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 Lives Again

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the there's-a-lesson-here dept.

Movies 278

Slayer Silver Wolf writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "'On October 26 the remaining LimeWire developers were forced to shut down the company's servers and modify remote settings in the filesharing client to try to harm the Gnutella network. They were then laid off. Shortly after, a horde of piratical monkeys climbed aboard the abandoned ship, mended its sails, polished its cannons, and released it free to the community.' And so, LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE) was born. Based on the LimeWire 5.6 beta that was briefly released earlier this year and then withdrawn when Lime Wire LLC lost its lawsuit, LPE is now in the wild. In many ways, it is better than the version killed by the RIAA."

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

This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172456)

This makes my day

I for one... (0)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172464)

welcome the new and improved pirate version.
Good fileshaRRRing mates!

Re:I for one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173222)

lol limewire [apirate.info]

Why (5, Insightful)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172470)

Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

Re:Why (1)

tacktick (1866274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172522)

True. If I saw it on a computer I would uninstall it immediately

Re:Why (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174060)

I would also take the step of immediately terminating with prejudice the wise guy who installed it, and possibly anyone in IT whose failure to properly supervise the network allowed it to persist.

Re:Why (4, Funny)

martinux (1742570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172568)

It's a wonderful reminder to the companies attempting to shut down such services that it's almost completely impossible.

I think the fact that they can say, "we're back" less than a month after a court 'killed' the service is going to be very disappointing to the RIAA/MPAA and other international equivalents.

Their legal representation probably just threw an impromptu party though.

Re:Why (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172844)

Yep, I'm thinking of starting to use just to spite them, even though I've never used it before (maybe I installed a couple of times to test it, dunno).

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173196)

exactly... you can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man

Re:Why (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173252)

exactly... you can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man

Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system (if/when we ever move past Bittorrent).

It is definitely fun though seeing these groups futility playing their little game of whack-a-mole.

Re:Why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173852)

exactly... you can't catch me I'm the Gingerbread Man

Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system (if/when we ever move past Bittorrent).

It is definitely fun though seeing these groups futilely playing their little game of whack-a-mole.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172572)

You'd be surprised. [youropenbook.org] Plenty of ignorants out there who only know this piracy method, and are too dumb to work out torrents / filehosting services, let alone FTP / IRC / Usenet.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172574)

Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

I used Limewire back in 'the day.' I still have it on my computer. I don't use it often anymore, because I just go ahead and pay the small price they ask when I want to obtain music. The times I *do* use it is when I have an obscure song stuck in my head, or I hear something on a movie soundtrack I can't obtain elsewhere, or similar situations. I have a new job. I'm not a computer programmer, nor do I have any inclination to be (nothing against them). It works, I find what I want, and I see no reason to change to the file sharing software du jour unless I need to. Why you were modded insightful is beyond me.

Re:Why (5, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172632)

Having an ecosystem of different file sharing software and protocols is valuable insofar as it makes it harder to prevent all file sharing. Assuming you don't want to shut down all file sharing of course. The authorities tend to focus on whatever are the protocols du jour (at the moment bittorrent and rapidshare-type file lockers), but meanwhile you have all sorts of protocols from the past like gnutella, dc++, edonkey etc still happily working away mostly under the radar. I'd guess if you're sharing stuff you'd be less likely to land an enforcement notice if you're using a more obscure protocol. Maybe you might escape notice of deep packet inspection systems and so avoid throttling by your ISP, if they have implemented that.

Just guessing, but in any case it seems sensible not to just assume that bittorrent is the apotheosis of file-sharing, and that nothing else will ever be useful.

Re:Why (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172984)

It's valuable to the self-interested, selfish 'the fucking world owes em free stuff' self-righteous arrogant cunts on slashdot yes.
For everyone who actually makes digital content that the rest of you just fucking steal, no it is not a good thing.
When are you dumbass thieving hippy cunts going to wake up?

Re:Why (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173040)

I make digital content.

I don't think they steal.

I'd rather they but the stuff, certainly, and would encourage then to do so but it turns out a lot of them actually do buy a decent amoutn of media as well as pirating.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173086)

It's valuable to the self-interested, selfish 'the fucking world owes em free stuff' self-righteous arrogant cunts on slashdot yes.
For everyone who actually makes digital content that the rest of you just fucking steal, no it is not a good thing.
When are you dumbass thieving hippy cunts going to wake up?

So I guess that means you're a porn star?

Literally, sucks to be you.

Re:Why (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173146)

Boo-hoo... the filthy pirates are taking away my government-granted monopoly!

Seriously, could we all grow up a little? We can have an honest discussion about copyright without resorting to name-calling.

