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 Settles For $105 Million

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the pocket-change dept.

The Courts 167

eldavojohn writes "LimeWire has settled its suit with the RIAA for $105 million. It's several orders of magnitude lower than the $1.5 trillion initially demanded by the RIAA, but it ends a nearly five-year legal battle. P2P networks take heed; the monster may start looking for other targets."

cancel ×

167 comments

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

Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (4, Interesting)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119966)

There is plenty of music that is free and legally free. Find small artists that release MP3s then buy an album from them if you like enough (Edgen). Use Spotify if you can.

Buy second hand, RIAA gets nothing. I can live without new music. If you can't control your impulses, RIAA will never die. I'm waiting for the most recent Duran Duran album to get cheaper.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120000)

I am all for this, actually. I feel that small time musicians should setup a "donation" page on their website through paypal or something, which allows their fans to pay them directly for music.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120012)

Doesn't RIAA, or at least some of its members, own Spotify?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120116)

Not RIAA, but some of the large record companies do own a part of Spotify. However, they don't own even close to 51%, so they don't control it.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120696)

They probably control more than 51% of the music provided by it, however, so in that sense they DO control it.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121220)

Yea, but Spotify also controls a certain % of the market, which of course gives them something to put up against them. Granted, right now the record companies are most likely very much in charge, but one can always hope that will change (and Spotify won't turn all evil).

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120120)

Don't buy premium.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120124)

Don't think so - they certainly give a decent chunk of cash to the big labels, and apparently independent artists get somewhat screwed in comparison to the big guys (I wouldn't be especially surprised if the RIAA members are getting paid even for non-RIAA song plays), but as far as I'm aware they're an independent company.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120028)

If everyone buys secondhand, then how will new music filter down into seconhand venues?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

butalearner (1235200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120734)

If everyone buys secondhand, then how will new music filter down into seconhand venues?

That's the point: RIAA artists stop making money so they leave RIAA labels and release their music directly. Everybody* wins.

* As the RIAA is made up of soulless automatons, I figure they don't count as people.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120754)

If literally everyone only buys secondhand then the RIAA member companies go out of business and are replaced by some apparatus that it is not unconscionable to fund, so people can go back to buying new music. If not everyone gets in on the boycott, it deprives the RIAA of at least some money -- which is that much less money they have to lobby against your interests -- and there is still a supply of secondhand music from the people who don't have enough awareness or conscience to join the boycott.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (4, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120054)

Yes. Have you heard about this new service called "iTunes"? I hear Apple thinks it'll be successful in a few years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120056)

This is the entire POINT of DRM -- they want to make it impossible to buy music second hand. muHAHAHAHAHAHA

/evil
//especially when you realize this means media can't be handed down from father to son, illuminating the ages for our future generations

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120458)

The two biggest music stores and most CDs are all free of DRM, you appear to be flogging something that has already begun to rot.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120808)

Yes, but have you tried to list some used MP3s for sale? I wonder how far you'd get, even if you were willing to delete them. DRM free or not, the presumption will be you are doing something wrong by trying to resell your digital goods.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120898)

This is an excellent point! Add that to the mickey-mouse act, and the desire to make it impossible to share culture freely to generations is being squashed, and the presumption of the grandparent, to presume it's a non issue because of some small, non-legally-binding voluntary participation, completely misses the point that DRM will be a recurring problem for the rest of human discourse. Not 10 years, or 20, but for the rest of our future we will have to be wary of those that would deny information, for in their hearts they imagine themselves our masters.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120812)

and WHY is it rotting? Flog On!

If they can win hundred million buck settlements (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120074)

... they're not going to be starved out by people avoiding retail outlets and RIAA-affiliated publishers any time soon.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (3, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120150)

I'm wondering where the hell Limewire got $100m in the first place? What part of their model made them that kind of money?

