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 to Block Copyrighted Work

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the compliance dept.

Patents 295

An anonymous reader writes "Slyck is reporting that LimeWire is working on new code that will block non-licensed material. The new code checks to see if shared material is licensed, if it is not, the LimeWire client will politely inform the user, 'LimeWire can't determine if one or more files have been published under a suitable license. These files will not be shared.'" From the article: "Approximately 3 to 5 days ago, LimeWire developers began working on two new branches, cc_reverify_interval-branch and cc-publish-branch. The code in the first branch works to verify that every file shared has a license. If this is not the case, the file will not be shared. The second branch is for publishing one's own work without a license. According to the release notes, individuals can attach a Collective Commons license if the work is either their own or have permission to distribute the work ... According to a LimeWire beta tester who informed Slyck of this news, this feature is already complete. Developers are simply waiting for the signal to integrate these branches with the main branch, providing Mark Gorton, CEO of LimeWire, decides to go through with this."

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

In other news... (5, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | about 9 years ago | (#13647341)

...Limewire use will plummet.

Re:In other news... (3, Interesting)

Tatarize (682683) | about 9 years ago | (#13647351)

Well, what other P2P programs are there? This one is dead.

Re:In other news... (4, Interesting)

Ark42 (522144) | about 9 years ago | (#13647436)

Isn't Limewire just a GNUtella client? Just use GNUcleus instead.

Re:In other news... (4, Funny)

Rolo Tomasi (538414) | about 9 years ago | (#13647573)

Well, some shady figure in a remote alley whispered into my ear one night that a program called eMule [emule-project.net] might be a good alternative for the bad people who are drawn to these vile activities.

Re:In other news... (4, Informative)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 9 years ago | (#13647612)

Well, what other P2P programs are there? This one is dead.

Take a look at Shareaza [sourceforge.net] (and the just-released v2.2). Free, OSS, and supports Gnutella, Gnutella2, and eDonkey networks. Also supports the Bittorrent protocol.

It's actually quite a good product. I use it on those rare occasions where I get the sudden urge to do something evil.

Maybe not (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 9 years ago | (#13647369)

Perhaps in the short term. But perhaps in the future it will enable more companies and open source groups to use it as a primary distribution method. It is hard to be taken seriously when you say the only way to get your product is threw the Pirated Software channels.

Re:Maybe not (1, Flamebait)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | about 9 years ago | (#13647576)

Ha, just watch the userbase for Limewire suddenly plummet, and you'll see just how much of P2P is really for "legitimate purposes."

It's like this big huge issue for most people, particularly on Slashdot, to admit that the vast majority of P2P activity is just illegal piracy of copyrighted stuff. You either get the "P2P is great for legitimate uses, and here is my long anecdotal story, blah blah," or you get "The RIAA is evil because the websites tell me so, so I'm going to ensure that System of a Down doesn't get paid today, which somehow is good for System of a Down!"

But then when someone violates the copyright of the GPL, watch out! Calls for legal action from the EFF abound.

Re:Maybe not (3, Insightful)

ceejayoz (567949) | about 9 years ago | (#13647650)

Now, while I agree with you on the Slashdot schizophrenia re: GPL violations vs. IP violations, this bit is just plain silly:

"The RIAA is evil because the websites tell me so, so I'm going to ensure that System of a Down doesn't get paid today, which somehow is good for System of a Down!"

That's not the argument. The argument is that file sharing of copyrighted works improves sales of good products. My own anecdotal evidence would be that I'd never have found my favorite music group if I hadn't been sent an MP3 by a friend on the 'Net.

Re:Maybe not (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 9 years ago | (#13647665)

Wake up. The entire internet, not just P2P has mostly illegal uses. I'm sure there's lots of criminals using email as a form of communication, possibly encrypted. There are many web sites on the internet that are illegal in most countries but can't be taken down because the country they are in are not interested in dealing with these problems, because they have bigger fish to fry. There's been software piracy going on way before the days of P2P technology. There was rampant software piracy even before the internet was developed. Before the internet, people copied music like crazy off their friends. Using blank tapes. That's the whole reason behind the high speed dubbing feature. So you could do it faster. The internet just gives them some bigger numbers to throw around. There are like 4 billion files on P2P system X, wow, look at all the money they are making us lose. The only thing that P2P has done is give them an easy way to quantify the amount of stuff being pirated. Before P2P, the only numbers they could come up with were just big guesses, and probably way off.