Re:Why (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173198)

We can have an honest discussion about copyright without resorting to name-calling.

Not here, we can't. You must be new here.

Re:Why (-1, Troll)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174152)

Boo-hoo... the filthy pirates are taking away my government-granted monopoly!

Seriously, could we all grow up a little? We can have an honest discussion about copyright without resorting to name-calling.

Okay, let's see someone defending copyright and then watch the calm, measured, well thought out reactions.

Or, more likely, "you are a fascist record company shill who shoots puppies while snorting cocaine through one million dollar notes"

Re:Why (1, Troll)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173308)

The problem basically stems from people having zero taste and diversity in music. When I was in my music sharing heyday, it was on Soulseek with a nice room full of friends who all enjoyed similar variations on harsh punk and noise music. Not a single one of the artists I found in my time there can be purchased on iTunes or found in even the dankest of dank music shops. Most recordings are live bootlegs captured off of vinyl from the 70s and 80s. I was never afraid of being sued because these bands were real, and never even had an indie label, let alone a big one.

The moral of the limewire/filesharing lawsuit stories? Get some taste.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173650)

It would seem logical, in a democracy, to say that the "best taste" was the taste shared by most people.

Have you ever considered that it might be you that has zero taste?

Re:Why (2, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173746)

Democracy doesn't mean that the majority is right, just that they are in power.

Re:Why (1)

laron (102608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173960)

So, McDonalds provides the best food?

Re:Why (1)

Rhodri Mawr (862554) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173750)

Live bootlegs were captured to tape not vinyl.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34174216)

You accuse other people for lack of taste and listen to harsh punk and noise? Nothing against those styles, or against anyone's taste, but if you're going to say something about other people's tastes, you might look at yours first. Plus punk music is quite popular and done in great quantities, I wouldn't say you're having "diversity" either (though I'm not sure what that means).

Re:Why (1)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174258)

Taste in this sense is not a "mine is better than yours" situation. I just mean get some. GET ANY. Have a god damn opinion. The radio is not your favorite band.

Re:Why (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172672)

It does have a small advantage that everything in the shared folder is shared. So if anyone on the network has that song you want you should be able to get hold of it. Torrents explicitly need to be seeded.

Re:Why (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172762)

Unless people constantly empty their "shared" folder....

Re:Why (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173180)

For most of the popular torrent clients du jour -- Transmission, Vuze, uTorrent, etc., as long as you don't later move the file, seeding is automatic as soon as you finish downloading. You have to either move the file from where you downloaded it, set a ratio limit to be reached, or otherwise manually stop seeding.

Re:Why (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173354)

True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you. I've had this happen several times before when all my torrents went dead for a few days until I noticed that the tracker was sending back a "Too many torrents" error message. Pruning the list of active torrents a bit returned it to normal.

Also, I'm not sure how true this is for other people, but for me, most files in torrents have an abhorrent naming convention, and just going into my giant default "Bittorrent Downloads" directory doesn't work well. Most stuff I'm going to rename and move to a more organized directory structure within a few days of download.

Don't get me wrong, I still use Bittorrent more than anything, but for older or less popular files, I often find them on the ED2k network via aMule. Downloads are like molasses, but sometimes that's ok depending on what you're trying to find.

Re:Why (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173506)

True, but some trackers will not allow you to seed more than a certain number of torrents before it stops accepting connections from you.

Who needs trackers? All of these clients support trackerless torrents.

Re:Why (2, Informative)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172914)

My cousin uses limewire. How do I know? I was called in to remove the layers of viruses, Trojans, and rootkits from the machine. As soon as I saw that Limewire was on the machine, I knew this was a lost cause.

Re:Why (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173618)

Maybe I am missing most of the malware & Limewire experience? First run of scanner found 56 virus & other malwares in my computer, all contained in directories of downloads & emails. Until installation & run of AV software, I had not known of any malwares or impaired computer operation, except that some email & some pirate bay files were rejected as corrupt files. What am I missing by not using any Microsoft? Fedora, Mandriva & Kubuntu have not given me any appreciation for magnificent new malwares.

Re:Why (2, Interesting)

bedwards (1937210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173088)

Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

You'r right. Limewire is utterly irrelevant as a file sharing service - but it makes a useful case study in the use of litigation to destroy a product. If this pirate edition is well accepted, and traffic on the gnutella network increases, Hopefully the people that sued them will learn that lengthy, costly ligation against software developers is utterly futile if the developers release the code into the wild and the software is back a month later. Hopefully those who develop efficient file sharing paradigms and technologies will realise the best possible protection from litigation is to open-source their software from the beginning (Frostwire never gaught on) to give the best possible guarantee that any legal action will, ultimately, be unsuccessful.