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120246)

that's why the decision doesn't matter financially.

business folds in the face of a laughable settlement it'll never be able to play.

founders go on to found other, perhaps similar businesses. perhaps very similar. lemonwire, orangewire, or kiwiwire coming your way soon!

it's all about the RIAA getting the message out that they are serious and will dropkick you right in the wallet.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (4, Informative)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120264)

The "criticism" section of the wikipedia article divulges some likely income streams they had. e.g. last year when they bundled the ask.com toolbar and

Prior to April 2004, the free version of LimeWire was distributed with a bundled program called LimeShop (a variant of TopMoxie), which was spyware. Among other things, LimeShop monitored online purchases in order to redirect sales commissions to Lime Wire LLC. Uninstallation of LimeWire would not remove LimeShop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limewire#Criticism [wikipedia.org]

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120300)

I'm wondering where the hell Limewire got $100m in the first place? What part of their model made them that kind of money?

Apparently, because it was a subscription service:

records show the privately owned company generated $26 million in revenue in 2006 and sales climbed dramatically after that. During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member

They also claim he's got over $100M in an IRA account.

I never used it, so I have no idea of what the revenue source was (ads + subscriptions?)... but he must have made a fair pile to have that much banked. And, apparently he made most of it selling someone else's stuff. I've no idea of what kind of business model he had ... but apparently it was lucrative, and somewhat illegal.

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120702)

It sounds like this was simply the "cost of doing business". The settlements seems like it would be little of a deterrent to someone starting another Limewire. This guy profited it sounds like from the settlement. Unless there is jail time and or forfeiture of assets (at least the profit) it sounds like we/he won. Not the RIAA. Yea- the RIAA made some money here. Unethical in how they did it (strong arming a legitimate business through the legal system despite its claimed use by those committing copyright infringement- but so are web browsers).

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121100)

During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member

They also claim he's got over $100M in an IRA account.

So... Gorton is an Irish terrorist?

Re:If they can win hundred million buck settlement (2)

kokojie (915449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121294)

Limewire is owned by the Lime Group, which also owns hedge funds and other companies that worth billions of dollars. This is one of the reason RIAA went after Limewire, because the potential payout is huge. The $100m will be paid by Lime Group.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120130)

Why should it be my mission on Earth to try and make the RIAA die?

I like small artists and I buy directly from the ones I know, but sometimes I open my wallet for mainstream artists. Do you seriously imagine that even a statistically significant number of people care about the RIAA, much less will actually alter their behavior to try and destroy them?

I'm no fan of the RIAA suing little old ladies and twelve-year-olds, but all the profess musicians I know are not OK with people getting their music for free and are quite comfortable having the RIAA or anyone else go after the people who are downloading it without paying for it. What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

When I was in college and downloading music was new, I (and everybody I knew) did it. Then we grew up and got jobs (well, most of us got jobs) and realized that it was, in fact, getting something for nothing, and that no matter how many window/front door/car analogies you make, that is usually ripping somebody else off, even if you don't call it 'stealing.'

The fruits of other people's labors has a price - whether or not you feel like paying it. But to answer your inane question, yes, just about everybody buys music these days.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120194)

Most of my music has been passed down to me by my family who have purchased it. That's not pirating although the RIAA would want you to think it is.

What those artists don't realise is that the money RIAA wins never returns back to the artist.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120208)

What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

Then you and them should be all for letting the RIAA die.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120266)

A complete song, created entirely by one person, should be worth maybe two weeks of pay at 30 dollars per hour. If they need other people playing instruments, it should come out of that money. If you're spending more effort or money than can be recouped by those numbers, and there is no orchestra involved, you're doing something wrong.

The vast majority of expense that goes into making music goes to instruments, studio time. These costs should not exist. Cheap instruments exist, and sound fine. Plug them into a computer and it will sound fine. Sell the result online. Pay for your own advertising.

The idea of anything like the RIAA existing in an industry like music is absolute lunacy. Thirty years ago it made sense, but not now. Lowering the noise threshold on a piece of music is not worth spending $200,000, and does not make an otherwise mediocre piece of media worth $1,000,000 in royalties over the next 100 years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

kevinmenzel (1403457) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121250)

How many songs have you recorded and released on line with your crappy instruments? How many of those sold well enough to support yourself?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120940)

Sorry, but nearly everyone is downloading music for free these days. Hang around in a 5th grade schoolyard and you will hear them talking about the music they downloaded, not the music they bought.

Very few people "woke up" about getting something for nothing and it being somehow wrong. Most of the people I know are very happy about getting something for nothing - one less thing in their lives that costs money. A lot of people seem to feel that it goes along with paying for access to the Internet - free music and movies is included.

I think it is somewhat dated but I recall a study that said iTunes was wildly successful but got at most 2% of the music downloads out there. Everyone else charging was getting less. Added together the paid services represented maybe 7% of music downloads with the remaining 93% being free p2p downloads.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2, Insightful)

Aquitaine (102097) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120142)

Accidentally posted this AC before. Reposting...

Why should it be my mission on Earth to try and make the RIAA die?

I like small artists and I buy directly from the ones I know, but sometimes I open my wallet for mainstream artists. Do you seriously imagine that even a statistically significant number of people care about the RIAA, much less will actually alter their behavior to try and destroy them?

I'm no fan of the RIAA suing little old ladies and twelve-year-olds, but all the profess musicians I know are not OK with people getting their music for free and are quite comfortable having the RIAA or anyone else go after the people who are downloading it without paying for it. What they care about, and what I'm happy to oblige them on, is cutting out the increasingly unnecessary middlemen and providing a direct line of purchase to the artist.

When I was in college and downloading music was new, I (and everybody I knew) did it. Then we grew up and got jobs (well, most of us got jobs) and realized that it was, in fact, getting something for nothing, and that no matter how many window/front door/car analogies you make, that is usually ripping somebody else off, even if you don't call it 'stealing.'

The fruits of other people's labors has a price - whether or not you feel like paying it. But to answer your inane question, yes, just about everybody buys music these days.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120244)

I replied to your AC comment [slashdot.org] .

Of course there is a price. I'm just saying I don't agree with the price as it currently is and so I refuse to purchase it. There is no analogy there, just logic.

I don't need new music, I am not an illogical consumer who has to buy the very next album when it comes out. A audio CD is a digital recording, it makes no difference if you buy a secondhand copy or get it passed down to you. The music is still the same. If you must have your 'mainstream music' when it comes out, fair enough but you are not rewarding the artists and you're probably missing out on smaller bands who are trying to make a breakthrough.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120324)

"If you must have your 'mainstream music' when it comes out, fair enough but you are not rewarding the artists and you're probably missing out on smaller bands who are trying to make a breakthrough"

This is one of the stupidest false dilemmas I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've been here for a very long time.

On top of that, you're saying you "don't need new music" but then chastise someone for not buying "smaller bands who are trying to make a breakthrough"; in other words, new music!

Griping about the price is just being cheap. In real dollars, music is cheaper than ever.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120890)

You don't understand it? It's not a dilemma.
If you want new mainstream music, fair enough but don't kid yourself you're actually helping the artist which is what the OP was saying that musicians need to be supported but by buying new music owned by the media labels, you're helping nobody.

It's quite simple. The OP said that everything had a price and music has a price to produce it. That is true enough. However in case you have not noticed, an artist rarely makes an income based on sales, They often have a contracted amount they can earn. If you buy from an artist directly (which as it happens, you can only do through small artists.)

The buying small bands is what you should be doing if you actually want to help artists. How is that so hard to understand? Reading comprehension 101?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120712)

Of course there is a price. I'm just saying I don't agree with the price as it currently is and so I refuse to purchase it.

So you're fine with your boss deciding they don't agree with your salary and will refuse to pay you for your work?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120938)

It's called voting with your wallet. I don't agree with the price of the music, especially given that none of it goes to the artist. It funds RIAA and the execs with big cars. So I don't buy it or listen to it.

