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!

LimeWire Sued Again, Publishers Seek $150,000 Per Song

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-my-style-i-like-to-kick-em-when-they're-down dept.

Music 168

betterunixthanunix writes "Another lawsuit has been filed against LimeWire, this time by the National Music Publishers Association. They claim that LimeWire also damaged them, and seek $150,000 per infringement, putting the maximum possible damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. LimeWire seems to have become the latest music industry punching bag. 'David Israelite, chief executive of the publishers' association, said his organization had decided to bring the complaint because most publishers were not represented in the record company lawsuit and they were now confident that they had a winning case. ... LimeWire, which says it is trying to start a new paid subscription model, said in a statement on Wednesday that it welcomed the publishers to the table. '"

cancel ×

168 comments

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

$150K per song? (4, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602290)

Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602374)

The $150K figure is coming from their argument that each song has probably been downloaded by many people (99 cents per song * 150K downloaders, perhaps), and thus represents the total amount of lost revenue. We'll see how well that holds up in court, doesn't seem to have caught on so far.

Re:$150K per song? (4, Informative)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602530)

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.

Re:$150K per song? (2, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602698)

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.

To demonstrate how ridiculous that number is, in the case Apple vs. Psystar with Psystar selling hundreds of computers with illegal copies of MacOS X installed, Apple asked for $30,000 for copyright infringement by copying MacOS X 10.5, and another $30,000 for copying MacOS X 10.6. Not per copy, but for all copies made. Apparently Apple didn't see making computers, cracking OS X copy protection, duplicating the software, installing it, and then selling it, as "willful infringement", but just as ordinary infringement.

Except Limewire hasn't deliberately infringed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602716)

Except Limewire hasn't deliberately infringed since it's only just been decided by a court judge that by making it even possible to share, Limewire are contributory infringers.

It's hard to deliberately infringe when it takes a court decision to say whether you are or not...

Re:$150K per song? (3, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602536)

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Re:$150K per song? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603080)

Although I generally agree with you, it is logical to ask for damages that are higher than what you really lost. If I evade taxes to the tune of 1000$, and the court fines me for 1000$, I have no reason not to evade taxes again. Thats why I need to pay the 1000$ + statuary damages/added fines/etc.
The same is here. If the total damage you, allegedly, caused are 60$, the law suit should be for more than that, in order to deter you from doing it again. Of course, 150,000$ per song is excessive, but you catch my drift.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603646)

Okay fine but IRS fines are reasonable (a few hundred dollar fine), not $150,000 per line item on the tax form

Re:$150K per song? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603166)

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

Re:$150K per song? (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603270)

Who are now granted retroactive license to the tracks?

Re:$150K per song? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603334)

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

Either you advocate that the copyright holder find those individuals and go after each of them individually for the 3 copies each person made, or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.

Re:$150K per song? (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603686)

>>>Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

Not my problem. If I kill a guy, and then give the gun to somebody else who kills 3 more people, I'm not responsible for that. I'm only responsible for my OWN actions not those down the line. Similarly a son is not responsible for the crimes of the father. That form of justice was eliminated long ago.

Re:$150K per song? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603694)

Why should GP be held responsible for the actions of others? If he uploaded it three times, he violated the copyright three times, thats it! It is not a violation of copyright law to provide a song to someone who then goes and violate its copy right, otherwise best buy, itunes, etc. would be the biggest copyright violators. Or we might be able to go all the way back to the record labels them-selfs. If they never made the songs available, no one would have violated the copy right.

yea by people that would never buy it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603056)

so of course its worth a gillion dollars

Re:$150K per song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602376)

That's what happens when you let the RIAA set the price. I don't hear about anyone calling their members of congress about it.

Re:$150K per song? (5, Insightful)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602506)

To what end? It's not like the thousands (if not millions) of people who support the Arizona law are being listened to. I've given up on complaining to congress. They don't even listen when you threaten to have them voted out. Money talks in Washington and if you don't have money you aren't heard. I can't tell you how many times I've emailed congress (literally thousands of times) about various issues where I wasn't in the minority (or at least, the mostly non-vocal) with the position I held and I get the same old tired form response with a few key phrases tossed it to make it look like they even care.

Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products. If that means giving up your favorite bands, so be it. I'm willing to go completely indy (or even music-less) if it means someone finally listens. Don't give the RIAA your money. Don't go to concerts by member bands. Don't engage in gross copyright infringement of their members (or at all, really). The NMPA hasn't been hurt by this. They just want a piece of what they see as the gravy train. They are just another four-letter abbreviation. Stop consuming (this encompasses illegal downloading as well as legitimate purchases) products from their members, too. Turn to indy bands who have trader-friendly and file-sharing friendly policies. Turn to indy labels who have the same. Support those who support your point of view. Lobby the bands instead of congress. Enough people telling them that they will not consume their product at all will get them to change their point of view rather quickly. No music artist wants to be poor and destitute. No group can have concerts if no fans will show up.

This is a two-way street. If consuming their products lets them keep the old way of doing things, stop consuming their products.

*watches his karma go away*

Grocery store (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602642)

Stop buying RIAA member's products.

It's getting harder to find a grocery store that won't play music of an RIAA label over its speaker system.

Re:Grocery store (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602948)

no kidding.

Re:$150K per song? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602680)

1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services. The RIAA is a bunch of lawyers and office workers whose purpose is to go around suing people among other things.

2. Everything you say here will go largely unheard because the people who are buying don't come to slashdot and wouldn't listen if you took the message to the streets.

We live in a society filled with really stupid people doing a lot of really stupid things. Accept it and move on. You are preaching to the choir on this but you're also a bit wrong. It is pretty hard to escape contributing to the RIAA's food supply. First you have to stop buying music. Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows and listening to the radio because the music industry gets a cut when music is included in other works, performances, playbacks and presentations. And once you have done those two simple things, you have to convince the rest of the world to do the same thing. The first two parts are relatively trivial. That last part will prove to be impossible.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602876)

"First you have to stop buying music." - check

"Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows" - check

"convince the rest of the world to do the same thing." - crap, I KNEW there was a catch here somewhere!

We've all heard people referred to as "sheeple". It's not so "in" as it was just a few years ago, but we've all heard it. The flock is led just anywhere the shepherd wants it to go. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a shepherd. The flock prefers to follow some stupid pied piper. I guess they don't mind being sheared regularly.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603632)

I thought Mr 9mm was the shepherd?

Re:$150K per song? (0, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602728)

"Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products."

Negative. The only way to fix this, given what you say about congress, is to start killing RIAA members, AND congress members.

That's the ONLY way this bullshit will EVER stop, is to show them with absolute certainty that we will no longer tolerate this shit.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602748)

Poor and destitute bands? Not going to happen because people would have stopped buying their musics. The average Joe doesn't care about limewire lawsuits, RIAA and stuffs.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602966)

And that is completely the problem.

Re:$150K per song? (2, Insightful)

robinvanleeuwen (1009809) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602842)

You say to change this you need to stop buying RIAA members products, but that will only lead to "See, our sales dropped due to people who are illegally downloading our songs..." - arguments on their behalf, which leads to even more frantic prosecution of downloaders...

Re:$150K per song? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602880)

You obviously missed the part where I also said to stop downloading illegally.

And you missed the part (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603226)

And you missed the part where it doesn't matter whether there's any piracy at all. All the parent poster said was "our sales are falling. it must be pirates" as used. If there's no evidence of pirates, they must be hiding. they will (and you too) use circular reasoning to ensure that they get paid.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603244)

Stop buying RIAA member's products

No, stop sharing their music. If you want to stop this, stop putting their stuff up on torrent sites and limewire and YouTube and wherever else. If you want a song, go buy it on Amazon or wherever. I know they don't want you to rip a CD (or your friend's CD) and put their songs on your iPod either, but really that's uneforceable and not really worth worrying about.... Just stop sharing online.

Re:$150K per song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602396)

Sorry, but law has never been constrained by reality.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602892)

So I've noticed.

Re:$150K per song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602420)

I'm sure there are lots of songs that have brought in far, far more than that in royalties to their performers and writers, and profits to the publishers. Did Lamewiener cause $150m worth of harm? I doubt it, but the individual songs could certainly be worth far more than $150m. Michael Jackson bought the rights to a few hundred Beatles songs for $50mm back in the `80s. This is far more than $150m a tune, and represents some residual value after many of the songs had already been monetized for ten or twenty years.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602922)

And this represents a complete and utter failure in copyright law.