Re:Why (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173144)

>Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant

Wow, I guess you must not know 99% of the computer users out there....if I had a nickel for every time someone was using outdated software, or even used a process that was neanderthal in practice compared to today's other available options, I would be the new bill gates.

Re:Why (1)

subsonic (173806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173880)

Limewire and Myspace are two things that instantly signal that you're on the "shortbus" of the internet. Its like people who have aol.com email addresses and type "Facebook" into google... just facepalm-worthy stuff.

Arrh, me hearties! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172474)

Shiver me timbers, the good ship LimeWire sails again! We be sharin' the booty them thar lily-livered lawyers tried to keep away from us once again!

You can't win (1, Redundant)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172478)

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

really? (0, Offtopic)

tacktick (1866274) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172486)

Horde of piratical monkeys? Ouch That is like calling Micro$oft's developers a legion of mindless coding robots. Oh wait..

all this pataphysics makes my head hurt, I think. (2, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173776)

are piratical monkeys mortal enemies of robotic ninjas ?!

it's been said (4, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172504)

that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172822)

can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" correctly?

Re:can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infini (4, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174256)

atleast one can

Re:it's been said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172842)

does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys

No, they will sue them for damages.

Re:it's been said (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173070)

Too many high profile special interests are attached to either monkeys or keyboards. Therefore, the *IAA will have the FDA interrupt the normal food sources of monkeys; and require them to eat the same processed foods as humans. From the artificial preservatives and genetically engineered rape seed oil, the monkeys will eventually develop attitude problems and social dysfunction. Depending on the prevailing genetic traits of the monkeys, they will either recreate Linux or MS Windows.

Re:it's been said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173116)

They will seek to outlaw nothing, but they may sue for damages citing prior art.

Re:it's been said (2, Funny)

sorak (246725) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173200)

that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

If the RIAA has proven anything, it's that an infinite number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually write a series of Vin Diesel movies.

Re:it's been said (3, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173784)

To be fair, a Vin Diesel movie can be written by just 2 or 3 monkeys over the course of a week or so.

Re:it's been said (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174084)

Come on guys, there's no need to insult the monkeys.

I think it would be the Publishers' Guild of Ameri (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173284)

that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

I think the "*IAA" in this case is the Publishers' Guild of America, but I don't know. (I don't live in the USA, FWIW.)

[Also, starting a sentence in the subject and continuing it in the body annoys some people. Also also, it's `infin/i/te' and `/S/hakespe/are/'. JTYMLTK]

Re:I think it would be the Publishers' Guild of Am (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174096)

I don't worry about annoying people. However thank you for the markup, I will make those corrections before submitting my final draft.

Re:it's been said (2)

VShael (62735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173338)

that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

Neither, since Shakespeares works are in the Public domain and we don't have an infinite amount of time.

However, Dan Browns novels will take a dozen monkeys about two weeks, so I think you might be on to something there.

Re:it's been said (3, Insightful)

debrain (29228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173770)

that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere

Wouldn't an infinite number of monkeys instantaneously recreate the works of Shakespeare, or one monkey working for an infinite amount of time?

Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

Re:it's been said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34174196)

Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

The rational numbers are infinite, the irrational numbers are infinite, add them together and you have the real numbers, which is a "larger" infinite set than the rational numbers (and probably the irrationals, though I can't say for sure since I've never attempted that proof).

I do agree with you, though. I've never understood why you'd need infinite monkeys and infinite time.

Re:it's been said (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174202)

You mean + != 2??

Re:it's been said (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174220)

Never mind, my symbols seem to have been dropped.

Re:it's been said (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174250)

I think you just showed the meaninglessness of using the word "infinity" in a physical context.

"An incomprehensibly large number" does not mean the same as "an infinite number". There are not an infinite number of particles in the universe.

Re:it's been said (1)

j_sp_r (656354) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174234)

Won't a finite number of monkeys working for infinite time or a infinite number of monkeys working for a finite time also recreate the works of Shakespeare?

Limewire??? (2, Interesting)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172508)

Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

Re:Limewire??? (2, Insightful)

PARENA (413947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172554)

Specifically Spotify: because it's only available in a few countries, duh.

Spotify Not Available to Me (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172576)

Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org] ? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

But yes, I avoid LimeWire like the plague after several spyware debacles and am kind of curious why, if LimeWire's servers are down, you would use it over Gnutella when the networks it is connecting to are (I assume) all of Gnutella's servers?

Hell, I would assume FrostWire is still a viable and better choice ...

