LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"

Comments

Poor excuse for a counter-claim

[bigskank]

First, IANAL, but I am in law school and have at least a basic knowledge of counterclaims, the FRCP, etc...

I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Unfortunately....

This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):

"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"

"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."

Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[geminidomino]

You know, I am just establishing an international, standardized computer network. But it is not my fault if people keep feeding that chain with spam or child porn on the other end. I'm just keeping the supply chain running, how am I supposed to control these things?

Indeed.

Re:For those lawyers out there

[kfg]

.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors. . .

I wrote an argument in a decss/DMCA case. The analogy that I used was a book in a safe. The rights holder was selling you the book and the safe, but claiming monopoly rights (under copyright law) to the combination, which it would only license to you for an additional fee, further claiming that if you managed to obtain the combination from a third party you were not legally allowed to use it and also claiming that you were only legally allowed to open the safe with the combination. Because they had a copyright on the combination you could not blow your own safe even though it was your own property.

This was not a direct infringement case, such as p2p file sharing. Property rights in the book and the safe were undisputed by the rights holder. You had bought them. Had reciepts and everything. Neither were rights to actually read the book in dispute. If you steal a book you have commited larceny, but have not infringed upon copyright if you read the stolen book (the copy of the book is perfectly legitimate).

Naturally I argued that property rights gave you, well, ya know, property rights and that certain provisions of the DMCA actually acknowledged these rights; as well as others, under copyright law.

The judge actually used my analogy in his finding, but completely ignored all of the arguments, did not address them at all; and ruled that the DMCA prevented you from accessing the book by any means other than a licensed copy of the combination, even though you owned both the safe and the book, simply because the lock existed.

So, anyway, under this ruling if you buy a house with an electronic security system that is constructed very cleverly, just so, yes, you could not only be legally prevented from using the doors, but prevented from installing a new door to get into your house. The ownership rights to your house would be trumped by a copyright.

But yes, you'll sure still be expected to pay the taxes on it.

KFG

The eventual plan

[Dirtside]

I figured this out the other day.

The eventual plan of the copyright cartels is this: First, continually lobby Congress for longer and longer copyright protections. That way, nothing ever falls out of copyright.

As time goes on, the cartels will buy up all the copyrighted content they can, from individual content producers. Not all content producers will be willing to sell to the cartels, but many will.

As the amount of copyrighted material piles up, it'll be harder and harder to produce something which doesn't resemble other copyrighted material, most of which will be owned by the cartels.

So the cartels will sue (or threaten to sue) the individual content producers for violating their copyrights -- and the deal they'll offer is either to buy the content for a pittance (and drop the lawsuit), or to take it all in the lawsuit (which they will have little trouble winning, most of the time).

The end result is that the cartels will control almost all copyrightable content. The only material they don't control will be the content that's been produced so recently that they haven't had time to sue the creator yet.