If I really want it, I'll buy it secondhand. In your analogy, it's more like me deciding not to work there and work at a competitor :-)

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120262)

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses, so their actions have if anything cost artists money and appear to have done very little to stop downloading, and musicians generally don't make money past their advance off of records anyway.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120704)

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses

[citation needed]

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121226)

Most of the RIAA lawsuits have been net losses

[citation needed]

Well consider the Limewire case itself.
Expected revenue: $1,500,000,000,000.00
Actual revenue: $105,000,000.00
Net Loss: $1,499,999,895,000,000.00

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

kokojie (915449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121320)

This $100M payout from The Lime Group will probably more than cover their entire cost of all other lawsuits combined in the past 20 years.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120270)

Lots of people care about the RIAA, want it gone, and refuse to buy music.

Getting something for nothing isn't how it works.

It's "getting nothing for nothing", because copying a digital file costs ya absolutely zero. you don't lose the original.

Your lack of understanding of reality in 2011 is atrocious. There aren't many people who haven't heard of what jackasses the RIAA/MPAA are in this year. They have done more to incite sharing of movies, music, etc than anyone else could do in a lifetime. They should pat themselve son the back, honestly.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (3, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120736)

Lots of people care about the RIAA, want it gone, and refuse to buy music.

And by "lots of people" you mean "lots of people in your niche group". How many average people in Best Buy who are buying CDs give a rats ass or even have likely ever heard of the RIAA?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120968)

You might not have heard about this, but some people don't have high-speed Internet connections. They really frown on using BitTorrent clients at the library.

It is all a question of the digital haves and have-nots. The haves get free music and movies, the have-nots don't and have to buy at BestBuy and WalMart.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121282)

They really frown on using BitTorrent clients at the library.

Although my local library (which is actually rather small) has a fairly good size shelf of CD's. Maybe not the best selection but there was some stuff worth borrowing for an afternoon. And assuming the discs are not too scratched up, there is the benefit of lossless if so desired.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120966)

Yeah, it costs nothing. Because of course the songwriter worked for free, the musicians worked for free, any support people (management, etc) worked for free, all the people involved were housed and fed for free, the building they recorded in was built and maintained for free, all the equipment (instruments and recording) was free, the utilities for the building were provided for free, the product was marketed for free, the hosting for distribution was provided for free, there were no taxes paid on any of the above, etc.

If you truly think it is 'free', why don't you start your own label? Pay the artists a fair price (unlike what they get paid by the RIAA, according to slashdot). Give them equipment and studio time. Get them to create songs that the public wants. Market the songs for them. Then, give away the result for free, because that is what you believe the real cost is. Let us know how long you can sustain that.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120304)

Nice post, but I think there is something you don't realize... Most people, when given the opportunity to get something for nothing, will do just that. If they know they can get away with it without consequences, they will steal it.

I don't know anyone that buys music except those people that are not aware they can get it for free.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (3, Informative)

spikenerd (642677) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120364)

Downloaders are not the only ones "getting something for nothing". Content creators are granted rights far beyond those granted by nature to control copies of their works even after they distribute them. All of the laws and government-operated judicial system necessary to make this work are provided at the expense of tax-payers. In exchange for these expensive services, and for the people respecting their "rights", the content belongs to the public after a limited time ...except that those lyin' cheatin' thieves have stolen all the value from the rightful owners by lobbying to redefine "limited time" to extend so long that the public never gets anything worth value. Well, as a tax-paying citizen, I'm tired of being ripped off. I want all that content that rightfully belongs to the public domain! That's why we must fight the RIAA--they are exactly what they call us--pirates and thieves.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120370)

RIAA *is* the middleman. And they're the ones indiscriminately attacking people without sufficient proof of their guilt. Copyright infringement is a crime, and it's immoral, true. But offers for cash settlements are nothing short of blackmail and extortion.

Regardless of anything else they do for an artist, the facts that matter to me as a consumer are: The RIAA believes that it deserves to make money [dailykos.com] on non-RIAA-members' music, they list non-member [fatwreck.com] (seventh question down) labels as members, legally attack individuals without sufficient evidence, extort money from massive lists of people....basically, they're the mob.

There's nothing they can provide to me that makes it worth doing business with the mob.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120178)

The problem is, and always has been, studio time and advertising. Those are the only real services that a record label produces in a world with modern technology, but without them it's almost impossible for a band to go mainstream; they'll be forever stuck in a small genre or geographical niche. I think a solution to this would be to enourage all bands of any popularity level to identify a half dozen or so bands that are less well known than they are and offer their support to them. That support would obviously vary based on how big the supporting band is.

A band that is widely established and popular might donate the studio time to a band that is regionally popular but not yet on in the national spotlight. A somewhat well known regional band might invite a local band to open a few shows for them and bundle a song on their next album. An established local band might help a brand new garage band line up gigs that the garage band wouldn't have a chance of getting without help. Imagine you're a band and you have a choice between siding with an RIAA label or the band that inspired you to play in the first place, which would you chose?

Without a way to replace advertising and capital there will always be new bands willing to sign any contract with a label to get their names bumped up to the national level. And with enough advertising their music will sell to the masses even if it's derivative crap, it's just a fact of human nature. Any plan to eliminate the major labels has to take into account that the record labels do serve a purpose, it's just that the purpose has nothing to do with making music and everything to do with advertising and providing capital. Those roles need to be filled, otherwise new bands will without a doubt be lured in by the promise of instant wealth and fame.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120254)

The problem is, and always has been, studio time and advertising.

It's getting easier and easier to record music on a shoe-string budget, and it's getting easier to promote it yourself thanks to social networking and such. If the RIAA isn't obsolete already, it's getting there fast.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120314)

These days a recording studio isn't something that you need a big corporation for. Very decent studio equipment for recording rock-type music typically doesn't cost more than the instruments it records. The only thing that's really in short supply is mixing and production skill - and anyone who can write and play music can probably learn that too, it just takes time.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120686)

Time they won't get paid for.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121026)

In the sense that a student isn't paid for going to school.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120996)

Yeah, and just yesterday I saw an ad for the "Paint like Van Gogh" online course.

Mixing and production skills are not something you just pick up in a week or two.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121092)

Hence, the statement: "...and anyone who can write and play music can probably learn that too, it just takes time."

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120776)

I like the Google mentality on this:
The record industry is dead and struggling to breath, just switch to Google and put it out of it's misery while the investment sector (arguably one of the currently least useful mechanisms in our society) does something for the rest of us, buying Google stock to pay for free music.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121118)

Don't buy any more media anymore unless its second hand or download from sites like http://www.ektoplazm.com/ [ektoplazm.com]

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121202)

No. I like a lot of major label music, and I don't have any problem paying for it. It's not impulse, and I'm not a sheep.

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121288)

Do you buy it full price from the store, if so, why?

Re:Does anybody actually buy music anymore? (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121342)

I buy it where I buy it, many different sources. I'm not sure how to answer the why beyond "I want it."

question on streamers (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36119972)

Are they going after streaming website and streamers as well? Can somebody provide good info on this? Thanks

Re:question on streamers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120046)

They were not, until they just read your post! Thanks for giving them the idea!
Lawsuit in 3.....2.....1.....

Re:question on streamers (1)

netdigger (847764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120782)

Well Pandora has to pay for every song that is played and i would assume that other services have to pay as well. They collect their funds to do so via advertising.

My question is how are such streaming services preventing people from copping the stream. Pandora has a desktop app and im sure that someone has tried to write code to copy the stream as well as include all of the song info (Title, artist, album, ect.)

Re:question on streamers (1)

netdigger (847764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120878)

I just want to back up information, as well as clear it up a little bit. Pandora pays around 19/100 cent per song played. So there is a royalty fee assessed and it is said to be twice as much as satellite radio. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081801525.html [washingtonpost.com]

Does the RIAA have a Web Site? +5, Helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120016)

hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

You get the picture.

Yours In Moscow,
K. Trout

$1.5Trillion??? (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120072)

Are they looking to pay off the deficit?