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

monkeydo (173558) | about 9 years ago | (#13647400)

Why? P2P is used mostly for legal trade, isn't it? 'Cause that's what I keep reading on /.

Re:In other news... (1)

wealthychef (584778) | about 9 years ago | (#13647447)

So is every unlicensed file illegal? 'Cause I think that's exactly what all the broohaha is about.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647489)

Limewire is limiting their liability by choosing not to carry unlicensed content. It's not about legal and illegal.

Re:In other news... (1)

poopdeville (841677) | about 9 years ago | (#13647424)

Yup. Is LimeWire publicly traded? This might be one to short.

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

master_meio (834537) | about 9 years ago | (#13647439)

Slashdot fags like to steal things.

Freedom and privacy dying at every turn (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647506)

Is it just me, or have the slashdot articles been VERY frightening/depressing of late?

Governments across the globe are getting more and more intrusive into everyone's private lives, and more and more cavalier about their violations of personal liberty and disregard for the dangers such violations create....with cheers of approval from people who "have nothing to hide." ...while at the same time our few remaining bastions of freedom are popping out of existence or compromising to the point of uselessness, all the while being cheered on by visionless people who honestly believe that this is a good thing...

It makes me very sad.

Re:Freedom and privacy dying at every turn (4, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | about 9 years ago | (#13647570)

Is it just me, or have the slashdot articles been VERY frightening/depressing of late?

Governments across the globe are getting more and more intrusive into everyone's private lives, and more and more cavalier about their violations of personal liberty and disregard for the dangers such violations create....with cheers of approval from people who "have nothing to hide." ...while at the same time our few remaining bastions of freedom are popping out of existence or compromising to the point of uselessness, all the while being cheered on by visionless people who honestly believe that this is a good thing...

It makes me very sad.

Nope, it's not just you; the world is seriously fucked, at least from a civil liberties/privacy perspective.

The good news is that the pendulum will inevitably swing the other way; the bad news, of course, is that this won't be happening in our lifetime.

hmm. (4, Insightful)

silverkniveshotmail. (713965) | about 9 years ago | (#13647342)

is there anything that prevents you as sharing "HALF LIFE 2 REALLY WORKS PLAYS ONLINE.EXE" as your own work though?

Re:hmm. (5, Insightful)

Slashdot_Gandhi (912342) | about 9 years ago | (#13647372)



is there anything that prevents you as sharing "HALF LIFE 2 REALLY WORKS PLAYS ONLINE.EXE" as your own work though?

You can also change file names, like make an W3Works.exe.doc, change all ownership info. Then compress the file to W3Works.exe.doc.rar with a text file of instructions in the rar! I think the whole idea of 'we-won't-let-you-share-copyright-work' is to get the RIAA off Limewire's back and let them blame the users for what happens afterwards.

Bye bye (0, Troll)

grub (11606) | about 9 years ago | (#13647348)


Limewire will be buried beside its older sibling Napster.

keyword: unlicensed (4, Insightful)

rd4tech (711615) | about 9 years ago | (#13647353)

Looking at the idea from purely development standpoint, it seems that it fails to address:
1. Other clients on the same network won't by default implement their solution
2. One can still download files from other clients (how else can you determine if the content is legal?) and other networks

Although this might be considered a victory for the other side, it seems that for any given victory there are 10 new file sharing programs out there.

Furthermore, straight from their website:
"If an individual shares an unlicensed MP3 file, the LimeWire client will display the following message and prevent its distribution:"
How will the process go to determine if a mp3 file has a license?
Maybe the only thing that this will achieve is destroy all filesharing of 'unlicensed' (READ: not the latest 'licensed'/paid/newest-format content) and destroy their client-base in the process too?

Re:keyword: unlicensed (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | about 9 years ago | (#13647368)

I don't believe it will stop the user from downloading anything, it will just limit what it will share.

Re:keyword: unlicensed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647370)

Maybe the only thing that this will achieve is destroy all filesharing of 'unlicensed' (READ: not the latest 'licensed'/paid/newest-format content) and destroy their client-base in the process too?

To their credit, this is how copyright works. Per default you are not allowed to distribute any copyrighted work. To do so you need a license.

Re:keyword: unlicensed (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 9 years ago | (#13647394)

Per default you are not allowed to distribute any copyrighted work.

So what if I created the song myself? No wait, I still can't distribute it because I've presumably accidentally copied it from a song on the radio [slashdot.org] .

Re:keyword: unlicensed (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 9 years ago | (#13647405)

The powerpoint presentation was a little murky at this point, the slide in question had the following:

1) Read unknown filename and attributes

2) ????

3) Display error message

4) Profit

They are leaving it to the developers who spent 3 hours handwaving and making grand gestures whilst all the time crossing their toes and hoping they didn't get either fired or berated by the OSS community peers.

Re:keyword: unlicensed (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 9 years ago | (#13647407)

I don't know much about this, but how would someone go about making their music licensed, but still distributable? That is - how can they differentiate my part-time starving-artist band's MP3s that we gladly put up on all places that we can get mass distribution for people to download and share with absolutely no strings attached from, say, som RIAA riddled garbage?

How will they differentiate between The Hunchback of Notre Dame and something that is not public domain and restrictive? How will they differentiate between a short story from a nobody author who is gladly sharing his work with the latest crappy Anne Rice eBook?

And further, why should anyone have to? You should have to go out of your way to say "THIS IS MY WORK - IT HAS THESE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON IT" versus "THIS IS MY WORK - DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT". I know this isn't how it legally goes, but come on. And if you're not the original author, how do you make available such a license and choose it? The dude who wrote Cinderella isn't alive anymore, so the story of cinderella can't be shared, since there's not necessarily a license on any work from it I might use?

Is this where the future is headed? Everyone must license every single thing they ever play, write, direct, say - whatever? Every creative work MUST have a license or it will become unusable and unsharable? Shoudn't the onus be on the person who wants to leverage the restrictive licenses on their works to do so? Why should I have to go through the trouble of using some digital licensing scheme just to put out something for free that a billion dollar industry has to go through to make money? It seems the hard work should be theirs - not mine.

Oh - and how much is it going to cost to implement some sort of digital scannable license, I wonder?

Re:keyword: unlicensed (5, Interesting)

JediLow (831100) | about 9 years ago | (#13647430)

I remember my sister (an indie artist, http://www.dawnxianamoon.com [dawnxianamoon.com] telling me the problems that Windows Media Player was giving her with her CD one time... if I remember correctly she tried to burn it or something - in turn it yelled at her about not having a license for the CD.

Consider the impact this can have on the indie artists... and those artists who try to have their music publically available (quite a few do exist) - how are they supposed to get a license so that the music can be shared? What standard does LimeWire plan to use in order to implement the license use?

Re:keyword: unlicensed (4, Insightful)

Stinking Pig (45860) | about 9 years ago | (#13647488)

"Is this where the future is headed? Everyone must license every single thing they ever play, write, direct, say - whatever? Every creative work MUST have a license or it will become unusable and unsharable?"

Yes. So fight the rearguard action here (http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] and subvert the new order here (http://www.creativecommons.org./ [www.creativecommons.org]

Neither is going to take more time than typing that missive did.

Re:keyword: unlicensed (1)

interiot (50685) | about 9 years ago | (#13647687)

And further, why should anyone have to? You should have to go out of your way to say "THIS IS MY WORK - IT HAS THESE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON IT"
For what it's worth, this is line with modern Copyright law. Starting in 1886 (due the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] ), copyrights were automatic. It's not specific to P2P programs... if you post something on the web, or write it in a letter, you have to go out of your way to say "this is in the public domain" or "this is free for non-commercial use".

Granted, the internet made it slightly more prevalent of a situation. Copyrights have long been automatic for any expression secured in a fixed medium(eg. sheet music is copyrighted, simply singing a new tune isn't). And since practically everything on the internet is a fixed expression, it's all automatically copyrighted, which is somewhat different from the situation from before.

Still, even before, if you were a garage band, and someone taped a performance, no matter how informal the performance was, the work was still automatically copyrighted.

Re:keyword: unlicensed (1)

NanoGator (522640) | about 9 years ago | (#13647411)

"How will the process go to determine if a mp3 file has a license?"

Wouldn't they just look it up on the internet database that lists the album info etc? (Sorry, I forget the acronymn.)

In any event, even if it is easily thrwartable, the plus side to this is that they would end up with ammo to use against the RIAA. Maybe I'm just too optimistic or ignorant, but I have difficulty imagining the RIAA being able to shut them down if they're actively working to block content they can verify. It potentially takes the legal burden off of LimeWire and puts it on the individual users who would have to intentionally circumvent the process.

In the mean time, the users could probably use .RAR or something to archive the MP3 files. If I'm right about that, then there wouldn't be much more the user would have to do to get the files. It wouldn't necessarily mean a death blow to LimeWire. Of course, I don't know enough about the topic to feel totally secure in what I'm saying.

not a bad idea (5, Insightful)

wes33 (698200) | about 9 years ago | (#13647355)

I assume that anybody can declare a file shareable. But the *user* is the one who has to make this declaration.
This means LimeWire is not encouraging nor participating in violation of copyright.
Thus Limewire hopes to survive the lawsuits to come.

I agree... (5, Interesting)

IronTeardrop (913955) | about 9 years ago | (#13647390)

...they are protecting themselves. Fair enough. What remains to be seen is if LimeWire will provide the RIAA (or other thugs) with personal information of the people sharing files (if they even have that, I'm not familiar with their architecture).

Only two outcomes (1, Redundant)

tentimestwenty (693290) | about 9 years ago | (#13647621)

If anything they're presenting the RIAA with a means of first suing everybody on the network and then suing the sh*t out of LimeWire for allowing their "secure" system to easily be compromised. It's an admission of guilt that they need the "safeguard" in the first place. The only other scenario is that they have or will have a deal with the RIAA to be the authorized "legal" P2P client, but this seems far fetched at present.

Re:not a bad idea (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | about 9 years ago | (#13647635)

I assume that anybody can declare a file shareable. But the *user* is the one who has to make this declaration.
This means LimeWire is not encouraging nor participating in violation of copyright.
Thus Limewire hopes to survive the lawsuits to come.
Actually it probably will open them up to better attack. By adding in code to prevent sharing of unlicensed material but allowing each user to decide on licensing now the RIAA can (quite rightfully) say they have the ability to block their works from being shared but since it's still happening they can be help liable. Remember what happened with Napster once they tried to implement code to block licensed songs, it was never good enough for the RIAA and Napster finally collapsed.

Frankly the RIAA is going to take this as an admission of guilt on the part of Limewire's makers. They have probably put themselves in far more danger than if they'd kept the status quo.

Ok, and (5, Insightful)

hungrygrue (872970) | about 9 years ago | (#13647356)

what does this really mean? Limewire is just a gnutella client. If it suddenly refuses to work, users will just grab another client and use that instead. "apt-get install gtk-gnutella" Wow, that was really hard.

Re:Ok, and (5, Insightful)

Internet_Communist (592634) | about 9 years ago | (#13647426)

I'm glad someone said this. I can't believe how many people don't realize that limewire is just a gnutella client. There is plenty of good gnutella clients for both linux and windows. I personally use gtk-gnutella, which you've mentioned, however on windows there's things like Shareaza, among others.

So yeah, if limewire wants to commit suicide, let them be my guest...

Re:Ok, and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647564)

Sadly, gtk-gnutella has a piss-poor interface compared to LimeWire.

Re:Ok, and (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647696)

LimeWire is open source. Fork it. Problem solved.

Internet: Censorship=Damage (4, Insightful)

camusflage (65105) | about 9 years ago | (#13647359)

Sorry, but as soon as this goes out, faster than you can say "Arrrrrr, Matey", someone is going to publish a patched version that removes this. Welcome to the world of OSS: If you don't like it, compile it yourself.

Re:Internet: Censorship=Damage (0)

Hugonz (20064) | about 9 years ago | (#13647534)

Hi. Just another common misconception. Limweire is *not* open source, free software.. or anything like it. It tries to ride that bandwagon by calling itself "open" but you cannot patch it more than you can crack a version of MS Office.

Re:Internet: Censorship=Damage (1)

00110011 (917752) | about 9 years ago | (#13647584)

So, its license [limewire.org] is not considered "open source"?

Re:Internet: Censorship=Damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647609)

It can be patched as easily as Kazaa if not more easily since the source code is available.

Re:Internet: Censorship=Damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647666)

It's not so much that the client is open source, but the fact that the network is open. Even if LimeWire was closed source people could just use another client to access the exact same network. LimeWire is just doing this in an attempt to save their own asses. So in this case I think you are barking up the wrong tree; but don't worry, you will still be modded up accordingly.

And on a side note, this is not censorship; LimeWire is doing this voluntarily. But don't worry; your mod points will still come. If you wanted to be sure, you could have made a few references to "1984".

Re:Internet: Censorship=Damage (1)

CustSerAssassin (883923) | about 9 years ago | (#13647697)

True enough that someone will definitely find a way around the licensing issue and compile a new version, but like someone mentioned earlier... so many of the newer P2P fileshare programs have such crappy user-interfaces. Personally, I think that the artists and the RIAA are both blowing this whole "problem" way out of proportion... I don't buy artists' albums for one reason - I am not about to pay $10-$20 for a CD that has 2 FREAKIN SONGS on it that I want... If they want more people buying albums (which sales have never really decreased at all) then they should take more care in compiling their albums, or expect people to find ways to get only the songs they want. I know that this argument has been posed a million times, but it's truth.

Switch Networks (4, Interesting)

mystic_mushroom (907924) | about 9 years ago | (#13647363)

This seems like an effort in futility. With all the networks out there and only Limewire doing this people will just switch products. And if all the commerical networks start doing this then an OSS alternative will just take it's place. Check out http://gift.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

A gift to Windows users (1)

tepples (727027) | about 9 years ago | (#13647466)

And if all the [commercial] networks start doing this then an OSS alternative will just take it's place. Check out http://gift.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

And if you're stuck with Windows because you're stuck with applications or devices that aren't ported to Linux or BSD for x86, you can use giFT through KCeasy [kceasy.com] .

Lets see if I remember how.... (1)

VATechTigger (884976) | about 9 years ago | (#13647364)

Start.....Settings......Add/Remove Programs.....

Re:Lets see if I remember how.... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 9 years ago | (#13647526)

Obviously you don't remember how.

You missed "Control Panel"

BTW, does anybody else notice the slight changes and freshening /. is getting on an almost daily basis since the CSS changeover? I really like the new Post Comment page. Very clean.

Re:Lets see if I remember how.... (1)

ginotech (816751) | about 9 years ago | (#13647563)

don't you mean
emerge --unmerge limewire
emerge amule
??

Re:Lets see if I remember how.... (-1, Troll)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | about 9 years ago | (#13647602)

So the program's no good unless it allows you to pirate copyrighted works? Bitter that the free ride is getting taken away?

Gotta love the moral standpoint of Slashdot. Next time there's a "stolen GPL code" article, I'll remember all these comments.

yawn (5, Informative)

cow_licker (172474) | about 9 years ago | (#13647366)

Limewire pro already pops up a message saying it can't determine if a file is licensed or not and if you still want to download. Click yes and the checkbox that says "always use this answer" and you'll never see it again.

Also here's [limewire.org] the source. Go build your own without this 'feature'.

Re:yawn (-1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | about 9 years ago | (#13647565)

The response to this is interesting. People here are saying users will just flock to other networks, and you're even encouraging someone use the source to build a version without this "feature", the quotes yours.

So does that mean everyone here just uses P2P to trade copyrighted works? Is Slashdot a pro-piracy site now? One would think this wouldn't matter, since we get so many comments from people proclaiming the benefits of P2P as a way to distribute, say, Linux distros and other legal works. But when it comes time to put up or shut up, most people reveal themselves as freeloaders after all, and all that talk of the legit uses of P2P a simple front to defend the networks and keep them running. Bah.

Most likely a liability issue more than anything (4, Interesting)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | about 9 years ago | (#13647371)

The legal repercussions of Limewire giving up the fight for open p2p and enforcing explicit licence checks on files are what's most important here, the fact that the supreme court have muddied the waters enough to start working against p2p developers again. The fact that Limewire itself has these blocks in place is more of a liability reduction move than anything else, as due to Limewire's open source nature an anonymous coder or two can go through and make non-official versions of the program that do not honor these checks. Obviously Limewire themselves cannot be held accountable for versions of the code produced by unrelated users, and the arms race begins for them to track the creators of modified versions.

Re:Most likely a liability issue more than anythin (1)

Maestro4k (707634) | about 9 years ago | (#13647648)

Limewire doesn't have to do this to avoid trouble under the recent Supreme Court ruling. SCOTUS found that the two companies could still be held accountable for some of the infringement because they encouraged it in their marketing. If Limewire's not been encouraging downloads of illegal songs with their client they should be fine. If they have they're already screwed and this is unlikely to help much.

but what about..... (3, Insightful)

scenestar (828656) | about 9 years ago | (#13647373)

The RIAA has been sueing companies that SELL p2p apps.

What about projects like shareaza?

are hundreds of OS contributers going to get a suppoena too?

Re:but what about..... (2, Insightful)

Pichu0102 (916292) | about 9 years ago | (#13647521)

Hmm, the real question is, would Shareaza be able to come under the same fire as Limewire? After all, Shareaza is fully free, while Limewire has a version you can pay for.

Re:but what about..... (1)

Wisgary (799898) | about 9 years ago | (#13647623)

I too dwell on the perpetual -1 pit... sad... my mistake as a n00b, everyone deserves a second chance. Anyway, let's get on topic. *downloads alternative*

Future* headline: (1)

Atario (673917) | about 9 years ago | (#13647375)

LimeWire Usage Drops Precipitously


* "Future" = two weeks after this is implemented

OT - Re:Future* headline: (1)

IdahoEv (195056) | about 9 years ago | (#13647707)


In Soviet Russia:
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of sigs, you insensitive clod!


What, there weren't any new overlords you could welcome?

I have permission; who do I show the note to? (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13647386)

I help a friend of mine with his band’s music [theplasticinfinity.com] . So far I’ve run into DVDs of their performance that neither of us could rip the MPEG from, and now it looks like it may be tough to share his music on LimeWire, even though he likes the idea (as a LimeWire user himself) and I have explicit permission, he’s not gonna wanna release his entire album under a CC license (although he is considering it for a few tracks with the hope of getting them used in independent films).

I guess LimeWire feels they have no choice due to the legal climate these days, but they must know it can only end badly. Oh well.

Re:I have permission; who do I show the note to? (1)

Tokerat (150341) | about 9 years ago | (#13647422)


LimeWire is a Gnutella client, right?...use another client!

Re:I have permission; who do I show the note to? (1)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 9 years ago | (#13647448)

True.

But frankly, I’m assuming this will be the death of the Gnutella network, as from what I’ve seen, 95%+ of the clients are some form of LimeWire. Sure, some will grab another client, but I think most will move to other networks, which will greatly reduce the utility of Gnutella. I really don’t know dick about the others, guess it’s time I learned.

Hopefully I’m wrong though.

Message (4, Funny)

freaktheclown (826263) | about 9 years ago | (#13647393)

the LimeWire client will politely inform the user, 'LimeWire can't determine if one or more files have been published under a suitable license. These files will not be shared.'"
As opposed to the RIAA's original suggestion: "ALERT! ALERT! You are engaging in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY! Stop now or we'll sue you for everything you've got!"

Collective commons? (2, Insightful)

numatrix (242325) | about 9 years ago | (#13647402)

"Collective commons?"

What's that, like the creative commons, but by the Borg?

(For the record, 2 seconds of search the article shows it was indeed supposed to be creative commons.)

Say goodbye to limewire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647403)

Its already slow enough as it is, what happens when the users all decide they dont want some random crap with a free license. There are going to be no peers out there to actually make the network run.

Introducing LemonWire (3, Interesting)

The Real Nem (793299) | about 9 years ago | (#13647404)

LimeWire is open source, it'll fork...

Every time they release a new version of LimeWire there is a "cracked" pro version within days. Why? Because you don't even need to "crack" it, it's open source, you can just d/l the source and remove the "features" you don't want.

There's a fundamental problem with this... (5, Insightful)

FellowConspirator (882908) | about 9 years ago | (#13647409)

That is to say that licenses are tied to individuals, rather than works. I may have a license for a tune where my neighbor may not.

The system cannot know if I have a license. Moreover, if I do put a work up for distribution, there's the problem that they have to take my word for it that I have not lied about the terms under which I am distributing it.

Also, typically licenses can also be dependent on the type of use. How are they to know how I am using something I downloaded? In many cases, it may not be immediately clear if distribution in this manner is permissible...

Sure, they are trying to cover their collective butts, but from what? There's no reason to believe that such a superficial system that doesn't mirror any material aspect of copyright law is going to be considered due diligence in policing themselves.

Re:There's a fundamental problem with this... (2, Informative)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 9 years ago | (#13647541)

There's no reason to believe that such a superficial system that doesn't mirror any material aspect of copyright law is going to be considered due diligence in policing themselves.
The RIAA's legal threats and press releases don't mirror any material aspect of copyright law, either, but that doesn't seem to bother them.

The last thing we need (5, Insightful)

elgaard (81259) | about 9 years ago | (#13647410)

Is thousands of files with fake Creative Commons licence-tags floating the internet.

Wrong Title? (1)

smd4985 (203677) | about 9 years ago | (#13647419)

Shouldn't the title be "LimeWire may Block Copyrighted Work"? These branches haven't been committed to the main trunk, after all.

I guess it is a slow news day....

No big deal (1)

Edgewize (262271) | about 9 years ago | (#13647438)

This prevents *sharing* copyrighted works, not downloading them. If anything, it protects the average user from becoming the target of lawsuits.

It doesn't change what's available on the network. If download times go up because fewer newbies commit accidental copyright violation, so be it. Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing is no better than a malware author exploiting the average clueless user.

Ob. Family Guy (2, Funny)

schleyfox (826198) | about 9 years ago | (#13647445)

FBI: Do you have permission from the National Football League and the American Broadcasting Company to record this viewing of Monday Night Football? Peter: Ummm. I only have permission from ABC.

Re:Ob. Family Guy (1)

schleyfox (826198) | about 9 years ago | (#13647461)

well its actually Brian Griffin Sorry. The VCR hasn't worked since you tried to tape Monday Night Football. FBI Agent Do you have the written consent of ABC Sports and the National Football League? Peter Griffin Just ABC. I just found the script

Only the Open will survive (3, Insightful)

timeToy (643583) | about 9 years ago | (#13647465)

In the long run no P2P application companies will the able to survive the RIAA/MPAA pressure, LimeWire, eDonkey and the others "commercial" P2P will have to go. But that is by no mean the end of P2P, Open Source client like eMule and for sure Open-from-the-start protocols like Bittorent are going to be the long run winner of the "underground" P2P community.
On the other hand P2P as a distribution system for legit purpose is gaining massive momentum, just look at Red Swoosh, iFilm and IGN.com are using it and the download speed are impressive, without hogging you connection like BT will do.
Bottom line, this move is just a trick to try to survive a little longer from LimeWire, too bad it is going to backfire...

Collective Commons (1)

lousyd (459028) | about 9 years ago | (#13647470)

What is this "Collective Commons"?

Re:Collective Commons (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 9 years ago | (#13647551)

When's the last time you heard someone on Slashdot say, "Oh, you're right..."?
Now that you mention it, I think it was shortly after I said something along the lines of: "Micro$oft sucks teh donkey balls." :)

Soon to appear in Limewire: (4, Funny)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 9 years ago | (#13647475)

the Courage - Sincere Mistake
BetaVille - Giant in Tokyo
Deleture - Like to dislike you
False Medicine - Special J
The Cops - Every inhale you take
... and so on...

Filenames may vary.

Open Source (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647510)

In case people don't know, LimeWire is open source... http://sourceforge.net/projects/openwire [sourceforge.net]

Child Pornography (5, Insightful)

Namronorman (901664) | about 9 years ago | (#13647511)

Perhaps the creators of Limewire should focus more on preventing the sharing of photographs and videos that exploit small children instead of going Lordy Lordy over copyrighted music.

If they spent the same amount of time preventing Child pornography instead of music that is under RIAA's domain... well, I'm sure you get my point. What I'd like to know is why is the country that I live in more concerned about someone downloading copyrighted music than child pornography?

I know people are arrested all of the time for it, but music makes more news, it's kind of sad I think.

Fork of Limewire.... (1)

rm69990 (885744) | about 9 years ago | (#13647513)

I don't know how they plan on doing this...considering Limewire is released under the GPL.

From /usr/lib/LimeWire/SOURCE on my Linux machine:

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

The LimeWire source code can be obtained from the LimeWire open source
development site at www.limewire.org. The source code can be easily
accessed at: http://gui.limewire.org/servlets/ProjectSource [limewire.org] .

Thank you for your interest in LimeWire!

-LimeWire Team

-----------

The COPYING file in the same directory contains a copy of the GNU GPL v 2.

So, considering Limewire LLC doesn't own the copyrights to all of the work in the program, they cannot change the license terms on the other code. What is preventing a fork that still allows copyrighted material to be downloaded???

Limewire was forked once before http://www.zeropaid.com/news/923/Release:+FreeWire +2.4.0+out+now [zeropaid.com] ! so it can always happen again.

I think this is Limewire LLC's way of removing their own liability, even though they know Limewire will now get forked. I don't really blame them either.

I wonder why... (1)

Jeian (409916) | about 9 years ago | (#13647516)

I wonder what's causing them to do this. Something tells me that they didn't do this based on feedback saying "Please stop us from sharing copyrighted work!"

Re:I wonder why... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 9 years ago | (#13647543)

Seems unlikely, considering that all works on which the copyright has not expired are copyrighted.

Lime Wire Exodus (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647517)

Where to folks?

people still use gnutella? (2, Insightful)

SumDog (466607) | about 9 years ago | (#13647545)

I download most of my stuff using bitorrent these days and haven't touched Gnutella in a long time, although Limewire was my favorite client for Linux. A few months back I would use it from time to time to grab a song I heard on the radio. I just remember it being filled with lots of endless loops, blank files and songs with random glitches placed it and distributed by publisher groups.

There is so much music out there in single serving format (I still think they should have $1 CD downloads..Britney Spears..yea her CDs would be worth about a dollar). Although the DRM stuff is annoying, at least it shows that the music industry is trying to adapt to what consumers really want.

Gnutella protocols are really goind the way of the casual user who used their machine to browse the internet, use e-mail, download porn and play video games. They're more than happy to pay 99 cents (or however much it's gone up to now) to download DRMed music.

The true people who copy tons of illegal software and copyrighted music will move on to Bittorrent or continuing using usenet and irc fservs. They'll be the next target for the RIAA of course, but stuff keeps moving fast enough that nerds, audiophiles and the such will be a few steps ahead of them.

On to other ramblings...

Not Everything Has Or Needs A License (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 9 years ago | (#13647554)

The new code checks to see if shared material is licensed, if it is not, the LimeWire client will politely inform the user, 'LimeWire can't determine if one or more files have been published under a suitable license. These files will not be shared.'
So no public-domain material can be distributed via Limewire.

Hint: not everything needs a license.

What does this have to do with patents? [nt] (1)

Dwonis (52652) | about 9 years ago | (#13647555)

[No text.]

Re:What does this have to do with patents? [nt] (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 9 years ago | (#13647604)

I was wondering the same thing... perhapse limewire could patent "a system for checking licenses automatically before allowing the copying of a file" and kill TCPA for 20 years?

*uninstalls* (1)

Wisgary (799898) | about 9 years ago | (#13647577)

done

Thank God (1)

Adam Avangelist (808947) | about 9 years ago | (#13647586)

Even though Batman Begins (the movie) maybe copyrighted, Thank God Batman.Begins.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE is not.

LimeWire = LooserWire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647594)

Seems like LimeWire is trying hard to loose even more users. Not that I know anyone who is still using it.

Re:LimeWire = LooserWire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647632)

The word is lose.

hahaha (0, Redundant)

gh0st16 (907593) | about 9 years ago | (#13647596)

Thats hilarious, limewire is going to die sooo quick.

That sound you hear... (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 9 years ago | (#13647629)

Is the last gasp of the Enlightenment. Will the last person please knock the rust off the switch and turn out the lights.

dee dee dee (1)

Madd Scientist (894040) | about 9 years ago | (#13647647)

i thought the whole point of p2p was to shrare copyrighted mp3s? am i missing something?

Dumb solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647651)

Why not just attach a license file that limewire is looking for? You can still share the files.

It sounds like this change is to blow some smoke up to RIAA's butt and make them happy.

What exactly is the problem? (2, Funny)

mattgreen (701203) | about 9 years ago | (#13647652)

Assuming this does what it advertises, I don't see how this poses a problem. Everyone knows that P2P is mostly used for swapping music by independent artists, as well as large, legal files such as Linux distributions. It isn't a problem to tag these files appropriately.

Say goodbye to Limewire... (1)

bergeron76 (176351) | about 9 years ago | (#13647668)

What is so difficult to understand about: "The Genie is out of the bottle." ?!

These companies/products can try and try to force DRM onto people, but unless people elect to use it, they will fail.

I buy music on iTunes because it's legal/guilt-free, and affordable (and because I can afford to buy music these days).

The only people that pirate music are high-school kids that can't afford to buy music. The record labels are crying because they can no longer take advantage of these kids. Adults still purchase music, just as they did before, and there have been numerous studies to suggest this.

Record companies can rot in hell. I was once a poor high school kid that could only buy one CD a week. Now I'm a well to do Adult and I can buy a complete CD on iTunes without even thinking twice about the purchase.

I feel even more comfortable knowing that the Artist is getting more of the revenue as well.

Limewire should change its name to Lamewire. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#13647673)

It will become about as useless as Anonymizer.

THe Ohter Hihg inducement to piracy device (1)

shareme (897587) | about 9 years ago | (#13647680)

You know according the judges ruling the other high inducement to piracy device is in fact he music CD itself since it shighly copyable.. Does thi smean that RIAA members are required to issue only DRM protected musci CDs to comply with the judge's ruling/order? And if so than does that RIAA members can sued for non-compliance? What is good for the goose had better be good for the gander.. Is it not about time that the RIAa get sued with their own legal theories?

When you bully someone... (1)

darthgnu (866920) | about 9 years ago | (#13647703)

...they get scared and do what you want them to do. The copyfight will not be won if nobody stands up to the *AA. Getting sued is not that bad, at least you can make a valid point in court instead of simply running like cowards and you get the press for it too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?