Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RIAA Goes after LimeWire

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 04, 2006 06:57 PM
from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.
The Almighty Buck The Internet Government The Courts News
PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations 406 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

RIAA Goes after LimeWire 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • OMG! The only ones left to sue... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2006, @07:00PM (#15849728)
    ...are the operators of usenet.
    • *shhhhhhhhh*

      The first rule of UseNet is we don't talk about UseNet.
    • STFU!
      Usenet? Nothing to see here RIAA/MPAA, please move along.

      I almost hate to talk about this subject, not because I feel seasoned or elite but only because I do fear a potential radar sighting. At a very slow but steady pace, the brontosaurus that is Usenet, is getting more flexibility on the front end. The days of manually saving and piecing together messages in the right order and piping them to the right converter went away well over a decade ago. It can now be just a few clicks if you choose. The
      • I dunno... Maybe we should talk about the groups.

        Most ISP servers are worse than shit. How many people pay for a decent Use*cough*Net provider? How many of us have been paying for years and years? Paying for content is not new to us. Isn't that what the media moguls would like? Everyone paying for content?

        Bring it on. Headline news please. Highlight the actual cost of bandwidth. Tell the world that 700mb costs less than $0.50. Tell the world that from the first click to a picture on the TV takes less than 3
        • Nobody's in charge of the gnutella network---there's nobody to sue. (Side note: we all know about freenet and its drawbacks, but have any of the other projects that claim a goal of being faster and better than freenet gotten anywhere yet?)

          Hence, the RIAA will systematically sue every gnutella-capable software package they can track down. They can't sue things that are produced in countries outside their jurisdiction, but, that won't stop them from: (a) spying on you so they can sue people who download said programs [this is one advantage to freenet: some anonymity], (b) passing legislation to make it illegal to possess or write software that can be used to violate copyrights (DMCA et al)

          Where do I write a complaint letter? I use programs like limewire to share my creative-commons music (and other artists' similarly-licensed music) with both friends and strangers. Are they trying to deny me the opportunity to use a different distribution model for my music? P2P is great, because I don't have to shell out big bucks for bandwidth.

          That sounds like CD-distribution music companies trying to destroy non-CD-distribution music companies... it looks a lot like monopolistic behavior to me. :-/

  • in related news... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by irving47 (73147) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:02PM (#15849734) Homepage
    The RIAA and MPAA are teaming up to sue the highway patrol of all states with interstates that border on other states for failing to stop them and prevent them from allowing friends to copy their DVD's and CD's.

    • Re:in related news... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Travoltus (110240) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:07PM (#15849762) Journal
      The cops will be required by the **AA to scan all cars with special equipment that detects copyright infringing data on CDs and DVDs.

      Oh wait, I'm giving them ideas.........

    • Re:in related news... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Friday August 04 2006, @07:19PM (#15849809)
      Recording Industrialists Against Artists will try anything to make sure no one hears so much as a note of music without paying them. Music has existed since the dawn of time, not just since the invention of the phonograph. RIAA, you are obsolete and your products are too. No one needs you any more. Don't Buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org]
      • I make it a point to buy CDs only from small, independent labels. All the rest of the stuff I listen to I download in industrial quantities, savoring the fact that I'm not putting a single additional cent into the RIAA's coffers. I refuse to subsidize Britney's or Mariah's multimillion dollar contracts. I refuse to subsidize corporate suits recruiting an army of shysters to terrorize the population, instead of creatively working towards win-win scenarios.

        Furthermore, I do not listen to Clear Channel stat
        • In your quest to avoid clear channel, I would like to make a suggestion for you: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/services/th e_current/ [publicradio.org]

          Click listen now and you can get either a mp3 stream or wma of the live on the air station. This station is positively amazing, it is a minneapolis station operated by minnesota public radio. It is different though in that public radio is almost always focused on news and classical music, this station plays a HUGE selection of modern non-classical music. A lot of local and independant artists as well as highly tallented artists that can be heard elsewhere (but usually not the "hit single" that you might here)...if you request it, they can play it even if its not in their typical type. They also do a lot of in-studio preformances which are all archived and available for play from their site. An added bonus is that they employ two of the most talented dj's I have ever heard (one was a long time music expert dj at the U of M's college station and the other is just a great dj who got bounced around a lot as non-cc stations got taken over by clearchannel). The two are usually back to back weeknights from around 3:00-10:00 IIRC (thier names would be Mary Lucia and Mark Wheat).

          Give it a shot, and try it at a few different times because sometimes you can pick up on djs in a wierd mood (doing a themed set or something) or shows you might not be into: for example, I believe late saturday nights get deep into underground hip-hop and rap which may not be everyones cup of tea or right now as I post this they are playing a DJ Sasha set recorded sometime this week in california.

          • Re:in related news... (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Repeat this to yourself, over and over, until you get it through your thick skull:

            COPYING IS NOT STEALING.

            COPYING IS NOT STEALING.

            COPYING IS NOT STEALING.

          • Re:in related news... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by niktemadur (793971) on Saturday August 05 2006, @12:28AM (#15850913)
            If only 99% of all current legislation wasn't grotesquely tilted in favor of these corporate behemots, I would side with your viewpoint.

            However, the cost to manufacture a CD is less than a dollar, yet their product goes for around twenty. Corporate robber barons, the de facto government today, bring to mind the attitude, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, that rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing.

            I will neither endorse nor support these robber barons by voting for them with my dollars, and do not mind chipping a bit at their cornerstone as well, along with millions of other people, from the looks of it.
          • BTW, check out the www.wfmu.org website, it's just as insane as the programming itself.

            The programming for any given show depends on the DJ, his tastes and moods. One show is industrial noise, another is children's singalongs, another is antique 78s from the 1910's and 20's, and so on and so forth, basically a little bit of absolutely everything.

            One show, Incorrect Music, plays only the worst songs ever recorded. In this particular show, the worst of the worst is a travesty called Baby Lulu; whenever the

    • Re:in related news... (Score:4, Funny)

      by hedwards (940851) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:52PM (#15849941)
      Satan should really be suing *AA for violations on his patent on devious and inane abuses of courts;
      as well as making it much more difficult for him to download his favorite Britney spears' albums.
      • You forgot to mention the forthcoming suits against Sun for NFS and Microsoft for Windows File Sharing (both of which work just fine over the public internet, if your firewall permits it.)

        Anyone else remember Scour [wikipedia.org]? When it first launched, it was basically a search engine for public SMB shares.

        They disappeared a few years ago. Three guesses why.

      • Re:in related news... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Friday August 04 2006, @08:10PM (#15850006) Homepage
        Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

        So what? Grokster did not destroy the Sony rule. So it doesn't matter whether most people use LimeWire illegally.

        Now they make be going after the wrong people, targeting the makers of LimeWire instead of the file-sharers,

        Not at all. First, it's entirely possible to go after them and win. See e.g. the Napster and Grokster cases. The law allows indirect infringers to be sued just as easily as direct infringers. Second, plaintiffs would prefer to go after LimeWire. They have a policy of going after the deep pocket (i.e. a defendant that can actually pay the damages awarded). But more importantly, they have a policy of going after the head of the snake. If LimeWire shuts down, then all of their users will have to find new networks or stop sharing. Some will likely stop sharing. Others will go to new networks, but those will be shut down too, in turn. The idea is to stop P2P filesharing by shutting down the networks and software developers. Then it doesn't matter whether the users want to infringe in this fashion; they lack the ready ability to do so. Going after direct infringers is less useful to plaintiffs since it achieves less. Why go after one infringer, or a handful, when you can essentially go after them all by targeting the network?

        Get the picture?

        but a nice crackdown on illegal file-sharing sure beats some new, twisted form of DRM.

        That is absolutely not how that works. They'll do both. What you're suggesting is appeasement, but I guarantee you that it won't work.

        • Works as well as our "War on Drugs"! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by King_TJ (85913) on Friday August 04 2006, @09:55PM (#15850382) Homepage Journal
          As we all know, we really put a stop to those illegal drug sales by going after the "heads of the snakes" there. Wanna-be drug users just can't find someone willing to supply them anymore, most of the time!

          Oh, wait....

          I get the logic, but there's a fundamental flaw. You can't effectively stop the masses from breaking an arbitrary restriction placed on an activity if the masses feel what they're doing is justified.

          If LimeWire shuts down tomorrow, a programmer will be out there coding the next replacement for it - only with additional protections to make it harder than before to track the source of the traffic.
          Shut that down, and another will pop up, and another, and.....

          If it finally proves not too effective to do p2p sharing at all, due to the "law" constantly putting a stop to it - people will resort to more "guerrila" tactics (as they've already done many times before). Things can be uploaded with non-obvious filenames and folder names, to random servers (or even web or ftp sites that passwords were hacked on in advance) - and private message forums can provide the short-lived and always rotating links to them.

          VPN tunnels can be set up from point to point between trusted parties and files interchanged on their makeshift WANs.

          Individuals can offer files through their IM clients.

          Of course, Usenet is utilized too, and it doesn't seem practical to successfully put a stop to it.

          People might even wish to set up email list servers that distribute attached files to those who know the secret commands to email to get signed up and request them.

          Don't forget all the other alternatives, such as running telnet-based BBS software. (Kind of a "retro" solution, but like opting to run Windows 3.1 to use the Internet on your PC and thereby dodging almost all the trojan horse spyware, might be effective through obscurity, at least for a while.)
          • Unfortunately what might be happening is this:
            1. All digital devices are required to be DRM enabled.
            2. The sound/video cards will be required by law to not display/play anything that isn't DRM'd.
            3. Using uncompliant hardware (and software) will lead to a minimum of 10 years in prison.
            4. Compliance of hardware/software is checked automatically via the required network conection in every household. The police and/or copyright holders can legally check every household for compliance.
            5. There will be a compliance police
          • do you really think file sharing can be stopped?

            I don't think it can be, or should be. I'm simply explaining what the law is currently. I never said I liked it. Would you prefer to be misinformed or uninformed, living in a fantasy world?

      • That's a completely unfair comparison. Roads are essential in today's world. Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

        Limewire can be used to offset the bandwidth loads of legit music and movies (just as torrents are)
        Roads can be used to help legit people get from one point to another

        Limewire can be used to distribute illegal movies and music.
        Roads can be use

      • Re:in related news... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Archeopteryx (4648) * <benburch&pobox,com> on Friday August 04 2006, @10:42PM (#15850559) Homepage
        Yes, I have a legitimate use, I'll tell you what *I* use Limewire for; I trade Old Time Radio shows that are out of copyright, and unscoped airchecks of political talk shows that I actually have PERMISSION to share. I run http://www.whiterosesociety.org/ [whiterosesociety.org] where we have 100% legal content all for free.

  • BS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jimktrains (838227) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:02PM (#15849735) Homepage
    This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people.

    • Re:BS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TFGeditor (737839) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:10PM (#15849771) Homepage
      "This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people."

      You do realize this has been done (unsuccessfully) by dozens of city governments against a variety of gun manufacturers and importers?

    • Re:BS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by McGiraf (196030) on Friday August 04 2006, @10:02PM (#15850415) Homepage
      "This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people."

      Nah, people are not copywrited, you can do whatever you what with them, anything is fair use.

  • Which is why... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by barakn (641218) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:03PM (#15849745)
    Xerox should be sued for first marketing the photocopier.

  • Why aren't ISPs being sued instead? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joshetc (955226) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:06PM (#15849760)
    Or computer manufactuers, maybe just CD burner or hard disk makers. They all equally "allow" people to pirate via their resources. Just as much as limewire does at least..

  • Time to sue Sony... (Score:4, Funny)

    by DSW-128 (959567) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:07PM (#15849765) Journal
    For making computers, and CD and DVD burners... They're the real enemy!
  • Sun's java.com website still has LimeWire: http://java.com/en/desktop/limewire.jsp [java.com] and a banner for downloading it was recently on the java.com front page.

  • The RIAA has no case (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cwalk (899502) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:14PM (#15849793)
    When you download limewire from limewire.com, you are prompted to make the following decision before your download begins: 1) I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. OR 2) I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. Case closed.
    • Sorry counselor, but that isn't good enough.

      It sounds as though RIAA is using the new inducement theory of indirect infringement. The rule there is:

      [O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

      In applying that rule, the Court looked at everything from Grokster's business plan, advertisements, technology, and even

  • They're still going after the wrong people... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RulerOf (975607) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:14PM (#15849794)
    It's amazing to me that the RIAA hasn't figured out that they really need to sue those bastards that wrote TCP/IP and didn't think for a minute to include DRM in the original description... They've made so much money since all the networks that operate on the protocol so viciously promote piracy of copyrighted material. They should pay for their lack of foresight.
    • And what do all of those copyright infringing TCP/IP computers run on? Electricty. And how is 90-odd percent of that electricity generated? By burning stuff... with ...[dun-dun-DUUNNNNN]... FIRE.

      The RIAA needs to sue that bastard Ogg. I don't care that that bastard died a hundred and something tousand years ago. The RIAA should hire a crack squad of archeologists to dig his fossilized bones up and nail his ass in court.

      -

  • Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mayhem178 (920970) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:21PM (#15849818)
    I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.

    This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.

    I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.
    • Whether LimeWire encourages people to break copyright laws will be left up to the courts, and you can bet that this will reach all the way to the supreme court. LimeWire's main defense here is the little "I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement." and "I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement" radio buttons on the download page. Whether this counts as a binding agreement between LimeWire and the users in such a way that it relieves LimeWire of the responsibility to monitor for
      • According to their last ruling, for a software like this to be considered OK there must be overwhelming legal use of the software. That is, like most products, it should be used legally like 60% of the time (I'm pulling numbers out of a hat).