Re:$150K per song? (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602446)

Not even the greatest song in the world?

Not even as just a tribute to the greatest song in the world?

Re:$150K per song? (0, Offtopic)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602554)

Not even the greatest song in the world?

No, and I assume you mean "Muskrat Love" by The Captain and Tennille.

Re:$150K per song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602706)

RIP Dio!

You made your mark and it is lasting!

Re:$150K per song? (0, Redundant)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602824)

I bet you meant this [youtube.com] !

Re:$150K per song? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603020)

No he meant Tribute - Tenacious D

Re:$150K per song? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602626)

Depends on what you mean by "worth". If you mean what it can be sold for, you're absolutely correct. If you mean the benefit to its listener, you're absolutely wrong.

And that's why capitalism doesn't work well when we're talking about ideas and artistic creations - the societal benefits of an idea go up the more people have easy access, while the financial value of that same idea goes down. This is different from, say, a toaster, where selling one toaster has no effect on the financial value of another identical toaster. So in a capitalist system you always have a conflict between the people who want to maximize their financial reward for an idea (who will want to keep it under lock and key) and the people who want to maximize the societal reward for that same idea (who will want to spread it far and wide). Business folks tend to fall into the first camp, folks who are fans of whatever the ideas are about tend to fall into the second camp, and the people who actually come up with the ideas and art tend to be split between those who want to get rich and those who want to pursue fame.

Re:$150K per song? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603126)

" 'David Israelite, chief executive of the publishers' association, "

ISRAELITE?
You couldn't make it up!

So he's a JEW then - now there's a surprise!
A Jew who doesn't do manual labour - whatever next!
A Jew who thinks he should be allowed to screw the 'goyim' (cattle) out of money, just because he's a Jew...

Re:$150K per song? (1)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603312)

Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.

Agreed... in fact, some bands should pay me to listen to their music.

Re:$150K per song? (0, Troll)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603502)

Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.

CNET no longer hosts the program.

But LimeWire was Download.com's most successful P2P app - with 206,669,520 downloads.
241,000 downloads a week in March. LimeWire 5.5.7 [cnet.com]

The mp3 track retails for about $1.

The feature length video $15-$30. The video rental $1 to $5.

LimeWire profited from the unlicensed distribution of legally protected content on an unprecedented scale.

Disney can produce a "High School Musical" for $10 million dollars, then franchise the product for amateur production, ice shows, theme parks and so on.

The tween audience - mostly female - is on the fringes of the P2P demographic, and the return from video sales and rentals should be largely untouched.

But strip away $200 million in revenues and productions like Star Trek or The Dark Knight with $200 million dollar budgets become much harder to justify and finance.

The geek's file-sharing habits can have a real, negative, impact on production of the films he most wants to see.

Re:$150K per song? (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603540)

Really not? Keep printing US dollars en masse, and the almost certain hyperinflation will soon take care of the rest. $150,000 will seem like small change when a coffee costs over $1,000,000,000.

David Israelite? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602312)

Boy, these fucking Jews are getting ballsy - openly declaring who they are out in the open. Back in the good days, Jews used German and Anglo names because they knew that a pogrom would be around the corner otherwise if they were found out so easily.

Re:David Israelite? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602360)

Always remember the three rules of Jew Gold:

1) That which is not Jew Gold is just Gold.
2) Your Gold will soon become Jew Gold.
3) There is never enough Jew Gold.

Way too high (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602370)

$0.15/song maybe, but certainly not $150k/song

Really? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602410)

$150,000/song? Why not all of the money on the planet Earth or anything of value in solar system? That sounds like a more reasonable sum.

Re:Really? (3, Interesting)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602682)

I think the parent brings up a good point, albeit sarcastically:

Why not just play this out? Isn't there some legal strategy LimeWire could pursue to not only continue losing (while taking it to higher and higher courts), but to increase their damages by orders of magnitude each time? After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain, surely someone somewhere will realize something was wrong with that picture.

On a related note, has anyone ever sat down and thought of bankrupting the music industry with legal fees? That is to say, to make their legal bills exceed their revenue, and for all defendants to basically be unable to pay a dime? They would see dollar signs all the way until they starved to death...

Re:Really? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602820)

After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain

Unfortunately that would not actually lead to a recognition that these damage sums are too high; rather, it would simply lead to a conclusion that there is no valid way for Limewire to do its business, and it would be shut down. Now, if we were dealing with an individual being required to pay these ridiculous amounts of money, then we might see some real reform. "Might" is the operative word there...

Scape Goat (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602414)

Why not sue CD-Drive manufactures, for allowing cds to be downloaded to harddrives to be shared. Sue Cisco for allowing p2p traffic to go across their networks. Sue Microsoft just because they suck. Or you could work on adjusting your failing business structure.

Re:Scape Goat (2, Insightful)

raving griff (1157645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602484)

The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media. Prosecute the guy who tells you their guns are for shooting people, not the guy who tells your their guns are for hunting.

Re:Scape Goat (2, Interesting)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602522)

Even if both guns work exactly the same?

Re:Scape Goat (2, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602656)

Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.

If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.

Sell a car for the intended purpose of travel, fine. Sell a car for the intended purpose of running down kids in school zones?

Re:Scape Goat (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602958)

Even if both guns work exactly the same?

Open up a chemical supply store. Same chemical two product advertisements:

1. Ammonium Nitrate - Excellent fertilizer for your grape vines.
2. Ammonium Nitrate - As seen in Oklahoma City. (Customers who purchased this item also purchased Fuel Oil)

Context matters.

Re:Scape Goat (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603240)

No, that isn't true. I have new manufactured dragunov sniper from the US. In the user manual it explains how to calculate distance by placing a human in the Bullet Drop Compensator. Other scopes with Bullet Drop Compensators are similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distance_meas.png [wikipedia.org]

Re:Scape Goat (4, Interesting)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602570)

The last time I checked. They have an agreement you must check that says you will not pirate media. Limewire has legal uses and illegal uses. If a product has a legal use, but the user uses it for an illegal use it isn't the manufacture’s fault, but the consumer who did the illegal action. That is why it is not illegal to make and sell guns, even though they can be used for crime.

Re:Scape Goat (3, Informative)

Kirijini (214824) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603320)

If a product has a legal use, but the user uses it for an illegal use it isn't the manufacture’s fault, but the consumer who did the illegal action.

That's the Betamax doctrine. [wikipedia.org]

Limewire was sued under the inducement doctrine. [wikipedia.org] If a manufacturer or provider of a service induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable. I don't know the specifics for Limewire, but they probably, at some point in the past, advertised Limewire as helping users download music, movies, games, etc. without having to pay for them. There are probably also internal company emails in which the executives/managers acknowledge that illegal use is important for the success of the product. These were the things that got Grokster in deep shit.

The betamax doctrine isn't much of a shield to secondary liability anymore, at least when the manufacturer/service provider's business is greatly benefited from the copyright infringement.

Re:Scape Goat (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603622)

Just think if we could sue any company that provides a product/service that could potentially used for illegal activities...

Re:Scape Goat (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602744)

"The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media"

You're wrong about that. That was FROSTWIRE that did that, as Limewire is open source (stupid move when you're trying to charge for a pro version that only needs a single bit flipped to become pro) and Frostwire made the 'pro' version available for free. Frostwire actively advertised the piracy aspect.

Seen an ISP display their usage caps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603012)

Seen an ISP display their usage caps?

Our usage cap of 15GB is equivalent to

3000 MP3's
30 CD albums
15 hours of DVD-quality MPEG4 movies

So how come this isn't the same as Limwire's ad? Hell, it's WORSE.

Re:Scape Goat (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602516)

You must be young. They have done that (or at least very similar) before.

Re:Scape Goat (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602928)

You must be old because you assume others are young. I did study the BetaMax, Napster, and other similar cases when I was in college.

FrostWire (1)

FeatherBoa (469218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602422)

I switched to FrostWire a while ago. I'd be interested to see how they try and come after an open source project.

Re:FrostWire (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602502)

I'd be interested to see how they try and come after an open source project.

1. Sue major developer.
2. If more major developers exist, GOTO 1.
3. Watch project die swiftly and efficiently.
4. ???
5. Profit!

In this case, I'm legitimately wondering what they think 4 is.

Re:FrostWire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602660)

That model would hold if there were centralized servers. Now that the software is out there, decentralized, the model is closer to the following:

1. Sue major developer
2. If more major developers exist, GOTO 1.
3. Barring Raptor Attack [xkcd.com] at 2, ponder why the network is still intact
4. Small developers make lesser known software to tie into existing network
5. Shit a brick, try and sue individuals
6. ???
7. Profit

Re:FrostWire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602858)

Sort of difficult to connect to a decentralized network if the client software to do so has been litigated out of existence (or at least out of any updates) with the precedent to litigate future software similarly out of existence if the first major developer eats it...

Re:FrostWire (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602972)

3. Watch project die swiftly and efficiently.

More like: 3. Watch all the development activity move to China, and to other countries that don't give a fuck about keeping the record companies happy.

Re:FrostWire (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602508)

Do you really think that by virtue of being GPLed, the project is immune? Lawsuits can still be filed against the developers, and worse yet, those developers may contribute code as individuals -- opening themselves up to personal bankruptcy should a judge rule against them. Look at what happened with GPLed DVD playing software.

Re:FrostWire (1)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602834)

The next obvious step would be anonymous developpers hidding behind an alias. Think Tor, untraceable Onion websites, that kind of thing. If you can't find the identity of the developper, who are you going to sue?

Re:FrostWire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602696)

Limewire is an opensource project.

http://wiki.limewire.org/index.php?title=Buildcode

Re:FrostWire (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602766)

Umm, you do realize Limewire is the open source project and Frostwire is the modified version made to be pro for free?

With Jews You Lose (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602428)

$150,000 per song?

You have got to be kidding me! Only a hook-nosed Jew would think that is fair?

How many 'elected' officials did you have to bribe to get those kind fines written in to the law?

David 'Kike" Israelite is a good example of why people rightly hate Jews. Just when I feel like I can't hate Jews any more than I already do, this fucking shlomo shows up to prove that Jews are a race of greedy, thieving, rats.

Still in use? (1)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602454)

I'm most suprised that people still use LimeWire!

Re:Still in use? (1)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602968)

you and me both.

Book Publishers Sue Private Lending Libraries (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602474)

That's exactly what this sounds like. What we need is a government sanctioned music lending service.

Re:Book Publishers Sue Private Lending Libraries (1, Interesting)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602518)

That works for books because they are physical objects. We're dealing with digital data. There is no such thing as "lending" in the digital world, something that book publishers will now have to deal with since e-books are becoming popular. They got a free ride so far while the music and film industry had to grapple with this concept, and they still haven't figured it out.

The closest thing to a public library (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602684)

The closest thing to a public library would be one of those online jukebox services that charges a monthly fee, such as Napster. Except instead of end users paying the fee, the county would pay the fee out of tax revenue.

Re:Book Publishers Sue Private Lending Libraries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602622)

That's exactly what this sounds like. What we need is a government sanctioned music lending service.

Oh, like a library, perhaps?

Why Limewire? (1)

atrain728 (1835698) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602494)

I mean, if we're going to attack the P2P sites of yesteryear, let's go after Morpheus, Kazaa, and Napster while we're at it.

SSDD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602524)

I can't wait for all the sharing sites to be shutdown and the record companies just wont get why sales are still down. Most music is so bad now it's only worth nothing.. as in if it's not free then I just will never listen to it. I own nearly all the music I want and the artists won't be making more anytime soon.

now confident that they had a winning case (2, Informative)

hAckz0r (989977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602544)

More like, now that someone else won a victory in court, with no valid data to support the verdict, they feel it should be easy enough to point a finger at that verdict and tell the court "me too". Its a lot easier to sit back and wait for someone else to set a legal president and jump on the moving band wagon than it is to push that wagon uphill in the first place. LimeWire may be guilty as hell for aiding and abetting a crime under the US copyright laws, but they did not download any songs, period. To force them to pay 'per song' is a farce no matter what the price, because there is no substantial proof of them ever downloading songs. Someone else did that.

Not their fault (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602562)

They didn't know that their service was going to be used to reproduce non-free content! It can't be stopped! It's the user's fault, and since they can't be tracked, there's no point suing anyone. It's like suing the MP3 format, TCP, HTTP or Google. It just ain't gonna happen.

Can Indie artists get in on the lawsuit bandwagon? (2, Interesting)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602574)

If they are getting 150K for ANY song then can I get at least get 100K per song of my greatest hits album. (That people on Limewire might have downloaded by accident).

