Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LimeWire Sued Again, Publishers Seek $150,000 Per Song

Posted by Soulskill on from the that's-my-style-i-like-to-kick-em-when-they're-down dept.

betterunixthanunix writes "Another lawsuit has been filed against LimeWire, this time by the National Music Publishers Association. They claim that LimeWire also damaged them, and seek $150,000 per infringement, putting the maximum possible damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. LimeWire seems to have become the latest music industry punching bag. 'David Israelite, chief executive of the publishers' association, said his organization had decided to bring the complaint because most publishers were not represented in the record company lawsuit and they were now confident that they had a winning case. ... LimeWire, which says it is trying to start a new paid subscription model, said in a statement on Wednesday that it welcomed the publishers to the table. '"

15 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. $150K per song? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, but NO song is worth that much.

    --
    "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    1. Re:$150K per song? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To what end? It's not like the thousands (if not millions) of people who support the Arizona law are being listened to. I've given up on complaining to congress. They don't even listen when you threaten to have them voted out. Money talks in Washington and if you don't have money you aren't heard. I can't tell you how many times I've emailed congress (literally thousands of times) about various issues where I wasn't in the minority (or at least, the mostly non-vocal) with the position I held and I get the same old tired form response with a few key phrases tossed it to make it look like they even care.

      Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products. If that means giving up your favorite bands, so be it. I'm willing to go completely indy (or even music-less) if it means someone finally listens. Don't give the RIAA your money. Don't go to concerts by member bands. Don't engage in gross copyright infringement of their members (or at all, really). The NMPA hasn't been hurt by this. They just want a piece of what they see as the gravy train. They are just another four-letter abbreviation. Stop consuming (this encompasses illegal downloading as well as legitimate purchases) products from their members, too. Turn to indy bands who have trader-friendly and file-sharing friendly policies. Turn to indy labels who have the same. Support those who support your point of view. Lobby the bands instead of congress. Enough people telling them that they will not consume their product at all will get them to change their point of view rather quickly. No music artist wants to be poor and destitute. No group can have concerts if no fans will show up.

      This is a two-way street. If consuming their products lets them keep the old way of doing things, stop consuming their products.

      *watches his karma go away*

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:$150K per song? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

      That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:$150K per song? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services. The RIAA is a bunch of lawyers and office workers whose purpose is to go around suing people among other things.

      2. Everything you say here will go largely unheard because the people who are buying don't come to slashdot and wouldn't listen if you took the message to the streets.

      We live in a society filled with really stupid people doing a lot of really stupid things. Accept it and move on. You are preaching to the choir on this but you're also a bit wrong. It is pretty hard to escape contributing to the RIAA's food supply. First you have to stop buying music. Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows and listening to the radio because the music industry gets a cut when music is included in other works, performances, playbacks and presentations. And once you have done those two simple things, you have to convince the rest of the world to do the same thing. The first two parts are relatively trivial. That last part will prove to be impossible.

    4. Re:$150K per song? by robinvanleeuwen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say to change this you need to stop buying RIAA members products, but that will only lead to "See, our sales dropped due to people who are illegally downloading our songs..." - arguments on their behalf, which leads to even more frantic prosecution of downloaders...

      --
      If you don't like my sig then don't read it.
    5. Re:$150K per song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

      That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

      Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

      Either you advocate that the copyright holder find those individuals and go after each of them individually for the 3 copies each person made, or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.

    6. Re:$150K per song? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

      Not my problem. If I kill a guy, and then give the gun to somebody else who kills 3 more people, I'm not responsible for that. I'm only responsible for my OWN actions not those down the line. Similarly a son is not responsible for the crimes of the father. That form of justice was eliminated long ago.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:$150K per song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why should GP be held responsible for the actions of others? If he uploaded it three times, he violated the copyright three times, thats it! It is not a violation of copyright law to provide a song to someone who then goes and violate its copy right, otherwise best buy, itunes, etc. would be the biggest copyright violators. Or we might be able to go all the way back to the record labels them-selfs. If they never made the songs available, no one would have violated the copy right.

    8. Re:$150K per song? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products. If that means giving up your favorite bands, so be it. I'm willing to go completely indy (or even music-less) if it means someone finally listens. Don't give the RIAA your money.

      An interesting suggestion, but let's compare this violation of our rights to another recent infringement upon human rights in America, that of Segregation.

      Your suggestion to Martin Luther King Jr would be not to protest, not to give voice to dissent, not to loudly challenge an unjust law through civil disobedience but rather to stop patronizing segregated establishments, and to not ride the bus at all.

      Sounds like resigned apathy to me rather than a meaningful protest.

    9. Re:$150K per song? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services.

      Incorrect; the RIAA is the major record labels, just like the Teamsters Union is the truck drivers. The truck drivers have collective bargaining, the record labels have collective suing.

      First you have to stop buying music.

      Wrong again -- you only have to stop buying RIAA music. There are far more independant musicians than "signed" musicians, you just don't hear them because the radio only plays RIAA musicians. Go down to your local bar on a Saturday night, pay your cover charge, and buy their CDs.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Re:Scape Goat by raving+griff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media. Prosecute the guy who tells you their guns are for shooting people, not the guy who tells your their guns are for hunting.

  3. Re:FrostWire by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you really think that by virtue of being GPLed, the project is immune? Lawsuits can still be filed against the developers, and worse yet, those developers may contribute code as individuals -- opening themselves up to personal bankruptcy should a judge rule against them. Look at what happened with GPLed DVD playing software.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Grocery store by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop buying RIAA member's products.

    It's getting harder to find a grocery store that won't play music of an RIAA label over its speaker system.

  5. Re:Scape Goat by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.

    If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.

    Sell a car for the intended purpose of travel, fine. Sell a car for the intended purpose of running down kids in school zones?

  6. Re:The sad thing is... by tholomyes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other sad thing is that if the publishers do win anything from this lawsuit, none of it will go to the people that actually made the music.

    --
    When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk