Slashdot Mirror


Looks Like the End of the Line For LimeWire

tekgoblin writes with news that a federal judge has issued a permanent injunction against LimeWire for copyright infringement and unfair competition. A notice on the LimeWire home page says "THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT LIMEWIRE IS UNDER A COURT-ORDERED INJUNCTION TO STOP DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPORTING ITS FILE-SHARING SOFTWARE. DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL." An anonymous reader points to coverage at CNET, too.

277 comments

  1. god damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Where am I going to download my r@ygold porn?

    Wait... is it still 1998???

    1. Re:god damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently it's about 100 B.C.E. because Heracles second labor is going to be an epiphany for whoever brought this lawsuit.

    2. Re:god damn it by Surt · · Score: 1

      Will someone explain what r@ygold is so I don't have to look it up from work. I'm just going to go ahead and guess that that search would turn up something NSFW.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:god damn it by daremonai · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Steve_Goldberg Even the picture there is kind of disturbing.

    4. Re:god damn it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard core child pornography, and I'm not trolling. Er-- so I heard, not like I would know first hand.

  2. Easy fix... by vistapwns · · Score: 2, Informative

    www.emule-project.com - open source, so it can't be shut down. I guess the servers could be shut down, but it also operates with a distributed peer2peer network as back up. I've been using it for years, it has almost everything.

    --
    "...I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease." - Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Easy fix... by PCM2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The base LimeWire client is also open source, released under the GPL.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:Easy fix... by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even easier fix - if a service is "Common Carrier", it is not responsible for the content on it. That is why phone services can't be sued if someone does something illegal over them, same with the post office. (Which is one big reason it's Bad Juju for ISPs to differentiate between users. If they aren't Common Carrier, they ARE liable for content. Same as newspapers or magazines are, even if the author of an article isn't a member of the staff. They're not Common Carriers, they select. Slashdot isn't liable for comments again because they're Common Carrier - they're not selecting who can post and everyone plays by the same rules - even though in many ways they look like a newspaper.)

      In the Old Days, when people used Archie to find files, the authors of FTP and Archie weren't liable for a damn thing. Common Carriers. LimeWire is perceived (right or wrong) as not a Common Carrier. Fix that perception (if necessary by fixing the code) and the law will protect it in every country that recognizes the notion. (Which is most of them, US included.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Easy fix... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps I've misunderstood, but to be protected as a common carrier, don't you have to have the government classify you as one? I don't think you get to just wake up one day and say "hey, I'm a common carrier, you can't touch me! na na na na na!" once the court/feds/whoever decide they don't like what you're doing

      This suggests that there are requirements for being considered a telecom common carrier including reports that have to be filed yearly, etc. - http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/filing.html

      I know a lot of websites put up statements about not filtering user comments, not being liable for user comments, etc. But has that ever actually been tested in court? The closest I am aware of (and I have not researched this) would be The Pirate Bay and well, that argument hasn't exactly worked well for them. Although they were not prosecuted in the US, I suspect it would have worked no better here in the US or they'd put their servers here.

    4. Re:Easy fix... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's also still available from limewire.com

      I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to get it. :)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    5. Re:Easy fix... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      www.emule-project.com - open source, so it can't be shut down.

      The fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.

    6. Re:Easy fix... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.

      Actually that does matter. In Bernstein v. United_States the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that source code is Constitutionally protected speech.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:Easy fix... by jewelises · · Score: 1

      And even if that ever fails, someone can always put up a version on TPB.

    8. Re:Easy fix... by exomondo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that it's open source has nothing to do with it.

      Actually that does matter. In Bernstein v. United_States the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that source code is Constitutionally protected speech.

      How so? That's just the publication of source code. You certainly can't - for example - provide/run an application/service that infringes the patents, copyrights, etc... of another party just because it's open source. Otherwise all limewire would have to do is open-source their software and they'd be back in business.

    9. Re:Easy fix... by Kirijini · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot isn't liable for comments again because they're Common Carrier - they're not selecting who can post and everyone plays by the same rules...

      No.