Re:$1.5Trillion??? (2)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120252)

No, but when they made that request they did so with a pinky to the corner of their mouth.

Re:$1.5Trillion??? (2)

Beardydog (716221) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120312)

If we all payed for our media, there would be no deficit. Revenue would increase as the big labels create new jobs. The millions of unemployed in the US would be hired to stand in studios, sticking their arms and legs out to act as human anacoustic paneling. Those of us with exceptional talent can try our hand at realtime vocal active noise cancellation. Hint: work on your latency...

Re:$1.5Trillion??? (2)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120622)

If we all payed[sic] for our media, there would be no deficit

Broken window fallacy plain and simple. The money that is not spent on media is instead spent on other things. Thus there would be no difference. The music industry as a whole is making more money than ever. Even the labels are making hefty billion dollar profits. Learn some economics. :)

Re:$1.5Trillion??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121264)

If we all payed for our media, there would be no deficit

Broken window fallacy plain and simple. The money that is not spent on media is instead spent on other things. Thus there would be no difference. The music industry as a whole is making more money than ever. Even the labels are making hefty billion dollar profits. Learn some economics. :)

As an expert in internet sarcasm I think it's safe to say you missed the joke....

In other news.... (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120096)

Limewire has announced a strategic partnership with L1mew1re, wherein any assetts of value of Limewire will be transferred to L1mew1re, which will maintain said assets and lease their use to Limewire.

Limewire's company attorney, while available for comment, was unable to complete a sentence without screaming "bankruptcy, you bastards!!" randomly, mid sentence.

Re:In other news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120172)

Will they also change the color of their logo to green?

Question/Opinion I have about song value (5, Interesting)

Huntr (951770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120136)

According to TFA:

Having facilitated the mass piracy of billions of songs

So, the RIAA settled for $105 million after determining that Limewire helped people pirate "billions" of songs. Shouldn't that, then, set the value of "a" song that is shared? A conservative estimate of 2 billion songs for $105 mill is, what, about a nickel a song? Should use that value when determining damages against Jammie Thomas and anyone else.

JM convoluted O, of course, but I'm not the one settling for relative peanuts.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value (2)

mckorr (1274964) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120392)

Actually, that's kind of brilliant. I'm sure some bright lawyer for the defendant will do just that, and I wouldn't be surprised if he pulls it off.

Now, how do we start a class action against the RIAA for price gouging by charging us 99 cents a song? They set the value, let's make them stick to it!

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value (1)

GlassHeart (579618) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120662)

No, the 5% ($105 million) means that's what the RIAA agrees is Limewire's share of the responsibility. It's not outrageous to claim that the person who actually downloaded those songs is 95% responsible.

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120838)

OK, then the damages for Jammie Thomas should be $0.95/song, right?

Re:Question/Opinion I have about song value (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121036)

I suspect the figure was arrived at after looking at what was available and saying "OK, we'll take it all."

Anything that the CEO didn't spend in the last few months was fair game.

Where did they get $105 Million (2)

slyborg (524607) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120152)

What amazed me about this story was that Limewire had that kind of money in the first place...how did they get it?

Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120220)

The owner is allegedly worth way more than that. From the article:

During his damages hearing last week, RIAA lawyers suggested his net worth was larger than that. They noted he possessed $100 million in an IRA account. His Manhattan home is worth more than $4 million. In addition to Lime Wire, Gorton operates a hedge fund and a medical-software company. Gorton's lawyers claimed in court that he made little money from Lime Wire. Maybe, but records show the privately owned company generated $26 million in revenue in 2006 and sales climbed dramatically after that. During most of Lime Wire's 10-year history, Gorton was chairman, CEO, and only board member.

Disclaimer: I'm the submitter so I'm probably the only person that read the article which gives me an unfair advantage.

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120964)

How can he have $100M in an IRA when the maximum allowable contribution is on the order of $5k per year (and it was as low as $2k about 5-10 years ago). If he's been contributing for (say) 30 years, his contributions would be less than $100k and i'm sure he hasn't managed 100000% rate of return...