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172674)

Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org]? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

Blame proprietary software (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172742)

Hm let's see...proprietary...proprietary...proprietary...I think we can see what the problem is here.

Proprietary software is designed to keep people divided like this.

Re:Blame proprietary software (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173788)

Mostly to pander the old divided world that technically came into being thanks to differences in tech choices, but that the industry later learned to harness for economic gains (staggered movie releases, anyone?). High speed net connections (especially flat rate and always on, allowing many2one p2p transfers) have thrown a very big wrench into this, and what we are seeing is the trashing of a dying animal (lawsuits, more draconian laws and more). This as at least one nation appears to have bet the national economy on the "IP" market staying the same forever.

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

crackerjack911 (49510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172874)

We'll do that when the Brits give us access to BBC iplayer!

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34172972)

Someone should create a service that matches Americans who want access to iPlayer with Brits who want access to Hulu. Each user would send data to their peers and receive data from their peers, and everyone would get to watch what they wanted. We could call it... I don't know... peer to peer?

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

compgenius3 (726265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173690)

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

crackerjack911 (49510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173970)

Awesome! I'd gladly pay a monthly fee for that (depending on quality of service and selection of course).

Oh, Yeah in America, We Get Everyone's TV Shows (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172916)

Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

This gets modded informative? Some guy bitching offtopic that he can't get his American TV shows when he lives in Europe? On a thread about LimeWire?

What, do I have access to all of Great Britain's television shows? Do I have access to all the programming in Spain or Sweden? Do you think, for some reason, that because we're Americans we have everything over here? Heads up, we're supposed to be the idiots!

Why is it when distribution contracts prevent you from enjoying something over Hulu, you only think about it in one direction? You think I enjoy that I can't find subtitled Anime on Hulu? Or the latest offerings of British comedy? A bit self centered for you to only consider that you're not being subjected to American Television, wouldn't you say?

And then, when I point out that Spotify is only in parts of Europe, somehow you're justified in accusing all Americans as unable to 'realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store.' Oh well, let me assure you that I know your situation all too well. And I'm pretty much at the mercy of Adult Swim to bring me The Mighty Boosh and FLCL -- and I'm lucky enough to know of their existence!

You want to switch? You know what's popular over here is twice as shitty as anything that Europe could possibly produce. You want The Jersey Shore over there? Hmmm? You want to trade some television shows? I'd really really like to do that.

I'm not stupid enough to say "us Americans will" like you seemed to be able to do with all of Europe but trust me, I suffer too from these distribution deals and lack thereof. Normally I just play the part of the ignorant drunk pompous American prick but it's hard to do when posts like yours are labeled "informative."

On behalf of America, on behalf of our lawyers, on behalf of your inability to access our TV shows, I apologize. Do you really think that every American is scheming to keep our precious reality TV from your eyes? Or that none of us realize what specifically is going on? I significant portion of the population understands distribution of copyrighted material with the advent of the internet. We're not all morons over here.

Re:Oh, Yeah in America, We Get Everyone's TV Shows (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173436)

Do you really think that every American is scheming to keep our precious reality TV from your eyes?

Hmmm? We're not? We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little Europeans. Wicked, tricksy, false!

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172964)

There are more Americans than there are Europeans who live in a country that gets Spotify. Plus, this is a US site.

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173782)

How come it's not on a .us domain then?

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173112)

I'm European too and I can't access Spotify, you insensitive clod! Europe has more than seven countries, you know?

Re:Spotify Not Available to Me (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173178)

Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere ...

Everywhere? It's not even available in all European countries?

Re:Limewire??? (1)

RyuhoKudo (1911368) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172730)

because it doesn't give you tentacle porn

Evolution of the fittest (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172514)

Shut down a losing concept, and another improved version will take its place.

You'd think they would have learned (3, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172624)

This sort of evolutionary jump is precisely what happened when they sued Napster. These people must think that there is some sort of upper bound on technological development, and that if they keep suing, eventually file sharing will die.

Of course, these are the people who tried to block FM radio, so I guess I should not be too surprised.

Re:You'd think they would have learned (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172944)

Well yeah, but if you take the example you gave... look at where FM is right now: full of rules and copyright laws. You can't just setup a radio transmitter and start giving any music you want to your listeners. So IMHO they kinda won that battle.

Re:You'd think they would have learned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34173546)

napster? talk about when they closed down suprnova... all the main sites now started as mirrors the hour after it was closed and are now all full fledged torrent sites that aren't tied together anymore

these record people are just complete morons and should be address the laws and regulations and now individuals because together we're clearly bigger and better

the record companies would have made more money buying ISPs rather than targeting individuals and paying crook lawyers with no ethics

Re:Cut off the money (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173166)

The difference here is, someone was making money selling LimeWire to people for the purpose of downloading music. Now there's no one benefitting financially.

