A Look At The New Mega File Sharing Site

It's interesting that every time the world of piracy seems to calm down a bit, in a flash something new surges it ahead. Thus is the case with the new file sharing site called Mega created by Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom.

Megaupload was one of the top file hosting sites in the world but was shut down by the US Department of Justice in January of 2012 for copyright infringement. At that point, Dotcom promised he was working on something new that would be a foolproof way around any of the legalities that typical file sharing sites face. Now that Mega has launched, we'll soon see about the claim.

It's already been alleged that Mega is the most private, invincible file sharing service ever created, and here's why. Everything you upload is encrypted locally. When you generate a download link, it contains the decryption code that you need to unravel the file. Mega can't be prosecuted for anything illegally posted because they don't have the decryption key and therefore can't look at the contents of the file. Only you have that. Plus, when you agree to the terms and conditions for using the service, you agree to absolve Mega from anything that you might do that could violate a law somewhere.

This is the difference between Mega and other cloud services, or even Facebook for that matter. They all have access to your data and can readily see what it is. Since it's encrypted on Mega, the only person that can view it is the user and whomever he gives the decryption key to.

Here's what it means to any creator of copy-written material. Kim Dotcom is going to make a lot of money from advertising on his site, and you'll see none of it while your material is being illegally distributed the world over. And it looks like there's nothing you can do about it.

Once again, if you're a musician, just go with it and don't give it a second thought. Remember, your music is your marketing. If you're just starting out, feel privileged that someone thinks so highly of your music that they'd want to steal it and share it with their friends. It's okay if the word about you is getting out. If you're an established artist, you know that you make most of your income from touring, merch and licensing anyway. View it as publicity.

Either way, it looks like Kim Dotcom has outsmarted everyone this time. Plus, the service seems like a real bargain. The basic user gets 50Gb for free to start, and up to 4Tb for only $39.99 a month. Demand has been so high that the site is currently offline as it works to overcome the overload.

You can read more about it on Gizmodo.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

Interested in the Music 3.0 archives? Buy The Music 3.0 Guide To Social Media. The best of over 800 posts.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.

UMG Does Their Own Takedowns

One of the hard things for most people to realize is that they don't automatically have the right to use a song in a video, even though it might be as simple as your six-year old singing "Happy Birthday" or a bunch of school kids singing "Rudolph The Red Nosed Raindeer" at the school Christmas play. The copyright to these songs are not public domain, therefore you have to pay their respective record labels and publishers for their use, regardless how trivial that use may seem.

But still millions of people put videos on YouTube every day of themselves lip singing to "Born This Way" or "Party Rock Anthem," but the publisher and/or record label has the legal right to ask YouTube to take these videos down. In fact, most record labels now have teams that do nothing but scour the Internet for just these sorts of copyright violations.

That said, YouTube is very good about complying with a takedown request, as evidenced by numerous videos that are here today and gone tomorrow. YouTube is not actually liable as long as they don't upload the videos themselves. If someone else does, they're in the clear.

Even though YouTube is very liberal with takedown requests, they seem to have given Universal Music Group unusual leeway by allowing them to directly remove any video that they don't like themselves. According to an article in techland.com, there's "an agreement between the company and YouTube that allows UMG to use a “Content Management System” that can remove or “file block” certain videos on the site if it finds them objectionable. The agreement in question is not public, meaning that no one outside of those companies knows exactly how long UMG’s reach within YouTube actually is."

Here's the scary part. Does UMG have the right to control what videos YouTube allows on the site, even if no copyright infringement is occurring? Does that mean it can block it's competition if it wants to? Does that mean it can take down a video even if it has nothing to do with UMG? What happens if it makes a mistake?

As an artist myself, I'm all for protecting copyright, but I find it disconcerting that a major label has this kind of power. YouTube is already very good about acting on any copyright violation request, and they do it fast (I've done it myself). But UMG's new powers can be deadly in the wrong hands.

There's more to this intrigue as UMG and the cloud site Megaupload continue in a battle over just this issue, so it will be interesting to see what the new year brings.

Happy Holidays everyone!

-----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Check out my Big Picture blog for discussion on common music, engineering and production tips and tricks.