Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.
stay off my side? I agree with that LimeWire is saying, and I like LimeWire, but their business model is based off illegally downloading music, for the most part. I don't feel like I want this business model fighting fo rour rights. It doesn't give legitimacy to our side.
How about a quick explanation?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.
That explanation basically places subjective authority entirely in a judges hands.. This reminds me of the language from the "INDUCE act", except applied to frivolous lawsuits.
Notice how no lawsuits levvied by the wealthier interest in such cases are tossed out, but a class action lawsuit alledging numerous breaches of labor and antitrust laws against wal-mart is tossed out without a second thought.
Ahh.. have to love how congress completely skirts the issue of bribery by allowing the judges to take the suitcases full of money.
Souter ruling eat your heart out!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
LimeWire's lawyers are exactly right. Read the claim -- they cite an RIAA conspiracy "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." That's pretty much what happened and continues to happen; you can complain that nobody forced LimeWire to break the law, but that doesn't in any way get the RIAA off the hook for blatantly anti-competitive practices (and LimeWire's attorneys are right that unlicensed content sharing is the inevitable consequence of those practices).
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is just one of a judge's duties. Judges examine the claims and evidence and make those kinds of determinations. And so? What would you suggest as an alternative? A differently-worded Rule 11...that judges would also be tasked with interpreting when they preside over cases? I'm not sure you understand how the U.S. legal system works.
not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.
That should involve examining the evidence backing up a claim and rendering a judgment, not simply dismissing the claim because the judge thinks the defendant should be granted the priviledge of not having a trial.
if this rule applied to murder.. you'd have a judge saying
"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts"
That would be the whole point of the judiciary.. accusations are supposed to be adequately weighed and the defendant proven guilty/found not guilty following a fair trial.. not the defendant having a free ride because the plaintiff just seems a bit too shady to the judge's subjective view.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
At least as I see things. That is the hope that in the 'exploitation' of this countersuit, the judge sees some evidence of wrong-doing by the RIAA, and that judge, in some way, agrees they are using anticompetative practices. If that is all that is firmly established in this court case, it is enough to let other lawyers build upon, or I hope that it is.
One thing is sure, as my grandpa used to say, there is no smoke without fire. The trouble is often seeing through the smoke to find the fire. I for one hope that Limewire and their lawyers at least make it more than slightly noticable to John Q. Public that the RIAA is anti-competative and anti-consumer. I hope they are able to blow aside the smoke so we all can see the smoldering fire of the RIAA's business model.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Whatever they claim just doesn't sound right because, you know... That whole Napster thing... And, you know, those napster users were probably smoking teh pot too. Criminals. All of them.
The judge is thinking there's no way files can be legitimately shared... Who makes their own music? Why would they want to give it away? Smells like some kind of crazy thing my weird liberal parents might have done.
Let's not forget the judge has a windows desktop using totally proprietary software with antivirus and antispyware and anti-this and anti-that run by a system administrator who babysits the judge when the computer has a hic-up.
The judge experiences it all as working and working well, so where's the crime here?
End of LimeWire.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.
P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.
As much as I wish someone other than a file sharing software maker was running the ball on this play, it's still a big deal for someone to be bringing up antitrust issues as a plaintiff against the RIAA - even if it's only as a "counter plaintiff".
For the time being, I say forget who LimeWire is and what the majority of their users do; get behind them in this. Whether LimeWire prevails in their defense pales in significance compared to the importance of these counterclaims.
IANAL of course.
Pi Ran Out
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.
"you know.. that OJ is just such a good football player and such a beloved public figure.. i just don't believe he could have murdered anyone.. therefore I'm tossing out the prosecution's case without even scrutinizing the facts" ...if a member of the jury decided to act thusly.
I was on a jury in a drug case.
Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound believable. A couple of years later, he was indicted for fraud.
Jury nullification works.
The purpose of Rule 11 is to prevent parties from engaging in abusive litigation. In the most general terms, Rule 11 means that if a party brings a suit, they need a minimal basis for that suit. Rule 11 is a court adopted rule and as such, it should be expected that courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying it. Remember, court procedure is merely about creating a fair forum so that a fact finder (judge or jury) can decide the ultimate issues. Shotgunning the court with baseless claims is detrimental to a fair process. Because it is the court's duty to provide a fair process, it must be able to step in when things get out of hand.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
well.. then for tens of thousands of citizens of this country.. rule 11 has failed to protect them from abusive RIAA litigation ^^
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.
As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.
In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.
Read Pynchon.
Not quite: "abusive" means without a basis in existing law or fact, or that there are no reasonable arguments to extend existing law. A law is not "abusive" just because one dislikes it. So for example, if a person violates another's copyright, the content-owner may sue the infringing-user for damages.
An example of abusive litigation would be if the RIAA intentionally sued someone when it absolutely knew he/she had not violtaed their copyrights. It is not likely to be considered abusive for the RIAA to sue someone if they have a reasonable factual basis to believe a violation took place. Note, a "reasonable factual basis" is not the same as an "ironclad case". So linking an IP address "owner" with shared music files is probably a strong enough basis to start a case. Other facts might change this during the discovery process but at least intially, it certainly wouldn't be "abusive" in the sense used here. For example, if in discovery it came out that the IP address "owner" didn't actually buy the network service, but someone else did after stealing his credit card, the RIAA would really need to drop the suit.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
The RIAA is running scared. Thier stranglehold om the music industry is about end. THis is good. Not becasue the RIAA is EVIL, but becasue it is in my opinion Stagnant. The best artists it seem never get a good break as oftwen as it seems. THe interent is just beginning to open the floodgate on what is available in Music. The RIAA does not have control over what people are listening to any more and the music industry will change for the better. The people who take adavantage of the internet will profit for the good of us all. The RIAA is still trying to hold the status quo and is terrified of what the internt lets people do. Pick and choose the music THEY THE CUSTOMER wants. The actions of the Anti-trust suit is the defense of the individual from the dying Dinosaur on a rampage trying to stay alive. The RIAA NMust change with the times and accept what is happening or it will die a slow painful death.
How can anyone with brains defend Limewire?
Read the countersuit completely. They attempted to 1 filter the material using a hash of the copyrighted songs provided by the RIAA, and 2 attempted to lisence the copyrighted material. The RIAA and labels would neither provide a license or hash of the copyrighted songs to use as a filter. The cartel failed to prevent damages and only decided to SUE SUE SUE. Limewire responded with We asked, begged and pleaded for both material to use in a filter, and license to sell DRM'ed legal audio files.
It's like back in the 1980's. Lucas films said they would never release Star Wars to the video market. There was no way possible to obtain a legal copy. Due to piracy they changed their mind. However by then I had a copy for over 4 years. Limewire is playing the same game. Please License, provide filter hashes, as we want to also open an online store. Now that the RIAA has opened the can of worms, the defense is there is no legal avenue to compete with price fixing of the cartel in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. They tried and begged at the door. They cite every new dirstrubition method has been met the exact way from Player Piano rolls, to Radio, to the Betamax case, to the Rio MP3 player, Online stores, and now Peer to Peer.
Please read the countersuit. I think it has some merit.
The truth shall set you free!
The idea that a single person can cause a multibillion dollar industry "damages" is most definitely unreasonable.
This multibillion dollar industry turning around and bankrupting a single person for said alleged "damage" is abusive any way you slice it.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
So what? The recording industries model is based on owning content they do not make. They are surplus to requirements nowadays as the artists themselves (or their agents) can handle distribution just fine.
I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
LimeWire is free to produce their own music and sell it through their own store. Instead they want to force the RIAA to sell the RIAA's music through LimeWire's store, and the RIAA doesn't want to deal with thieves.
No, it's more like Zerox could not get a publishers lisence to sell books, so they distributed a Photocopy machine instead that had non-infringing use as well as the ability to copy pages in a copyrighted book without a filter. Don't confuse Limewire with the end user's application of the product.
The truth shall set you free!
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.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Actually, prohibition was a prime example that you can't enforce a law that the people aren't willing to obey.
The proponents of that law were in the extreme minority with little to gain by the population obeying it. For a law to succeed there has to be some resulting benefit desireable by the majority of the population. Murder is illegal because the majority of us desire to live in peace and without fear.
The RIAA on the other hand has a lot to gain and more resources to effectively make a dent in the enforcement. Copyright law no longer serves to protect the interest of the majority. Anymore it protects only those with deep pockets who want to keep it that way, so the majority don't hold it to high regard anymore. The RIAA will continue to stink the place up. Hopefully we will eventually see reform. Copyright law must be reshaped to represent its original intent: To assimilate content (art,music,literature,etc...) into culture with _limited_ protection on the copyright holder.
Yes, that's right folks, it was originally _limited_ protection, not _infinite_!
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Yes, they would care.
The Record Companies and by extention the RIAA are just like the Agents in "The Matrix". "They hold all the keys, and they guard all the doors" If you are going to distribute music in a big way, you MUST go to the Lables. If you, as a retailer, want to sell popular music, you MUST go to the Lables.
The Lables, take most of the risk, putting out hundreds of albums a year, with only a few proving to be hits. But the ones that really are hits, make the Lables lots of money. Today, some of the best selling ablums, day in, day out, are Pink Floyd, and The Beattles. This back catalog, costs them nothing, but rakes in big money, day after day after day.
Why? Because in the indentured servitude of artist to the record lable. The lable owns the music forever and makes the big money off of anything that sells. If it is not fair, why then does the artist not sign the unfair contract and sell it themselves? Because the reality is, without a lable, you cant sell on a large scale or get airplay, for a large enough audience to hear your music.
P2P is one of the ways the internet changes that. And if ANY artist, any garage band, via there website sells their album, and via P2P, have people discover there music, and then there website. The record labels, see NONE of that money. They can't claim the lions share for taking the risk for the artist of putting the album out. They can't take the lions share for the burden of adverising. They can't take the lionss share for being the source of music that sells.
For the lables to continue to make the kind of money they are used to, being what, 80% or more of the acutal profit from record sales, they have to be THE SOURCE for music. P2P has the power to cut them out of that loop and reduce them to having to play fair with artits and retailers. Taking their fair share for the work they do, and the service they actually provide artits.
They may squeel like a stuck pig right now, over piracy, and how much they are loosing, even with them making more now than they ever did before. But in the shell game of what is real, and what is spin, follow the money. The shell with the money under it, the one they keep in motion, the one they are trying to distract you from. Is the one where P2P destroys their stronghold on both the artist and retailer.
vi +
The Federalist party died in 1816. The Whig Party died after 1856. So the current two political parties have been remarkably stable especially given the ideological shifts after the Civil War (when the Republican Party abandoned it's abolitional roots) and in the 1950's when the civil rights movement caused a massive ethnic shift in the two parties. I think third parties would be more effective, if the "all or nothing" style of elections were revised to a proportional system at the national level. As it stands, I don't see a stable system with more than two parties or for that matter, less than two.
This is one of the best /. posts I've seen for legal interpretations - a lot of lawyers are explaining things in a manner that is educational for those of us not versed in law.
Kudos to all of you so participating.
I am sure this has come up before but I need to ask:
If the RIAA sues me because my IP address was noted sharing content, is it reasonable to say:
"You can't assume it was me - I have a wireless router running for my laptop and didn't set up encryption because
or
It's likely that a number of other people are using my connection at any given time."
Wouldn't this pretty much make it impossible to flag you as the guilty party then, especially after you received notice that you were being sued and removed all traces of the p2p program and illegal materials from your system?
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
The American system is a two party system. Now, the good and bad of that can be argued. On one hand, it is good in that it keeps extremist out of power much more effectively then a European parliamentary system. Not only does the American system make it damn near impossible for an extremist to win with its winner take all style, but even if a few extremist do win, there isn't a reason in the world to work with them because you don't need to form coalitions. Because the legislative and executive branches are rarely all ruled by one party (as it is the case now), there is also a drive to the center because a minority veto is so easy. Even when all branches are controlled by a single party (as it is the case now), there is almost no reason for the party to work together. This is exemplified by the current US government. Republicans control everything, yet they have consistently failed to pass any sweeping legislation because they are simply not all that united.
Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. I personally like what a two party system does, but not how it does it. I like a divided an inefficient government that needs a super majority to get anything done. I like that it is easy to break party ranks. I like that it pushes everyone to the center. I don't like that it results in dividing the nation down the two. I don't believe that everyone is either socially conservative and free-market leaning or socially liberal and more socialist leaning. I don't believe that political beliefs have Nazi's on one side and Maoist on the other and the only thing we do is pick a point in the center.
All of that said, as it has happened in American history, the two parties are not permanent fixtures. Public discontent can and has wiped them out. While it is certainly an uphill battle to wipe out a party, it is not an impossibility. It isn't even all that hard. Further, you don't even need to wipe out a party. Parties are very fluid in their ideology. There is no "democrat" or "republican" ideology set in stone. The two parties swing and slide all over the place. The democrats were the ones that held up the civilian rights movement and used to be the party of the south, yet I would hardly make the claim that they still hold those beliefs.
If the electorate really wants change, it can get the change it wants. It can either remake an old party anew or simply replace an old party. Either way, the vote still works. The majority of people who vote make the rules. If the rules need changing, the people have the power to do it. The two party system makes it harder then it does in Europe, the idea that the electorate is helpless is simply wrong. The people can change the government. With so few people currently voting, they don't even need to a majority to do it.