It's the difference between making a copy of a CD for your friend, and making a copy of a CD and selling it to someone. The latter is what most people think of as actual copyright related piracy (as opposed to boat-related piracy). Selling copied, fake, or otherwise unauthorized goods.

Keep in mind, when Microsoft talks about cracking down on piracy, it usually means the people who buy a single copy of Windows and make money selling Windows to other people, usually for way less than the market price. They aren't worried about the people who don't pay, they are worried about people who are willing to pay the wrong people.

Similar situation here. People are willing to pay LimeWire for the software instead of spend that money towards buying legitimately. We can start an argument about how it should be a strong message that they should change their business model - resurrect any article on the music industry and it's all been hashed out, that's not my point. My point is it's not about the lessons they didn't learn with Napster. It's about stopping someone from making money selling a product whose primary purpose is to infringe. Regardless of whether it should be illegal, it happens to be illegal to do that in the places LimeWire was operating.

file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172598)

chop off its head, and ten grow back

the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet. since that's not going to happen, and because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media, guess what: game over

simple economics 101 have spoken: filesharing is here to stay, and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo

economics is about supply and demand. the internet is disruptive media. it is disruptive, because it changes the basic technology, and therefore the basic economics, of media distribution: one teenager in 2010 has more global reach and distribution power than bertelsmann, time warner, sony, etc., in 1985

so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible. you can't enforce a marketplace form a dead technological era on us

people will still make money off of music, movies, etc.: ancillary real world revenues. like concerts, like cinema houses. avatar is the most profitable movie ever made... all in movie houses. concerts reap millions for artists. but DVDs, CDs... it's all going away. artistry is not dying, only the useless middleman. do not weep for him and do not believe his trollish pronouncements about hurting the artist. sure it will take time, and the death throes will be mighty, but the writing is on the wall. game over

there is nothing for you to do, dear old school media distributors, save one thing: just hurry up and die already

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172648)

the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet

Even that is not really true; consider this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_n_Edie's [wikipedia.org]

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

Captain Murdock (906610) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172700)

OVER 16+ GIGS!!!!

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (-1, Offtopic)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173184)

Yet file sharing lives on beyond Rusty n Edie's BBS.
I have to agree with the original statement.

the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

dwandy (907337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172704)

because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media

Tho I agree with your post the problem is that they won't be spending their own money to monitor the 'net. They have already co-opted law enforcement to go after digital pirates and they want the ISPs to bear the cost of monitoring.
So ultimately all these costs of monitoring and enforcement are then born by us, but the profits remain theirs.

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172868)

you can't beat the internet.

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173244)

the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet.

Not really, no. They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server (datacenters would be allowed to have incoming connections), which would be easier to track and kill.

Sure, a few services like Skype would die too, but most of the Web wouldn't really be affected.

This is already happening in part, with ISPs natting clients en mass.

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (1)

Sir Cypher (1286342) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173456)

file sharing is the hydra of geek legend

FTFY

Re:file sharing is the hydra of greek legend (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34174070)

so when the cost associated with supply = $0

Not quite true. There is a cost associated with supply, which is development. Music doesn't spawn out of some nexus on its own, after all. Someone has to write the lyrics and score the music. That takes time, and time can be quantified monetarily. Granted, the creation only has to be done once for each piece of music.. That means the cost can potentially spread out over millions of files. It's just that it will never quite equal 0.

Sweet! (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172690)

Virus-ridden music files are now free again!

obligatory Obi-Wan (-1, Redundant)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172764)

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...."

Needs the obligatory Firefly comment (1)

AskFirefly (757114) | more than 3 years ago | (#34172918)

From Serenity: "Can't stop the signal."

Re:Needs the obligatory Firefly comment (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#34174032)

That would be "I'm a lime on a wire, see how i seed".

Re:Needs the obligatory Firefly comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34174200)

I don't believe that ended well.

piratical monkeys? (1)

zarmanto (884704) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173010)

Shouldn't that be "...a horde of piratical code monkeys..."?

Arise O'le Lime (1)

ovette_pta (1930698) | more than 3 years ago | (#34173494)

Have been using LimeWire way back its a good source of songs that are very very hard to find, and its also a good source of virus as well. Good thing I'm using Linux while doing this.

I haven't been using this for quiet a very long time, I'm not really into music that much anyway, I was kind a sad when it 'died'. But I'm also kind of surprise that somebody's taken it over again! After the battle LimeWire went through. It's going to be another chasing game.

We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs [pathtoasia.com] for details.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?