        That is a misinterpretation of the Grokster ruling and others. Look at the VCR, for example; as long as there's significant noninfringing use, the amount of infringing use doesn't matter.
      • According to their last ruling, for a software like this to be considered OK there must be overwhelming legal use of the software.

        That is completely wrong. The Grokster case did not remove the Sony rule. It added a new, independent theory of infringement that bypasses Sony. This rule has nothing to do with how the technology is used. Rather, it has to do with how the defendant acted and what the defendant said. If the defendant expected and provoked infringements, he's liable, even if there were only a few

  • RIAA needs to learn English (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson (129150) * on Friday August 04 2006, @07:22PM (#15849824) Homepage Journal
    the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works (emphasis added)

    Based on that complaint, it sounds more like they're passively encouraging people, at best.

    Either that or the fact that I've never held up a stop sign in the middle of the street means that I'm actively encouraging people to run red lights.

    • What about the word "Steal". If you mean download songs I already purchased from the record companies in casette format that the sun melted before the concept of fair use was legal precedent, then I suppose that's stealing. Ex post facto and they can't prove I didn't.

    • Re:RIAA needs to learn English (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chazmati (214538) on Friday August 04 2006, @08:14PM (#15850016)
      I thought when you installed Limewire, you were actually asked whether you planned to infringe any copyrights. I answered no, of course, so I'm not sure what happens if you answer yes, but it *felt* like they were against copyright infringement. That's more like (somewhat passively) DISCOURAGING people.

      • Re:RIAA needs to learn English (Score:5, Informative)

        by discordja (612393) on Friday August 04 2006, @11:09PM (#15850675)
        If you choose 'I might use LimeWare for copyright infringement'

        --

        Important Information about Using P2P Software Safely

        Lime Wire LLC does not distribute LimeWire Basic to people who intend to use it for purposes of copyright infringement.

        Thank you for your interest; however, we cannot complete this download.
    • Based on that complaint, it sounds more like they're passively encouraging people, at best.

      It's a factor. Take it seriously.

      From the Grokster case:

      Second, this evidence of unlawful objective is given added significance by MGM's showing that neither company attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated the defendants' failure to develop such tools as irrelevant because they lacked an independent duty to monit

  • Quite the Contrary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kennego (963972) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:42PM (#15849903)
    Although it is a file-sharing program, of all the ones I've used, Limewire is the one that actively DISCOURAGES copyright infringement the MOST.

    I guess the RIAA couldn't go very long without finding another way to annoy the crap out of everyone...
  • Next they'll sue people who make simple ftp servers on the same grounds, then the IETF for coming up with file transfer protocols, then anyone having anything to do with routable networks like DARPA and while we're at at it, why not just sue the people who melt sand to make fiber optics and mine the copper that makes our cables for not explicitly "failing to block access to copyright works". Shoot, we should just sue people for existing.

  • comparable case (Score:4, Funny)

    by AlgorithMan (937244) on Friday August 04 2006, @07:57PM (#15849960) Homepage
    microsoft is actively encouraging hackers to write virusses, trojans, worms etc. (since the protection is so poor)
    so this means microsoft must be accountable for any damage that any worm, virus, trojan etc. does to any windows pc on this planet...

  • Lack of interest much? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gli7ch (954537) on Friday August 04 2006, @08:22PM (#15850040)

    Remember kids, Limewire is just a Gnutella client. If they shut down Limewire, we still have a dozen more clients [wikipedia.org] we can use just as well.

    Hooray for Open Source fully distributed networks!

  • Listen up, pigopolists. LimeWire isn't responsible. YOU are responsible. Your rampant, unchecked greed is the reason we download music using P2P instead of obtaining it directly from you for a nominal fee. LimeWire may be the current conduit, but you are not going to stop P2P by stopping LimeWire. In fact, you are making your own lives more difficult by encouraging the P2P community to devise and deploy a new music sharing system that has no central controlling entity that you can sue. The more heavy-handed you get with us, the harder we are going to fight back. We are NOT going to succumb to your greed. You made your bed, now you can f$%*ing sleep in it.

  • Did the Supreme Court ever actually say "steal" ?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by D4C5CE (578304) on Saturday August 05 2006, @03:34AM (#15851376)
    the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet.
    Someone must have been asleep at law school when they discussed the elements of theft/stealing/larceny and the meaning of notions such as "personal property" (AKA "things movable"), "taking and carrying away" and "to deprive the owner of the property".

    Actually, the word "encouraged" suggests that may have been a rather extended nap which stretched into the class on aiding and abetting as well...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.