Yes, you could (1)

TheMadScot (1835772) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602836)

Just register the work with the Copyright Office and, if someone rips it off, you could file suit for up to $150,000 statutory damages - see 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2)

In awarding statutory damages courts may consider, among other factors, the expenses saved and the profits earned by the defendant, the revenues lost by the plaintiff, the deterrent effect on the defendant and third parties and the conduct and attitude of the defendant. Accordingly, statutory damages for willful infringement may be partially punitive in nature and may exceed the amount necessary for compensation.

Of course the trick here is to find legal representation that will be happy to file suit without it costing you an arm and a leg to get to court in the first place... something that those with deep pockets predicate on when they rip off Joe Public...

It's Kazaa all over again (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602586)

They target Limewire because they made the mistake of having a company at the forefront of their P2P application. Companies make nice, big targets for lawsuits.

BitTorrent, on the other hand, has the necessity to give people the IP addresses of their peers, since it's a functional requirement to get the data, so the obvious targets are the peers themselves.

*continues downloading through more anonymous means*

if they were corepirate nazi illuminatians (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32602670)

a good scolding, & some feign of remorse would cover it. what's all this tripe about freedumb anyway? if it doesn't cost much more than it's worth, it must not be very good?

the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

"The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

boeing, boeing, gone.

Why did music rental never catch on in the US? (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602704)

I lived in Tokyo for a while about 10 years ago. At that time you could rent CDs at any music store for about $1. I never saw a service like this pop up in the US, but I assume it would have been very popular. I know I would have used it.

Re:Why did music rental never catch on in the US? (1)

LinuxAndLube (1526389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603040)

Yes, but those CDs had rootkits on them.

The sad thing is... (4, Interesting)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602726)

...that when LimeWire usage peaked there was no really viable online music store in most parts of the world. So basically the publishers ignored the market, the market supplied to it's own demand, and now the publishers seem to think they are entitled to ridiculous sums of money?

Sad.

Re:The sad thing is... (5, Insightful)

tholomyes (610627) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603074)

The other sad thing is that if the publishers do win anything from this lawsuit, none of it will go to the people that actually made the music.

Re:The sad thing is... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603688)

no, whats sad is a bunch of ignorant cunts on slashdot trying to pretend piracy is fine and justified, so they dont feel like the tight assed leeches that they are.
another typical day in bullshit-hippie slashdotville

Limewire destroys HDDs (1)

snowboardin159 (1744212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602752)

Im not sure why people still use limewire, viruses RIAA tracking etc. I remember a time when limewire was filled with junk files that were the beginning of the song and then horrible annoying sounds midway through. Ive also seen a few peoples HDDs completely fail from using limewire, and theres a massive amount of spyware in it, and is really really hard to remove from a system, even from a non noob user.

Re:Limewire destroys HDDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603322)

I shamefully admit that I once worked for a company that was responsible for poisoning limewire. We eventually gave up on it because the RIAA didn't want to actually pay for the service.

These fines will destroy copyright law (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602758)

One of the things that I find really unjust about our system, taken as a whole (which is dangerous in a federal system, I know, but bear with me) is that when a normal person is robbed, the state gets to fine the robber and keep the money. The victim of the theft is left with some abstract "justice" in the form of an imprisoned thief and the state pockets the fine instead of transferring it, tax free, to the victim of the theft.

No government, not in the even the feds, turn over the fine directly to the victim of a real theft, but they want to enable $150k in damages for a copy of a song that retails for a $0.99?

The average man gets, at best, a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that "justice is served." He cannot beat or shoot the guy robbing him blind unless the robber is also menacing him, so in many cases, common citizens cannot even use force to defend their property as they see it being stolen. Yet, the feds hand over a court room nuclear weapon to big corporations...

Yeah, that'll end well for the system's legitimacy.

LimeWire? (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602806)

Pardon my ignorance, and I suppose I could use Google and all that... But who uses LimeWire these days? What kind of network is it using, and is there content there that you can't find elsewhere? I've always found a combination of BitTorrent and eMule to work well.

Re:LimeWire? (1)

Voyager529 (1363959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603124)

The people I know who use Limewire are teens, tweens, and nontechnical college kids. Limewire uses the Gnutella G2 protocol, though it can also handle bittorrent downloads as well. Content, I'm guessing, is fairly consistent between the eMule and Gnutella networks. Bittorrent works well for complete albums, but is a bit less adept at working for single songs (which is what most of my limewire using friends tend to do).

