Slashdot Mirror


LimeWire Likely To Shut Down Soon

suraj.sun quotes from a CNET story: "A federal court judge has likely dealt a death blow to LimeWire, one of the most popular and oldest file-sharing systems, according to legal experts. On Wednesday ... US District Judge Kimba Wood granted summary judgment in favor of the ... [RIAA], which filed a copyright lawsuit against LimeWire in 2006. In her decision, Wood ruled Lime Group, parent of LimeWire software maker Lime Wire, and founder Mark Gorton committed copyright infringement, induced copyright infringement, and engaged in unfair competition. 'It is obviously a fairly fatal decision for them,' said [an industry defense lawyer]. 'If they don't shut down, the other side will likely make a request for an injunction and there's nothing left but to go on to calculating damages.'" The article notes that LimeWire is used by nearly 60% of the people who download songs.

5 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. I switched to legal downloads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I stopped using Limewire years ago after downloading a few nasty viruses and hundreds of low quality and incomplete music. Free music was no longer worth my trouble. I switched to iTunes and legal music purchases and have never looked back.

  2. Re:And nothing of value was lost by ducomputergeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A lot of non-tech people who don't understand he difference between Bit Torrent let alone what Bit Torrent even is. Although, usually when I see Windows machines infected or doing strange things at the local coffee shop, the person has lime wire installed.

    My understanding was there were more virus and other malware infected stuff on limewire than just about any other source. Granted that was a few years ago.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  3. Good by devent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's a good thing. I wish they could stop all illegal downloads of music, videos and software. When people finally can't download any free content from the mafia (i.e. content industry) the people will finally see how expensive and restricted the legal alternative is and turn to free and independent sources.

    Imagen, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore. Maybe than people will see and embrace the free alternatives which are more than sufficient for at least 99% of the users. The same with music, that people can discover that there are plenty of independent music bands with music good as on MTV. And there is plenty of DRM free games, a few free to download, like the http://mashable.com/2009/10/20/world-of-goo-huge-success/

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
  4. Re:And nothing of value was lost by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, here in Sweden it seems almost no one uses iTunes to buy anything. The main reasons for this seem to be:

    1. Spotify - Lots of people who are "casual" music listeners just use Spotify, it's like listening to the radio except you get the songs you want.
    2. File sharing started early here in Sweden - Which means that for-pay services lagged behind regular file sharing even further than in a lot of other places.
    3. No TV shows on iTunes - I've heard a lot of people here say they'd be more inclined to use iTunes to buy stuff if they could also pay for TV shows, not possible here in Sweden though.
    4. Downloading music, TV shows and Movies used to be legal/semi-legal up until quite recently - It was basically made illegal because the content industry told our politicians that we'd be transformed into a Internet equivalent of a third world country otherwise.
    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  5. Re:UMG v. MP3.com by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a crucial difference between how lawyers and engineers view the issue:

    To an engineer, the content of a digital file is the primary attribute. Two files with identical contents are indistinguishable and interchangeable.

    To a lawyer, the pedigree of a digital file just as important as the content. Two identical files with different histories are different entities.

    What this means is that if you and your friend each own a copy of the same album, you may feel it is reasonable to copy data from his disk when convenient, since you legally own a copy with the exact same contents. In the eyes of the law, however, those song files are NOT the same, because they have different histories. The rights you have to your copy do not extend to all other instances of that file, even if they are indistinguishable or not.

    It's easy to say that the lawyer view is ridiculous, but (a) that is the view that defines the law, and (b) it seems far less ridiculous after one studies the history of copyright law beginning in the 1500s.

    There is a good article on this subject:
    http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php