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121380)

you can use the funds in an IRA to invest in stocks/bonds/real estate/etc, increasing it's value beyond the principal that you contributed.

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121076)

Doesn't matter what he's worth, American corporate law protects him from having to pay the company's debts. Look at Donald Trump. His company has gone bankrupt not once but three times (and he wants to run the country?). The only people he ever had to pay were the IRS.

Re:Gorton, the Owner, Is Allegedly Worth More (1)

tukang (1209392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36121138)

IANAL but how are they able to go after the owner's assets? Isn't the entire purpose of creating a company to protect the owner's assets by limiting the liability to the company?

Nothing to do with music (2)

prodigyx (1829004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120154)

This money get used to push internet censorship bills like COICA and Protect IP through congress, and into Obama's pocket in exchange for appointing their lawyers into powerful government regulatory positions. The RIAA has very little to do with music. It is an evil organization and currently one of the biggest threats freedom and privacy both in the US and around the globe.

Q: How much will go back to the artists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120330)

A: Zero

derp (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120406)

>Where the settlement money will go is hard to tell. In similar cases in the past, the RIAA has split up big awards with the four member labels. How much of the money goes back to the artists is unclear

OH! CAN I MAKE A GUESS? HUH? CAN I? PLEASE? PLEASE LET ME TAKE A GUESS?

HOW ABOUT ZERO? DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? HOW DID I DO?

--
BMO

.5m$ per citizen terror tolerance program delayed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120428)

our rulers sensed an attitude of ingratitude from some, so we'll be continuing to get our rations of talknospeak until 2025, when the terror might end, if we quit whining, so our self-appointed chosen rulers may also decide not to crack down on us.

wetrollted; for cause&effect

some babys to survive unending passover holycost (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward writes: on Friday May 13

due to identified advanced dna features. the majority of them, & us, have
not been chosen, even though, or because, there's billions of us. disarm.
weapons, media etc.. read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. thank you.

Zeus canon being fired down under southern hillary (Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 11, @01:21PM (#36096090)
never a better time to disarm. tell the truth. the sky is not ours to toy
with after all?
you call this 'weather'? what with real history racing up to correct
itself, while the chosen one's holycostal life0cider mediots continually
attempt to rewrite it, fortunately, there's still only one version of the
truth, & it's usually not a long story, or a confusing multiple choice
fear raising event.
world wide disarmament is taking place based on the pure intentions of the
majority of the planet's chosen to be depopulated, population. as the
biblical fiction based chosen ones have only one ability, which is
destruction for personal gain, they just don't fit in with all the new
life extending stuff that we're being advised/warned to avoid/ignore. life
likes to continue, advance etc... deception & death appear to have similar
ambitions.
also, there's just enough time left to investigate the genuine native elders
social & political leadership initiative, which includes genuine history
as put forth in the teepeeleaks etchings. the natives still have no words
in their language to describe the events following their 'discovery' by
us, way back when. they do advise that it's happening again.
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment
posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post.
However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege
could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in
the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone
else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair,
please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID,
which are always changing, you butthead
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
retrollted by the diaper leaks group world wide

And who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120448)

The warez scene has gone DDL and one-klick hosters anyway. And if they crack down on one of the latter (like they did with Rapidshare and Hotfile), it just means better business for others.

Moral implications of copying aside, the RIAA and its consorts are fighting windmills. You can't fight the Internet, period. They should have learned this lesson long ago (in 2000, after Napster) and adjusted their business models accordingly, but they still think takedown notices and prosecution of a few hapless users will make their so-called "piracy" go away. It doesn't. A few hints:

  • Adapt to the Internet or die.
  • Your 20th-century business models are history, selling physical rotating disks will soon be a thing of the past. Hulu, iTunes et. al. are the future, but not necessarily at the current price level ($.99/song? Bite me.)
  • Make your stuff available everywhere, at prices people are willing to pay. Region codes, DRM, IP blocks and other dumbass schemes will be broken or circumvented (look at what happened to HDCP - you really jumped through hoops to ensure it wouldn't be broken, uh? FAIL.)

So if I'm greedy they can take me to the cleaners (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120486)

But what happens when someone makes an Android app to bluetooth "squirt" (yes I stole this term from MS Zune, it's so messed up it's awesome) music back and forth and gives it away for free? When I'm not trying to profit from it they might try and ruin my life, I suppose, but it will be for no financial gain and 1000 copycats can do the same with little effort. Tracking down users might be a royal bitch too, localised is king. We'll have pocket sized, 2TB devices by the end of 2011.

Face regardless of any moral merits/demerits this IS going to happen, it's happening now, and it's only going to happen faster and more intensely as time goes on. Commodity hardware is getting dirt cheap, these devices may not 100% be funneled to us via huge corporate interests soon, the "hardware version" of the Linux and OSS revolution is happening before our eyes.

Great day for struggling artists! (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120522)

This $105M recouped from piracy will come in handy!
Oh, wait...

Re:Great day for struggling artists! (1)

netdigger (847764) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120952)

Yea... That $105M is probably going to disappear just like every other copyright lawsuit

Net result of this lawsuit: ZERO! (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120588)

Changes nothing though... Limewire was just a UI for Gnutella, which will continue on. The only change is that there will be no new Limewire versions in the future. All the more room for Frostwire, Cabos, etc....

And yes, my Cabos still works ;) i just don't use it much anymore.

A legal double standard (3, Interesting)

roadsider (970039) | more than 3 years ago | (#36120620)

I acquired more music using Maxell cassette tapes than I ever did with any p2p software. In any given college dorm pre-internet era, you spent a good chunk of your available time taping floor-mate's records. After all, why else would you buy a 90 minute chromium oxide cassette if not to record two 43-minute LPs? On the equipment I used at the time, you couldn't tell the difference in quality, so why doesn't/didn't the RIAA go after Maxell, TDK, Memorex and the other manufacturers of high quality cassettes?

Limewire didn't kill the music industry. The music industry killed the music industry.

You ahve a strange definition of "killed"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121222)

...seeing as how the music is still alive and suing.

USB? SD Cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120832)

Why the RIAA continues to pillage people for not buying CDs and downloading music just blows my mind.

I stopped buying CDs recently for the sole reason in that they get destroyed too easily. I only use them in my car, and when I'm driving around I tend to toss them onto my passenger seat or into the glove box when I'm changing them. So along with all my other crap I carry around in my car, if I change them around a few dozen times then there's scratches all over the damn things and some of the songs don't play anymore.

Yes I could go and buy a CD holder but I hate having crap hanging off the sun visors. Along with the fact that directing my attention to carefully removing and replacing CDs in a holder isn't exactly what I should be doing when driving. I suppose I could be more careful but I don't tend to put much focus on caring for a disk when I'm flying down the highway at 115km/h.

Now if they sold USB sticks or SD cards with MP3s on them or something, I'd buy that. They really need to innovate...

Why doesn't someone make a true P2P network? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36120906)

The weakness of Limewire is that it had a central server operating as the address lookup list for peers. This can be shutdown and the network turned off.
If instead, all the peers kept a list of all previous active addresses, then when they went to access the network, they'd find some who are static IP just by chance, and then when they're on the network, they'd get a list of all the true addresses there.
I came up with this idea when they shutdown Napster. P2P is great for video games too in case you don't want to pay all the money for an expensive central server. P2P could even be used to unroll an uncensored version of a search engine in governments that censor it(bring democracy to the people if that is a goal of yours). Also you can have a really nice proxy system with P2P.
I could write this software myself, but I'm busy with better projects. My question is,"Why hasn't this already been done?"

When can we kick these dirtbags off the planet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36121396)

Serious. Havent we wasted enough time/money on the media mafiaa yet... Lets just get rid of them.

Keeping them around is not a good idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?