Like most things in life - especially technical ones, popularity and ease of use trump technical merits. Install Limewire. Search for song. Download. Listen. That's essentially what it does, and enough people use it that it's become the de facto standard for less technically minded people. Limewire came into popularity after Kazaa and Morpheus faded into oblivion, and Napster before it. It was embraced and made popular by the nontechnical masses, many of whom believed that paying the one time $20 fee "made it legal".

the real reason limewire is being sued: (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32602840)

the founder has gobs of cash:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/business/media/24limewire.html [nytimes.com]

Mark Gorton is a confident guy. He's confident about his ideas. He's confident about his enthusiasms. And he's confident that his successes -- like making money on Wall Street and promoting alternative transportation in New York -- provide a record that backs him up.

But that confidence faces a new test. Two weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that he and the popular file-sharing service he created, LimeWire, were liable for copyright infringement and could be forced to pay up to $450 million in damages.

Mr. Gorton, 43, says he did not think it would come to this point. He thought that the record industry, sometime since the lawsuit was filed in 2006, would come to appreciate his vision for the future of LimeWire -- a paid subscription service providing unlimited downloads of licensed songs -- and want to join forces instead of continuing litigation.

"Perhaps I was naïve," Mr. Gorton said in an interview last week at LimeWire's office near Chinatown in Manhattan. "If I knew when the lawsuit started what I know now about the music industry, maybe we would have done something different."

first wall street trader i ever felt sorry for. his other passion is alternative transportation: he rides his bike to work every day. not your average wall street sleazeball

and he idealistically thought that an honest p2p play was a good idea, downplaying the shortsighted sociopathology of the music publishing industry. bad bet

now if limewire were some open source project with nothing but pseudoanonymous college students behind it, it would still be sued into oblivion, but there would be no follow up lawsuit seeking to drain the defendants of all their worth. this guy, on the other hand, is going to made destitute, simply for the crime of thinking positively about the real future of media. unfortunately, the zombie legal past of media has marked him for death

music industry: the next limewire won't be fronted by anyone, and there will be no way to block it, and no one to sue. the internet has permanently changed the legal status quo of media. you have a bunch of laws from the days of vinyl records, that are simply unenforceable in the age of the internet. your job now is shut up and die, blood sucking assholes

YOU'RE NOT NEEDED ANYMORE. YOU AND YOUR UNENFORCEABLE LAWS ARE A HISTORICAL ANACHRONISM. JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY

Blood meet Stone. (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603054)

What is the point. Its not like Limewire actually HAS any money. You can sue them for 100 million or 10 Quadrillion, it doesn't matter as you won't ever see it.

The only thing I can see is the industry trying to set precedent for awarding maximum statutory damages. Which IMO is totally wrong in the first place. Does ANY sane person actually really believe that 150k punishment actually suits the crime for COPYING ONE SONG. It is just silly.

Blood from a stone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32603344)

Good luck with that...

I am sure glad your time is almost up.

Breath-taking hypocrisy (1)

clustro (1811836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32603634)

Someone else noted that the music industry typically sues people for downloading 10 songs or 20 songs. But why do they never sue anyone for downloading thousands of songs, who are ostensibly "damaging" their industry the most? The answer is that the music industry knows that the big fines are not there as a deterrent to actual crime, but psychological warfare. I am sure there is more than one person in the world who has a 1-TB drive full of songs. According to my calculations, someone could be sued for $35 billion. The public would either laugh, or be outraged.

My question is this: where would the $35 billion in damage be? The punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Ostensibly, if someone is being fined a huge amount of money, they should have caused a proportional amount of harm. In the case of the lowly music downloader, there is no physical or financial harm caused to anyone.

The hypocrisy comes from the cozy treatment of Wall Street, who caused trillions of dollars with risky subprime mortgage speculation. No fines. No jail time. No electric chair. In fact, they were rewarded by Congress with a bailout for their good work and years of service to the party apparatus.

The take home message from Congress: Anger the 1st Estate (the political class), and you're going to jail. Anger the 2nd estate (the corporate elite), and you'll be fined into oblivion. Anger the 3rd estate (the sheeple), and riches will be yours.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>