire of major labels.
Again, the last paragraph is pure speculation and just reflects what I expect from a music service by Kim Schmitz.
Bandcamp allows you to sell music, give it away, or let users choose a price. This will use MegaKey which as another comment explains is an advertising model. So consumers get free music and artists get paid 90% of the advertising revenue.
I can't know how will this turn out eventually but I really hope for this (or something like this) to be a turning point for the music industry.
I love music, I really do, but at some point I became so disgusted by the way the industry works that I almost stopped caring. There surely is a better way to distribute music which would allow musicians to earn more money and the consumer to spend less at the same time by leaving out labels and distributors.
What you're hoping for is already here. I'm sorry since I already praised bandcamp in another comment, however this comes very close to the better way you mentioned. As an artist you have a lot of options today - a label contract is just one of them. Bandcamp, Topspin, CDBaby (are they still around?) or direct website sales are the alternatives. And of course let's not forget smaller independent labels. It is perfectly possible to be successful without a major label these days. If an artist decides to go the traditional route, it is his decision and it wasn't his only option.
I seriously doubt that Dotcom has the artists in mind with this new venture, it is a nice way to advertise the service though and he certainly knows that. Let's see.
Labels, both big and small, benefit many artists in ways outside distribution. Many musicians join labels to be financed, hand-held for recording, cross-marketed and advertised. The financing is significant, allowing many to produce novice music for long periods while improving their talents. Websites alone and zero-cost distribution methods, including streaming, don't allow the artist to survive. Not all artists want or need labels, but many opt for them. Interestingly, even the few artists who become popular without labels usually sign label deals for the business management and exposure. Free distribution doesn't help artists to pay for production, so Mega might have a problem there.
Does this qualify as a heel face turn? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelFaceTurn