Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Goes after LimeWire
PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. "
...are the operators of usenet.
i was afraid they would go after my precious pr0n..... *phewph*
The RIAA and MPAA are teaming up to sue the highway patrol of all states with interstates that border on other states for failing to stop them and prevent them from allowing friends to copy their DVD's and CD's.
I had a sucky sig.
This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people.
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
Xerox should be sued for first marketing the photocopier.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Or computer manufactuers, maybe just CD burner or hard disk makers. They all equally "allow" people to pirate via their resources. Just as much as limewire does at least..
For making computers, and CD and DVD burners... They're the real enemy!
This
The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet.
Maybe next, they can arrest me for trespassing, because I'm encouraging all you to go stand on your neighbors' lawns without permission.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Sun's java.com website still has LimeWire: http://java.com/en/desktop/limewire.jsp and a banner for downloading it was recently on the java.com front page.
When you download limewire from limewire.com, you are prompted to make the following decision before your download begins: 1) I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. OR 2) I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. Case closed.
It's amazing to me that the RIAA hasn't figured out that they really need to sue those bastards that wrote TCP/IP and didn't think for a minute to include DRM in the original description... They've made so much money since all the networks that operate on the protocol so viciously promote piracy of copyrighted material. They should pay for their lack of foresight.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
Thank God I use eMule.
"claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission"
Wait... nowadays, we get a license to listen to the songs... you get DRM that stop you from doing anythign you want with what you buy....
Shouldn'T they sue the disk companies for that? i mean it's much more easier to use ripped songs than the official DRMed/Rootkitted songs that the music companies are giving us....
I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.
This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.
I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Based on that complaint, it sounds more like they're passively encouraging people, at best.
Either that or the fact that I've never held up a stop sign in the middle of the street means that I'm actively encouraging people to run red lights.
It might be a good idea right now to use SVK to mirror the whole limewire SVN repository, before it gets pulled from the net.
CAPTCHA: thefts
What the RIAA is doing is pathetic, it's there own fault people pirate music, because of overpriced cd's and drm's, some people just do it because they don't like the RIAA, there efforts are futile, new p2p networks and applicatiions will spring up.
When are the creator(s) of the internet gonna start getting suid by the RIAA becuase the internet encourages the trading of things, and music gets traded. So be it the transitive property if a=b and b=c, then a=c.
Although it is a file-sharing program, of all the ones I've used, Limewire is the one that actively DISCOURAGES copyright infringement the MOST.
I guess the RIAA couldn't go very long without finding another way to annoy the crap out of everyone...
Next they'll sue people who make simple ftp servers on the same grounds, then the IETF for coming up with file transfer protocols, then anyone having anything to do with routable networks like DARPA and while we're at at it, why not just sue the people who melt sand to make fiber optics and mine the copper that makes our cables for not explicitly "failing to block access to copyright works". Shoot, we should just sue people for existing.
--Let's hack root on 127.0.0.1 --panZ
Instead of the RIAA, Elliot Spitzer should go after them for distributing so much spyware with their program, and barely disclosing it a hundred pages deep in their EULA.
They should never have ruled that it was ok to go after software makers like this. Its the users fault, unless you want to rule them sub-human and not capable of controlling them selves.
microsoft is actively encouraging hackers to write virusses, trojans, worms etc. (since the protection is so poor)
so this means microsoft must be accountable for any damage that any worm, virus, trojan etc. does to any windows pc on this planet...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
...Stewards.
I have no further comment.
..Not LimeWire!! What are we going to do now that the one, single, all-encompassing source of illegal contraband is going to be sued and possibly shutdown??? MP3's are going to be eliminated forever!!!!!!
So developers of the world, have you thought of a name for that new file-sharing device that you're creating?
Do not mark in this space. For official office use only.
Remember kids, Limewire is just a Gnutella client. If they shut down Limewire, we still have a dozen more clients we can use just as well.
Hooray for Open Source fully distributed networks!
This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people.
Not really. Companies like Remington go to enormous lengths to label everything they ship, and infuse every bit of their marketing message with the "don't hurt people with our products, please." They pump lots of money and support into law enforcement, safety training for hunters and sport shooters, and they expressly fund programs that teach kids how to be safe with a firearm if they get involved in such sports.
Suing such a manufacturer for a criminal's misuse of their product isn't even a little bit like suing the provider of a service that deliberately cultivates a culture of users that traffic in warez, entertainment that's been ripped off, and specifically builds such traffic into their revenue model. Remington doesn't woo, encourage, and project profits based upon the actions of murderers buying their products - and you've made a poor analogy.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is pathetic. But it was bound to happen. I mean, look at the people they have sued (from Wiki): The RIAA has been criticised in the media after they subpoenaed Gertrude Walton, an 83-year-old grandmother who had died in December of 2004 [23]. Mrs. Walton stood accused of swapping rock, pop and rap songs. The RIAA in 2003 attempted to sue Sarah Seabury Ward, a 66 year-old sculptor residing in Boston, Massachusetts. They alleged that she shared more than 2,000 songs illegally. The RIAA dropped the suit when it was discovered that she was a computer novice. The case was dismissed, but without prejudice. The RIAA has also been criticised for bringing lawsuits against children, such as 12 year old Brianna LaHara in 2003 [24]. The RIAA also attempted to sue Candy Chan of Michigan, for the alleged actions of her daughter, 13 year old Brittany Chan. The court dismissed Priority Records v. Chan [25] because it was ruled that the mother could not be sued for the alleged infringements of her daughter. [26] When the court ruled in favor of the mother, dismissing the case, the RIAA proceeded to sue her child. However, prosecuting a minor is more difficult, and many previous adult defendants have said that the P2P software installation and copyright infringement was done without their knowledge by one of their children. And on a related note: The RIAA's recent targeting of students has generated controversy as well. An April 4th story in the MIT campus newspaper The Tech indicates that an RIAA representative stated to Cassi Hunt, an alleged file-sharer, that previously, "the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements."[27] Is that PATHETIC or what?! RIAA/MPAA needs to die. The world would be a better place.
I see dead pixels!
Even if they manage to shut down Limewire, people will just move to another client in the Gnutella network.
No different than Napster and Kazaa, to name a few.
Will the RIAA ever realize this?
I don't think RIAA really cares about Limewire per se, so much as eliminating any *business* built on file-sharing technology. Once the businesses are out of the way, they can effectively lobby Congress for anti-filesharing technology laws with little commercial opposition. Money buys laws. Your pathetic complaints to your congressman mean little without a unified effort. With no business interests to oppose them, RIAA will have their way pretty easily.
Go after Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo!, Google, because the formers wrote/own, respectively, MSN Messenger, Skype, Yahoo! Instant Messenger, GTalk, which due to it's ability to send file without doing a prior check if both sides (a) own the copyright for the file. (b) can, legally read the file contents and do whatever. They should sue Microsoft twice as they wrote Microsoft Windows(R), which allow such kind of file to exist in the hard drive and be easly swapped with unknown people
Wait a minute, isn't having retardly high prices for all but pop music contibuting to people strealing music?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
When you download limewire you have to select one of two options "I might use limewire for copyright infringement" or "I will not use limewire for copyright infringement". Selecting the former option does not allow you to download limewire. And then of course there's the 50 page EUlA which probably mentions something about not being liable for your actions.
Also, fuck the RIAA/MPAA and their large scale sue-everyone-and-get-rich-quite scheme.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
LimeWire wont work if you tell the truth when you install it. If you check the box saying you might use it for piracy, it wont work. So LimeWire isnt responsible. Why stop there? Why dont you blabbering fatcats complaining about "ethics" and "copyright infringement" sue Colt and Remington because they profit directly from guns used to kill people and rob banks? How about sueing Epson and Hewlett Packard because their printers can print copyrighted photographs, child pornography or pages from books?
Why is obtaining something you don't own for free a right on the internet?
You don't own it, but its easy, so therefore it should be lega? I don't like these companies but you have to pay for it. How'd you feel if I hotwired your car and drove it for a week? I"m just borrowing it and it was really easy! Douchebags...
If I were to buy all that I'm told that I need or want, I wouldn't have money to put food on the table. Sure, I still buy plenty of software, CDs and DVDs, but I can never afford to buy all that I'm told to need or want.
Luckily, P2P networks turn us all from digital 'have-nots' into 'haves', and we still get to channel our cash into other sectors of industry, service and commerce. Like filling up a tank of gas, or buying food that's more expensive than ever because of the freight costs.
So the RIAA wants me to be their $21.00-a-pop bitch till death do us part? Fat chance! In fact, I'll download and share thrice as much music as I originally intended, just because it's, you know, FUN!
As we all know, we really put a stop to those illegal drug sales by going after the "heads of the snakes" there. Wanna-be drug users just can't find someone willing to supply them anymore, most of the time!
Oh, wait....
I get the logic, but there's a fundamental flaw. You can't effectively stop the masses from breaking an arbitrary restriction placed on an activity if the masses feel what they're doing is justified.
If LimeWire shuts down tomorrow, a programmer will be out there coding the next replacement for it - only with additional protections to make it harder than before to track the source of the traffic.
Shut that down, and another will pop up, and another, and.....
If it finally proves not too effective to do p2p sharing at all, due to the "law" constantly putting a stop to it - people will resort to more "guerrila" tactics (as they've already done many times before). Things can be uploaded with non-obvious filenames and folder names, to random servers (or even web or ftp sites that passwords were hacked on in advance) - and private message forums can provide the short-lived and always rotating links to them.
VPN tunnels can be set up from point to point between trusted parties and files interchanged on their makeshift WANs.
Individuals can offer files through their IM clients.
Of course, Usenet is utilized too, and it doesn't seem practical to successfully put a stop to it.
People might even wish to set up email list servers that distribute attached files to those who know the secret commands to email to get signed up and request them.
Don't forget all the other alternatives, such as running telnet-based BBS software. (Kind of a "retro" solution, but like opting to run Windows 3.1 to use the Internet on your PC and thereby dodging almost all the trojan horse spyware, might be effective through obscurity, at least for a while.)
Is they will try and sue Canada for harboring Music Pirates; just cause it's legal here.
I'm an asshole. Yes, I know.
So why aren't we suing the RIAA for giving us the music in the first place, thus allowing the music to be pirated?
Listen up, pigopolists. LimeWire isn't responsible. YOU are responsible. Your rampant, unchecked greed is the reason we download music using P2P instead of obtaining it directly from you for a nominal fee. LimeWire may be the current conduit, but you are not going to stop P2P by stopping LimeWire. In fact, you are making your own lives more difficult by encouraging the P2P community to devise and deploy a new music sharing system that has no central controlling entity that you can sue. The more heavy-handed you get with us, the harder we are going to fight back. We are NOT going to succumb to your greed. You made your bed, now you can f$%*ing sleep in it.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Everyone here seems to be defending Limewire, when the fact remains that although I sincerely doubt they encourage copywrite infringement, they certainly do facilitate it. I feel that I can confidently say that 99% of Limewires usage is to distribute copy-written material. That said, is everyone defending it on principle -- that principle being a sincere dislike for the RIAA -- or is it just fun to play ignorant?
"What?!?! Downloading copy-written material, who the hell does that on Limewire!? Certainly not me!"
I'll admitt, I'm not innocent, but I wont play dumb either.
For when Limewire loses its case, because it will.
Aside from providing the software, does the LimeWire company play any role at all in the Gnutella network?
If the LimeWire company were to be completely closed down, wouldn't users already possessing the LimeWire software be able to continue using it as before? Or do I not understand how this whole P2P system works.
Should I seek counsel?
Copyright V Copyleft.
Two men enter. One man leaves.
And linking to the sites like this one (featuring for example " how to download a complete album ?") does very little to show that they are IN FACT against copyright infringement. As much as don't like RIAA, they might have fairly clear and simple case with LimeWire.
Next thing you know, the RIAA will try to take Al Gore to court for creating the massive mode of copyright infringement we call the internet. Nice try RIAA guys...and I bet you'll win in court too.
If they were to go under, could they GPL the Limewire code before closing up if they were found to be guilty? Or is all their IP considered tangable assets that could be awarded to the plaintiffs?
Just a curiosity...
Per this story this past February:
+ copyright+lawsuits/2100-1025_3-6043057.html
http://news.com.com/Are+Usenet+fans+vulnerable+to
""actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works" Isn't not doing anything the definition of passive? Or did that change when I wasn't looking?
No troll BUT Slashdot is really going downhill if no one has even mentioned this yet.
I should be able to sue the RIAA for not actively preventing murders in my country.
From Wikipedia: "According to a June 28, 2005, report in The New York Times, Lime Wire LLC may stop distributing LimeWire due to the outcome of MGM v. Grokster. However, new versions are being released (4.10 released on March 18, 2006) with various new features. On September 25, 2005, it was reported that Lime Wire LLC was working on a version of the program which will refuse to share files that lack valid license information.[4] On June 21, 2006, Limewire 4.12.3 was released. Version 4.12.3 includes a new option to filter out material that copyright owners have denied access to. In practice, many of the so-called "legal" downloads on LimeWire have a spoofed license. That is, filesharers have marked that the file is uncopyrighted and legal to download, even if it is not." In otherwords, it seems that limewire has been working on ways to prevent illegal downloads. Even if half-hearted, this will make it VERY hard to prove Limewire is facilitating piracy.
Actually, the word "encouraged" suggests that may have been a rather extended nap which stretched into the class on aiding and abetting as well...
You mean to tell me people download music on Limewire? And all this time, I thought it was for porn. Downloading porn is still legal... right? RIGHT?
... uh yeah...
Oh man, this is gonna suck if they shut Limewire down. I mean, it'll suck if you're into that sort of thing... such a nasty habit. Nasty and dirty and
I8-D
For quite a while now, I have been trying to get my own music (ie that I create) onto the limewire network. I *want* people to steal my music. I want to get it on other people's boxes in their shared folder.
Its not as easy as you think.
You would think, all you have to do, is to fire up a client, put your music in your shared folder, and leave it up for people to download and wait for the fireworks to commence.
There's one problem. Nobody downloads your music. Because nobody searches for it. And worse, nobody downloads music anymore.
-
Nobody gives a crap about your music unless you push it in front of them, put it in front of their face. That is the reality. The music business is a push business. Any artist that stays popular is popular because they have an active campaign to push it to people.
Okay, fair enough...
Now I give my music away for free on Myspace, and push it heavily. Over 60,000 people have downloaded my music, and 6,000 my music videos.
But there's a problem. Nobody wants to download music anymore. Because there's an ocean of music out there. They all want to just stream it.
People just don't buy music anymore. Period. Its a challenge to get it out there when YOUR GIVING IT AWAY. Forget selling it. That's laughable.
So when you hear these cases of RIAA suing on behalf of these artists, consider this. Nobody wants that media, those artists are washed up because the business is washed up. There is no music business anymore. The only possible way to make money is to sue people because nobody buys their stuff anymore.
The media business has tanked. Because its oversaturated with people competing extremely hard for money that just is not there. Its bizarre actually.
Try to publish something, anything, as a small operation, and you will see how incredibly hard it is to get it into wide distribution, and that's without any cost barrier standing in the way. Once you impose a cost/ where people have to buy it, you can be assured you are dooming yourself to grinding to a halt.
The truth of the matter is there is no music business. Someone just put the words music + business together, like they did easter + bunny, but in both cases, neighter really exists. Its a big farce and lie.
Good luck making a dime at it or even selling 5 cd's, you'll see quite quick and erase any illusions you may have. The sad thing is, millions of neophyte bands live on that dream of the MTV cribs illusion, when its just that, people frontin. There is nothing ahead for them. If they do succeed, its nothing but grueling hard work for five cents on the dollar, what you would be making with your time working at a fast food restaurant.
I agree, but it goes even further. It assumes you've obtained the file initially through a legal means (much like the bartender assumes you got your license from the government, not from Joe Fraudster in his garage). If you copied the song from a legitimate source or program, it should have a license or DRM or something saying, "You can't trade this on a file sharing network." Limewire gives copyright holders the opportunity then to actively prevent trading.
The legal defense, I think, has to then come back and prove that Limewire is taking every reasonable measure to actively promote the ability of the RIAA to censor trading without suing them or the traders. It also removes some liability to traders who use legitimate programs by telling them to just share everything, because existing DRM will prevent you from inadvertently sharing something you are not allowed.
For instance, I buy a CD. I assume I own that CD and the music on it. But, when I copy it, the DRM attached to it says no sharing. I won't inadvertently share all the music on my harddrive and break the law, because this should prevent sharing. On the other hand, if I remove the DRM, or circumvent it, then at least Limewire made every effort short of downloading your file and examining it themselves. Limewire can basically say, hey, we're like a car dealership. We take every measure possible to confirm the odometer. But, if someone messes with it in a way we can't detect, it would be an undo burden for us to follow the driver around everywhere to confirm it. I think the license check is a reasonable and active prevention of copyright infringement.
On the other hand, I could buy a CD from a progressive band who puts a DRM on it that specifically says, "Yeah, share this all you want!" I certainly would want to financially support such an artist.
The RIAA should then only really go after ripping programs that strip out their license information. Even on Linux, the license information could be stored in the meta-data, even if the DRM has to be stripped for the file to play correctly. This doesn't need to be done at the ripper level, but at the player level. The player then, by stripping the DRM to play, could still lock out all copy features if any DRM exists.
It all comes down to the honor system. Limewire works on the honor system that you won't go out of your way to avoid the license. RIAA should accept this, and only go after those who don't want to play by the honor system... much like video game ratings are by the honor system. It works because the only time you have to react is when someone goes out of their way to break the honor system. In this case, the user has to go out of their way to modify the license data, or the RIAA fails to include it, and they only have themselves to blame for that.
If licenses were standardized like the Creative Commons is, if the RIAA included them, if the rippers included them (maybe transferring them to a different format if need be), and services like Limewire honors them... what's the problem? In this way, it's certainly not Limewire that's doing anything wrong, but is the fault of the user who broke the DRM. As a backup, why doesn't the RIAA provide file names to automatically filter as well. Not just to Limewire, but to the public? Better yet, why not also use signed certificate licenses with hashes on the file names (not the content, because that is altered during ripping)? Sure, someone could modify the name in such a way as "br1tn3y sp34rs", but the RIAA could include permutations to the extent that anything they don't catch, it should be obvious someone is trying to scam the license system (much like spammers trying to avoid filters).
Besides, nobody usually searches for such wild permutations, so they are naturally censored. I actually wish it worked this way. That way, you could go on a file sharing network, and download all music, because only legal music would be available. And, if Joe Fraudster puts up something that was circumve
I8-D
Even idiotical Russia F. Have gun ban on noncombatants
I'm fairly sure everyone here agrees... http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/RIAA
From TFA "...building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy."
So if there's a business model that DIRECTLY profits from piracy AND the RIAA acknowledge this, more than that it's their entire argument, then why isn't the music industry adopting this well-defined business model that gives them money DIRECTLY from piracy?
Hypocritical, one might say, but they are anyway.
Yes, the cost to manufacture one physical CD is under a dollar. However, it costs money to record the music (sometimes a hell of a lot of money, like hundreds of dollars an hour x several weeks/months). It also costs money to work with a distributor who gets the CD into stores, and the retail outlets also have to make *some* money on the deal. Not to mention little things like paying the guy who makes the cover-art.
You're complaining about paying $15-20 for a CD that cost between hundreds to hundreds of thousand of dollars, and hundreds to thousands of man-hours to create. There's a hell of a lot of work that goes into every single CD you see in stores. Yet you complain about spending $20?
The problem isn't the fact that it costs $20. The problem is that the companies asking you to pay that much are filled with crooked, money-grubbing assholes who live off of exploiting people with talent (or just good looks). If you're refusing to buy the next CD put out by Sony/Warner Bros., that's fine by me. But there are a hell of a lot of independant labels'/artists' CD's on those racks in stores, and thousands and thousands more in online stores, that are relying on people paying the $10-15 they ask for their CD's.
Insightful? You mean ignorant.
The problem is that the whole concept of "piracy" being illegal and getting something for nothing is what the attractiveness is.
321 Studios marketed a product that was blatently illegal. They sold millions of dollars worth in a couple of years until they were sued out of existance. If they had been selling a legal product they likely would have never amounted to anything. It was the illegal nature of the product that made it attractive.
Your suggested solution would provide a way for everyone to (1) respect the rights of content creators to control the distribution of their work and (2) get the lawyers out of the system. Unfortunately, it removes all of the attractiveness from getting something for nothing - because all you could get would be the stuff that people were giving away. Nobody tries to rob a soup kitchen - they will go to a store and steal a can of soup first.
Ok... time to show my age, I guess... Back in the day (call it about 15 years ago, seems like I was doing it before that too), I would have a cool tape (cassette) or LP, and a friend would bring it over to my house so I could burn a copy on cassette for myself. Someone explain to me HOW this is LEGALLY different. I fully understand that the Internet allows me FAR more "friends" than back then, but legally, no difference. I can go onto Limewire, get a file/music/movie from a "friend", and have a copy for my OWN PERSONAL USE. Back in the day, I would burn my copy onto chrome cassette for my OWN PERSONAL USE. Where's the difference? THIS is why I see no problem with using Limewire/Napster (back in it's heydey, i.e. FREE) to get some music. Hell, if I like what I download, I may just buy the damn thing, just so I have a hard copy. RIAA must be some sort of anagram for stupidity...
Stone
Music education.
It's very simple. Music doesn't have to be marketed, sold, and controlled. Sit down and play some music with some friends. Get together every month for an afternoon and write a song. Go to local music performances. Learn music theory, learn an instrument for the first time, or learn a new one.
End the madness now. Music is part of the human condition. Don't let the other part of the human condition market and control it. You can start now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_Theory
I'm so sick of having to fix hard drive corruption caused by LimeWire on people's computers.
Look, people, its real simple. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE RIDE. I don't give a rat's ass if you think the RIAA and related companies are immoral, that is NOT an excuse to STEAL MUSIC and therefore propogate a different kind of immorality.
PAY FOR YOUR SHIT. THEN YOU WON'T GET SUED. ITS VERY FREAKING SIMPLE.
If you get caught STEALING a CD from WalMart, it's about a hundred dollar fine. If the RIAA catches you DLing Britney's horrible crap it will cost you thousands of dollars.
So those who say "but your steeling whn u DL" can STFU, OK?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You go on and on about putting your band's songs on MySpace and how you can't get anybdoy to buy your albums, what little hick town does your band play in? The last 30 or so CDs I've bought have been from local bands.
They're not pushing them either, I usually have to go up and ask "hey, man, you guys got a CD?"
Your posting a/c makes me suspicious, somehow. What's the name of your band? URL? Kind of music? Agenda?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Stealing == Theft of property, ie, to deprive someone of there possesion.
The issue is illegal copying, ie, making a copy without the permission of the owner. IT IS NOT THEFT!!!
The *RAA have done everything they can to brainwash people into thinking the making a copy of a song is theft, and it seems they have succeded in conditioning you to there way of thinking.
For the record, I do not condone copyright infringment in general, and those people who do copy music, be it by download or friends CD=>your iPod are breaking the law.
HOWEVER, format conversion/backup copying is fine, as long as you have the original.
I really don't want to trawl through Limewire's code but I guess I'll have to.
I simply want a P2P app that will keep me from getting sued. When I download a file, how in the hell am I supposed to know the copyright owner doesn't want it downloaded? Any real artist wants his/her stuff seen/heard. You're not going to sell me a song I haven't heard.
Say I hear a song on the local college station; they play local and regional bands some times that WANT to be heard. Say I hear this song "scatterbrain" and think it's hilarious, but have no idea who made the song.
Punch "scatterbrain" into Limewire and you'll discover hundreds of different songs by different artists by that name.
If my P2P client wouldn't DL into a shared folder I would be in the clear. That's not "Lost Boys"' scatterbrain, but instead Todd Rungren's? I'm s(cr)ued.
Note that downloading is legal, it's UPLOADING that's not. I want to upload stuff that the owners want uploaded, and download anything I damned well please.
Oh well, I guess I need to start studying that code. I HATE the C language too >=(
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
P2P has legitimate uses should not be marginalized. Your Napster example falls flat as one only needs to know that unlike Limewire, Napster keep a list of files being shared on a central server. That's an important distinction. Limewire keeps no such centralized list and should not be held accountable for what other people do with its product any more that a pistol manufacturer should be held accountable every time someone uses one of their guns to rob a bank or commit murder.
This is more than an attack on Limewire, it is an attack on the P2P technology.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I'm sorry to be the harsh voice of reality, but have you considered the possibility that it's just music that no one wants? I buy plenty...
First thing I did when I read the article was to download the Limewire source code. I don't use Limewire at all, because I have my own CD collection nicely ripped. But RIAA: It's OPEN SOURCE! You cannot stop it. Go to http://toorg.blogspot.com/ to see how to stop piracy.
Morons.
Limewire is open source, which is nice. In this case, maybe not so much though, as there is at least one example in their code proving they had sharing of copyrighted music in mind.
Searches shorter than 3 letters are dropped, unless that search is for 'u2'. Something like (horrible pseudocode follows)
if (search.length() 3 && search.contents() != "u2") search.discard();
Even if it's been removed, It's sure to be seen somewhere in the CVS revisions. If I really cared I could track down the specific file. That surely can't help their case.
It's interesting that by not actively discouraging behaviour, the RIAA is suggesting that Limewire is encouraging behaviour.
Can we expect to see K-mart being sued by the family of an axe-murderer's victim because they didn't advise the buyer the axe was for cutting down trees and not lopping off heads?
(Would love to see the NRA get sued next time someone is shotdown on some street corner... yeah right)
what about the wal-mart class action suit.
there was a genuine claim of abuse to workers, anticompetitive activity, etc. Now i'm not saying they were not innocent until proven guilty, but it at least warranted arguments before the court, but the court rejected it. It couldnt possibly be because it was a bunch of little guys against the worlds largest retailer in a court dominated by republican appointees could it?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Asleep at law school, but wide awake during political classes. Words don't need to be true to have the effect you want.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
Does anyone have a copy of the complaint yet?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Thanks for the tip.
Try WYEP.
Lies about crimes
...that the RIAA would be broke, from all these stupid, frivolous lawsuits they file and from the politicians that get bought-off.
If I had been asked a year or so ago, I would have said that the RIAA might have been broke long before SCO. Obviously, I would have been wrong.
Saying they were losing in deliberations
They were going to lose until the decision was significantly reined in. If the Court was simply pro-Sony in that case, it wouldn't've mattered. I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong about the judicial system. You've let your cynicism blind you.
what about the wal-mart class action suit.
I'm not familiar with the case, so you'd really need to provide a cite.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Now in France, it is illegal to distribute creative-commons music, no matter how. If you do so without passing through the SACEM (french RIAA) or a major, you theorically risk 3 years.
The story was there in slashdot a month ago...
You are so old...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
If I may be forgiven for answering my own question, I've obtained, and posted, a copy of the complaint. It accuses Lime Wire of fostering copyright infringement by discouraging what it termed "freeloaders".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I don't see how my cynicism blinds me.
The way you present things reminds me of that quote.. "yeah theyre punching you in the face, but you should be grateful because theyre not kicking you in the cahones"
Quite frankly, after witnessing the blanket banning of entire classes of technology that was the DMCA, there is no such thing as too much cynicism.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Then what about that remaining 1%? Should they be denied the right to do whatever they're doing?
The principle being defended here, is that people who don't break the law, shouldn't be oppressed by government or expensive-to-litigate civil suits.
I am not interested in Limewire, but there are some things that p2p networks will be good for. Perhaps you just don't see those applications yet. (I'm personally working on something that uses GiFT as a backend for its inter-user communication, and this app has nothing to do with copyright infringement.) I don't want a technology or a network to be pre-emptively outlawed, just because some people (even if there are great many of those "some people") abuse it.
If RIAA has a beef with copyright infringement, then they need to go after copyright infringement. By going after the toolmakers, I get suspicious that they fear decentralized communication more than copyright infringement. And the fact is, it makes sense for them to fear that, since their business model involves so much advertising, homogenization, and essentially mass-hyponosis. So what we have here is a group that is doing the wrong thing and also has the motive to do the wrong thing. It's going to take a hell of an argument to convince me that their efforts to go after toolmakers instead of copyright infringers, is merely an honest mistake.
Even if attacking toolmakers has the effect of combating copyright infringement, you damn well know someone at RIAA is cackling with glee that they are "killing two birds with one stone."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Quite frankly, after witnessing the blanket banning of entire classes of technology that was the DMCA, there is no such thing as too much cynicism.
Sure, but that's Congress, not the courts. And while it may be incredibly stupid, if it's constitutional, then it is something that Congress is allowed to be incredibly stupid about; the courts would lack the power to do anything about it.
What I'm objecting to is that you're directing your ire to the courts, who I think are not particularly to blame here. I disagree with them on some matters, but I don't think that they are corrupt. I would agree that most of Congress is mostly corrupt, however, and that the rest isn't much better.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
...quick, where can I download an MP3 of the Queen classic?