      Slashdot isn't liable for certain kinds of "illegal" material (namely, defamation - i.e., libel) because of section 230 of the Telecom Act of '96. Basically, because it is a "provider of an interactive computer service," and because comments and even stories are provided by "another information content provider" (i.e., users like you and me), Slashdot is immune from any liability it would normally have for being the publisher or speaker of "illegal speech" (like defamation, but potentially also intrusions on privacy and the like).

      Section 230 *does not* provide immunity for copyright infringement - instead, the DMCA's notice and take-down system gives Slashdot immunity so long as it promptly takes down infringing material after being served notice by the copyright owner. A common carrier, however, would (I think) be immune to liability for copyright infringement even with notice that a user was using its service to infringe copyrights.

      Both of those safe harbors (230 and the DMCA notice and take-down) look a lot like the protections normally given to common carriers - so it's understandable that you might think that that's what they are. But its not the case. Slashdot cannot be a common carrier because it does more than "carry." It chooses what stories to publish on its website, and that kind of discretion means that it doesn't provide "common" access to its service. Further, as another poster points out, common carrier status has to be provided by law; one doesn't qualify for common carrier protections just by adhering to a certain kind of business practice.

    10. Re:Easy fix... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      By downloading it from FrostWire instead?

      This is absolutely bullshit. This amounts to an attack not upon Limewire, but the entire Gnutella network. Gnutella better stand up fast and stand up hard, or it's going to go dark, mark my word.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Easy fix... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Otherwise all limewire would have to do is open-source their software and they'd be back in business."

      Limewire HAS ALWAYS BEEN open-source.

      And because of that (they tried to charge for it like morons,) Frostwire and many other fuller-featured versions came out, that worked better and had the EXACT same interface with a different-colored skin.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:Easy fix... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's exactly my point! See the posts I was replying too, open source provides no protection against these sorts of lawsuits.

    13. Re:Easy fix... by lxs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah keep the Gnutella network running!
      It diverts attention away from the kademlia network.

    14. Re:Easy fix... by MareLooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pirate Bay not being in the US might also have something to do with the unhealthy amount of influence certain lobbying groups have in the US compared to the rest of the world. And the legal system in general favoring groups with big wads of cash to throw at it.

    15. Re:Easy fix... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      But has that ever actually been tested in court?

      Yes, it has. They forums typically lose when complaints are legitimate. Providing a non-legally binding disclosure provides no (or minimal) legal protection. If your users break the law, you absolutely can be held liable or even prosecuted. Its likely this signage deters the ignorant masses from actively seeking legal remedies for some perceived insult or abuse. So basically, its a form of social engineering rather than legal indemnification.

      For example, in most states there are very specific signage rules which prevent people from legally carrying a firearm into an establishment. Many establishments place signs for anti-gun people to see, but it does not in any way actually deter (or legally prevent) concealed carry into the establishment. The result, crazy anti-gun people don't whine about allowing concealed carrying into the establishment despite the fact its happening right under their noses.

    16. Re:Easy fix... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot cannot be a common carrier because it does more than "carry." It chooses what stories to publish on its website, and that kind of discretion means that it doesn't provide "common" access to its service.

      Genuine question then- can services such as Twitter and Facebook (which to not have any direct input into what their users send via their services) qualify as common carriers?

    17. Re:Easy fix... by jd · · Score: 1

      Just so we're clear, are you calling all anti-gun people crazy, or merely distinguishing between those anti-gun people who are sane from those who are not?

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Easy fix... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Not so, if they had someone post kiddie 0rn and then got a notice from the feds to take it down, they could not say they are not responsible for the post or info being supplied, they WOULD have to take it down, that goes for any website....which is why kiddie p0rn usually are on untraceable servers, and change frequently enough to avoid getting shut down....I imagine having a client that accesses those ever changing servers would mean you are being given that opportunity and whoever is responsible for that opportunity being given to you has to stop immediately.

      I think in this way we are being circumvented our rights indirectly being that free speech and all can still be muted in one way or another....i guess they are running out of options, and are grasping at the last straws to bring a giant down....completely forgetting frostwire....lol , then again, frostwire will be enxt, until firewire, then so on, and so on, and so on.

    19. Re:Easy fix... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Errm...downloading it from Frostwire isn't downloading it from limewire.com, now, is it?

      Yesterday, after reading this article, I successfully downloaded a copy from http://download.limewire.com/download/LimeWireWin.exe.
      This URL now results in a 404 error. Probably somebody checked the website logs after they posted the shutdown notice, and realized a bunch of people were still downloading it from outside links.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    20. Re:Easy fix... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    21. Re:Easy fix... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      That's just the publication of source code. You certainly can't - for example - provide/run an application/service that infringes the patents, copyrights, etc... of another party just because it's open source.

      Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    22. Re:Easy fix... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Publishing source code is providing an application. Perhaps not in a convenient form, but if it's useful enough than a significant number of people will build it themselves -- or people located in nations that are less restrictive of such things will compile it and distribute binaries. You're not going to make money at it, of course.

      I don't think you're quite getting it, the lawsuit pertains to the limewire service, a service that provides illegal content, the fact that it is open source makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. The most obvious example is in TFA, did open source save the limewire service? No, hence why I said the fact that it's open source makes absolutely no difference.

    23. Re:Easy fix... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is immune from any liability it would normally have for being the publisher or speaker of "illegal speech" (like defamation, but potentially also intrusions on privacy and the like).

      Except when it's about Scientology?

    24. Re:Easy fix... by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be an American and anti-gun is to be, literally, a walking oxymoron. But to specifically address your question, anyone who attempts to push an anti-gun agenda on Americans is a crazy person as well as Un-American. If you don't like guns, fine; I completely support your right. But to attempt to go crazy, subverting the very rights which allow you to have such an opinion, is crazy, anti-constitution, and flat out Un-American.

      I feel the same way for anyone who believes they have the right to censor speech. When you can reasonable argue people should be arbitrarily censored, then I will support your right to be anti-gun. Either case represents a serious detriment to liberty and freedom.

    25. Re:Easy fix... by Kirijini · · Score: 1

      Except when it's about Scientology?

      The incident you're referring to was a copyright "violation," and involved a DMCA notice and take down.

    26. Re:Easy fix... by Kirijini · · Score: 1

      Genuine question then- can services such as Twitter and Facebook (which to not have any direct input into what their users send via their services) qualify as common carriers?

      Being designated as a common carrier is both a blessing and a curse. Common carriers are highly regulated, and can't, for example, block their competitors access to their services. ISPs and cable companies have lobbied hard over the years to avoid being designated as common carriers by the FCC. I would presume that Twitter and Facebook would also want to avoid common carriage regulation.

    27. Re:Easy fix... by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm Anglo-American, raised in Britain but have birth certificates (legally) for both countries. My view on guns is non-trivial, but can be summarized as:

      • Nations with few or no guns are probably better off not getting more.
      • Some nations have been highly successful in developing an understanding between the legal and criminal organizations. Where this balance works in practice, disturbing the balance with firearms is probably not a good idea.
      • No nation has the right to tell another nation what their Constitution should be.
      • In order for the above three to be held true, nations that Constitutionally or legally protect the right to own firearms would necessarily carry a moral obligation not to export arms to countries that hold different points of view, even when that would create a technical infringement at the borderline.
      • As someone who grew up within the British perspective, I do not have the right to dictate gun policy within America.
      • However, I equally hold that nobody has the right to tell me that I should/must carry a gun or be trained in the use of one, regardless of whether I happen to live in the US at the time or not.
      • The Second Amendment is ambiguous - probably deliberately so. However, since there is no real possibility of a gentlemen's agreement being reached with criminals, interpretations that restrict gun ownership should be done with extreme care and should be done only under close supervision by criminologists and psychologists.
      • Weapons that have absolutely no psychological defensive value and whose physical defensive value is grossly outweighed by the collateral damage likely, and have no meaningful hunting value, have dubious merit. I cannot tell you they should be banned or even restricted, only that a lack of restriction doesn't appear to achieve anything. Of course, not everything "has" to achieve something.

      So, to sum up, I'm not "anti-gun for America" (because I think the situation has long-since deteriorated past the point where that's practical), but I AM "anti-gun" in the sense of America has no bloody right to tell other nations that the Second Amendment should apply to them whether they like it or not.

      I am ALSO anti-gun with regards to myself, in that I will not handle a gun under any circumstance, I will not take any orders to do so and will not tolerate any viewpoint that says I should believe otherwise. Anyone who holds that I am "Un-American" for refusing to own a gun can take a long walk off a short plank, in my opinion. Preferably off the top of a skyscraper, but I'm not fussy.

      I also firmly believe that if the situation in America changed radically, that some sort of truce could be achieved, that gun advocates should at least consider putting something on the table. Nothing for nothing. It may be that those advocates would reject giving up any freedoms, but it should be by choice and not by obstinacy.

      And that is really my bottom-line on any of this. Any view held "just because" - regardless of what it is - is stupid, naive and ultimately very destructive. Views should be considered, rational and based on the best information available at the time.

      I don't have to agree with a view to agree that it is rationally-held. I don't have to disagree with a view to believe it irrational. If you believe that 1+1=2 because a purple ant told you so in a dream, it's an irrational belief. That it is true is of no consequence.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    28. Re:Easy fix... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment is ambiguous

      Actually, its not. Its extremely easy to read. Its only ambiguous if you don't understand proper syntax. This fact has been recently brought home by the courts. Its reading is extremely easy and frankly, can be done by most any any one. The only difficulty is the old english.

      only that a lack of restriction doesn't appear to achieve anything.

      Such a statement speaks loudly that you need to review history, but America's founding, the principals behind it, and modern history. The biggest slaughters have consistently happened when people buy into your logic. Basically your logic is a ringing endorsement for mass slaughter of the innocent. History time and time and time and time again proves your position is completely without merit. It may make your feel good, but that's only because you're ignoring the blood of innocents which accompanies it.

      As for the pro-gun crowd, I don't know of anyone who wants to force a gun into your hand. Pro-gun has always been pro-choice. Whereas anti-gun always means, no-choice, and you are to suffer a fools fate - if such a fate is in the cards. And that completely ignores the entire primary purpose of the second amendment.

      If you don't want guns. That's absolutely okay with everyone. The problems only stem from people who insist merit-less fears should condemn others to a defenseless fate; be it mugger or tyrant. Like it or not, but the second amendment is on record with the Germans and Japanese as being THE PRIMARY REASON the US mainland was never invaded. Like it or not, you likely owe a significant debt of thanks to the the US Constitution, specifically including the second amendment.

    29. Re:Easy fix... by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      I'm way late on this reply, but that's what I expected would actually be the case if something like that went to court, or at the very least it would be more of a "whoever has the most expensive lawyer wins" situation. I may have to look into it more when I get some free time.

    30. Re:Easy fix... by jd · · Score: 1

      Actually, its not. Its extremely easy to read. Its only ambiguous if you don't understand proper syntax. This fact has been recently brought home by the courts. Its reading is extremely easy and frankly, can be done by most any any one. The only difficulty is the old english.

      I won't pretend to be a subject-matter expert in 18th century English, but I have a number of books from 1750-1780 (the timespan of interest). These are originals, not copies or updates. They are from a mix of backgrounds and include philosophy texts, physics texts, medical texts, cookbooks and personal diaries. A total of about a dozen or so rare books of that vintage.

      I can say with absolute certainty that I =am= in a superior position to say whether the Second Amendment is ambiguous than the average Joe, and likely superior to many judges on the grammar.

      Now, I won't say I'm better than them over the legal interpretation, but that is distinct to the grammatical phrasing. To me, the grammar in the Second Amendment is simply not consistent with a single interpretation, given the nature of grammar of that vintage. However, Legal English is not the same as Common English. If there is a single reading that works with Legal English, I'll accept that.

      The Japanese did actually land in Alaska, but my knowledge of the extent of that invasion is limited. It was certainly very limited. However, I am not convinced the Second Amendment made much of a difference. Britain has technically never been invaded (every "invasion" of Britain for which any record exists was by invite). Britain's ownership of weapons has varied over the millenia, but the degree of ownership has not noticeably altered the number of nations attempting attacks or the ability to repel such attacks.

      In other words, overseas invasions of a nation tend to be extremely difficult and it takes a very brave soul to say that there is one definite reason in any given case. It seems to me to be a harder problem.

      In terms of pro-gun, I guess my attitude has been shaped by the measure of hostility I have received for not wanting to own or carry a gun. That has been the only pro-gun attitude I've really experienced. If you are pro-choice, I appreciate that. Yours has not been an attitude I have encountered a lot of. In the 11 years I've been in the US, I've met exactly one other person who was pro-choice on the issue. Maybe I've just encountered a lot of really whacked-out freaks, that is certainly possible.

      I'm not as sure as you on the debt I owe to the Second Amendment. I'm open to the possibility that such a debt exists, and if an impartial analysis of World War 2 does confirm such a debt exists then I'll be willing to acknowledge it.

      Certainly, I have no desire to condemn others to any fate, specific or otherwise. Nor do I have any desire to tell any individual or collective what they can or cannot do. (I'd make a lousy politician.)

      However, I do dispute that my views are "ok with everyone". I have experienced enough hostility (and one e-mailed death threat) to know that there are plenty of people who really do want to make it illegal to not own. Like I said, you're only the second person in the US I've debated this with who is truly pro-choice. That is a frighteningly bad ratio.

      As far as others are concerned, my concerns are limited strictly to others having the means to make an informed choice, the wherewithal to put information over and above either emotion or tradition and then the freedom to exercise that choice. What their choice is or how they made that choice, at that point, is not for me to judge.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    31. Re:Easy fix... by operagost · · Score: 1

      The Japanese did actually land in Alaska, but my knowledge of the extent of that invasion is limited.

      Your knowledge of American history is limited. Alaska is not part of the mainland, being separated from it my Canada, and at the time it was also not a state but a territory.

      It was certainly very limited. However, I am not convinced the Second Amendment made much of a difference.

      I won't use the (probably apocryphal) Yamamoto quote, but here's another from the Christian News:

      In 1960, Robert Menard was a commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces.
      Fifteen years had passed since VJ Day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in each other.
      Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland U.S. forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.
      Commander Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander's face as he frankly answered the question.
      'You are right,' he told the Americans. 'We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand.'

      In closing, regardless of the veracity of the 2nd amendment, we also have the 10th. Congress has no right to infringe on OUR right to carry firearms without a Constitutional amendment.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  3. Rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    a thousand more to take its place.

  4. There are still non-torrent filesharing networks? by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Talk about a blast from the past.

  5. Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by decipher_saint · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... to the last virus I had (2003?).

    I'm surprised its lasted this long frankly.

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
    1. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Indeed, I thought that pretty much everybody that was into that sort of thing had already switched over to torrents.

    2. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      Limewire was pretty easy to use, torrents seem quite hard to figure out for a lot of people (probably not slashdot readers).

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    3. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Rockoon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The advantage of P2P's like Limewire was that it did not share crappy_commercial_music.mp3 while you were downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3, and as such you could not be fingered for the crime of distributing crappy_commercial_music.mp3 since you were in fact not distributing it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Astraweb.com

      Subscribe.... Download at blazing speeds... no sharing

    5. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Torrents are a piece of cake compared to some methods. I mean, what's so hard about double-clicking a .torrent file?

    6. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by tobiah · · Score: 1

      I find with usenet finding stuff is too hard.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    7. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 0

      That is patently false.

    8. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

      And any half-decent torrent client is different how?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    9. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows cannot open this file..."

      Now what?

      BTW, I just DL'd like, 500 million songs on Emule!

    10. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by geekmux · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The advantage of P2P's like Limewire was that it did not share crappy_commercial_music.mp3 while you were downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3, and as such you could not be fingered for the crime of distributing crappy_commercial_music.mp3 since you were in fact not distributing it.

      Uhhh...yeah, and clearly your "logic" with "one-way" downloading of illegal content somehow saved them from a legal injunction...

    11. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      nzbmatrix.com

    12. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      That is patently false.

      Actually correct. Check out Ray Beckerman's blog if you want some more information on that subject. If you're using a Gnutella-style network and you turn off sharing you aren't distributing anything. So far as I've been able to tell, all of the 30,000-odd RIAA lawsuits have been about illegal distribution, not downloading.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      The advantage of P2P's like Limewire was that it did not share crappy_commercial_music.mp3 while you were downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3, and as such you could not be fingered for the crime of distributing crappy_commercial_music.mp3 since you were in fact not distributing it.

      Uhhh...yeah, and clearly your "logic" with "one-way" downloading of illegal content somehow saved them from a legal injunction...

      You're confused. The GP wasn't talking about why Limewire got screwed by the courts, that was an entirely different matter. He is, in fact, talking about the Limewire user base, and there he is correct, at least for those users with a functioning cerebral cortex. The bulk of RIAA lawsuits were for people that stupidly didn't turn off file sharing on their various Gnutella clients (Limewire being only one of many) and "helpful" clients that automatically shared everything they downloaded, thereby making targets out of their users. Downloading isn't where the illegality came it: it was the illegal distribution of copyright materials.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Honestly I used Limewire until very recently because Limewire is still better for downloading single songs. I stopped because I stated using Pandora.

    15. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Funny

      It in fact HAS to be about distribution.

      Imagine the scenario where they try to jack you up for downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3.

      Defense: "How do you know I downloaded it?"

      Plaintiff: "Its in our logs"

      Defense: "How do you have logs of this event?"

      Plaintiff: "We were offering crappy_commercial_music.mp3 for download"

      Judge: "Case dismissed"

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    16. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on, parent poster. Grand-parent poster, don't let the RIAA fool you into thinking you are stealing or doing anything else illegal when you download. Remember it is a COPYright. The person generating the copies is the one breaking the law. By prosecuting people who own pirated material, you open up a can of worms you don't want to eat. For example, I ordered an anime DVD set. I eventually figured out it was a pirate job. It looked pretty legit. But how many box sets come in a single DVD sleeve? (Four discs!) Also, the discs were mislabeled. Disc 2 was actually 3 and visa versa. And finally it was encoded region free. I had no idea what I was buying, I just knew it was a good price. Do I deserve to be prosecuted for being duped?

    17. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by AtomicJake · · Score: 1

      Right on, parent poster. Grand-parent poster, don't let the RIAA fool you into thinking you are stealing or doing anything else illegal when you download. Remember it is a COPYright. The person generating the copies is the one breaking the law. By prosecuting people who own pirated material, you open up a can of worms you don't want to eat. For example, I ordered an anime DVD set. I eventually figured out it was a pirate job. It looked pretty legit. But how many box sets come in a single DVD sleeve? (Four discs!) Also, the discs were mislabeled. Disc 2 was actually 3 and visa versa. And finally it was encoded region free. I had no idea what I was buying, I just knew it was a good price. Do I deserve to be prosecuted for being duped?

      Good question. Actually, in many (all?) countries in Europe, the law has been changed to also include the "download of copyrighted material from obviously illegal sources". Now, as far as I know, the "obviously" has never been tried in court so far.

      BTW: Your example for physical goods is quite interesting. I am not sure, whether you can be held responsible if you buy "pirated" CDs without knowing it, but surely you can, if you know it - and also also when you try to resell them after you found out that they had been "pirated".

    18. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Stop it! We already lost newsbin.

    19. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Yacoob+Al-Atawi · · Score: 1

      Newzbin is still alive.

    20. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why there was never any bandwidth avalible for download. Bittorrent solved the problem of people like you.

    21. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      It in fact HAS to be about distribution.

      I know you were going for the laughs, but it is important to note that is legally false. Just to make up a scenario, if they go after someone for distribution and find any sort of logs on that computer, they can sue you. Under the law there is no significant difference here between uploading (distributing) the file or downloading (creating a copy). Both are legally treated as infringement, end of story.

      In fact the law is so fucked up that you're still guilty even if you were trying to download something perfectly legal, like Linux. If someone takes Britney Spears song and renames it to "parser.c" and sticks it in the middle of a Linux source package and you download it, under the law you are guilty of infringing the copyright on that Britney song. The law says you have to PAY DAMAGES for your illegal act of infringing the copyright on that song. But the law isn't COMPLETELY insane (laugh laugh laugh). The law recognized that your are innocent. The law even specifically declares you to be an "innocent infringer". Instead of hitting you with standard copyright infringement damages, the law says the judge is PERMITTED to waive the standard minimum damage amounts, and instead lower the minimum to $200 per infringement. Oh, and note that the law places the burden upon YOU to prove your innocent infringer status if you want to try to lower the minimum to $200. None of that innocent-until-proven-guilty crap.

      Note that I currently see 10 different story icons on the Slashdot front page. Lets imagine for a moment that Slashdot did not get permission to use those images. Merely by surfing to Slashdot.org each of us created copies of those ten images on our harddrives in the browser cache. That is ten infringements across ten different copyrights. That is $2000 in damages, simply for innocently browsing to one typical webpage. Some websites could easily have a hundred or more infringing icons on a page, and innocent people browsing that page would be liable for a minimum of $20,000 each. An typical web user can quickly rack up over a million dollars a year in technical legal liability a year merely by browsing typical websites that contain occasional minor infringements like icons. People are almost never prosecuted on that sort of thing, but that's what the law says and you can get sued for it.

      The RIAA&friends go after uploaders because they are easier to catch, because suing uploaders is easier to sell in a public-relations sense, and because of the ideology that the "big" problem of downloads would vanish if they could just manage to solve the "smaller" problem of uploads.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It in fact HAS to be about distribution.

      I know you were going for the laughs, but it is important to note that is legally false.

      Shows what you know.

      Just to make up a scenario, if they go after someone for distribution and find any sort of logs on that computer, they can sue you.

      Logs of what? Distribution, right? But arent you trying to refute the notion that distribution is the crime? Oh yeah, you quoted me saying the phrase "it in fact HAS to be about distribution" and then declared this statement false.

      Surely downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3 from the owners of the copyright, who offered it on a P2P network, is not a crime.. right? right?
      Thats why the judge says "case dismissed" unless you distributed it. This is so because the owner of the copyright cannot know that you downloaded the file unless THEY were distributing it

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    23. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      Newzbin sucks.

    24. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I said if they go after someone for distribution and find any sort of logs on that computer, they can sue you.

      You missed the distinction between "someone" and "you". My example was that someone uploads it to you. That someone also uploads it to one of the RIAA's internet enforcement squads. The RIAA sues that someone for distribution-infringement. During the civil suit they subpoena and examine that someone's harddrive, or they possibly even subpoena that someone's internet provider's records. If that someone's computer contains some record of uploading that file to you, or if their internet provider has some record indicating the file was sent to you, then the RIAA can use that evidence as a valid legal basis to initiate a lawsuit against you. They can then subpoena your harddrive, and they can win in court on the basis of your infringing act creating the copy of the song you downloaded to your harddrive.

      As another example, lets say you use bittorrent and disable uploads. You join a swarm and strictly download from seeds. The RIAA's internet enforcers join the swarm and snag your IP address. Again, they can initiate a lawsuit against you and subpoena your harddrive. Again, it doesn't matter that you had uploading disabled.

      Or lets say you bring your computer in for repairs somewhere. The repair guy grabs a copy of unreleased music track you downloaded onto your harddrive. The repair guy uploads it, gets caught, gets sued, and tells the RIAA where he got it. The RIAA then has sufficient legal basis to initiate a lawsuit against you, obtaining a subpoena to examine your drive.

      Same thing happens if your computer gets stolen, and along the way the police recover your computer and see the obviously infringing unreleased music track, and the RIAA hears about it somehow.

      Or you post that you've been downloading songs X Y and Z from P2P. The RIAA can subpoena Slashdot's logs for your IP and again subpoena your harddrive.

      Legally, uploading and downloading are not materially different. Distributing is infringement, and creating a copy is infringement. The RIAA does need some basis to initiate a lawsuit, but civil suits have an unbelievably low standard to initiate a case and obtain a subpoena. Civil suits bypass pretty much all of the usual requirements and protections that you expect of criminal search warrants.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    25. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      In reply to the specific statement "It in fact HAS to be about distribution", which you quoted.. in fact the only statement you quoted...

      ..you said "I know you were going for the laughs, but it is important to note that is legally false."

      Only after that did you qualify THIS statement with " if they go after someone for distribution and find any sort of logs on that computer, they can sue you."
      umm.. distribution.. HELLO?

      Either its false or it isn't. Make up your fucking mind, troll boy.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:Ahh Limewire! That takes me back... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Make up your fucking mind, troll boy.

      At this point I would generally pull out the flamethrower and beat you over the head with your... well lets just call them your "persistent misunderstandings of the law". For some reason I decided to rewrite my post in one more attempt at polite, reasonable, and productive communication.

      You can argue that copyright law is bad in various different ways, and I would generally agree with you. You can argue that copyright law is stupid, absurd, insane, or even evil in various different ways, and I would generally agree with you. However we are not talking about what the law should say. We are not talking about how the law should work. To be honest I remember several years ago making an argument myself that kinda-sorta resembled your argument about downloading. That was back before I read copyright law. Before I and read countless court rulings on copyright law. To be blunt, I didn't know what the hell I was talking about at that time. What the law logically should say has little resemblance to what the law does say and how the law does work.

      Surely downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3 from the owners of the copyright, who offered it on a P2P network, is not a crime.. right? right?

      That exact situation is legally messy, and you are probably right that a judge will toss out that exact situation on the basis that the copyright holder implicitly authorized your actions, or that your actions were Fair Use of an authorized distribution. But you are being dense if you insist that means that downloading isn't prohibited by law in other cases. You are being dense if you insist it means you can't can't get assraped in court for downloading in other situations.

      You said:
      Thats why the judge says "case dismissed" unless you distributed it.
      (Bold emphasis, exactly as you wrote it)

      I listed a multitude of situations where you did not distribute it. If you ever wind up in court over downloading, where the copyright holder isn't the one who sent it to you, you are wrong and you are legally fucked if you think the judge is going to dismiss the case against you.

      You said:
      This is so because the owner of the copyright cannot know that you downloaded the file unless THEY were distributing it
      (Bold emphasis and capital emphasis, exactly as you wrote it)

      I listed a multitude of situations where they can know that you downloaded the file without the copyright holder being the one to distribute it to you, without the copyright holder authorizing any distribution to you. You are wrong and you are legally fucked if you ever wind up in court over downloading.

      In fact it's even worse than that. In 1998 the copyright lobby slipped some sneaky provisions into the N.E.T. Act. These provisions took ordinary P2P infringement and generally shoved under the category of CRIMINAL copyright infringement laws which was intended to deal with commercial piracy enterprises. This law is very rarely enforced, but virtually everyone who has ever used P2P is technically guilty of a felony crime under this law. Almost all P2P users are face up to one, three, or even five years in prison under this law. PLUS double the prison term for a second offense.

      This law is explicit is stating that distribution-infringement AND creating-a-copy-infringement are BOTH criminalized. Yes, this law really does say you can go to prison for several years strictly for downloading. The law uses the word "reproduction", and legally that means "creating a copy", and legally that is what you are doing when you save a download on your harddrive. The law is evil and insane, but that doesn't make me incorrect in stating it. Congress can and did pass an evil insane law.

      Copyright law says creating a copy is infringement. Copyright law says that downloading is equally and independently illegal. Copyright law says downloading can be equally and independently prosecuted. The fac

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  6. Good Riddance by Haedrian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that the closure of limewire will cause the amount of malware in the wild to drop dramatically.

    1. Re:Good Riddance by jnpcl · · Score: 3, Funny

      .. but where am I going to get my Anna Kournikova XXX Screensavers?!

    2. Re:Good Riddance by Meshach · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the closure of limewire will cause the amount of malware in the wild to drop dramatically.

      Reminds me of Kazaa and Kazaa Lite. They are not closed now but are subscription services. Far off from their early days when they were a hotbed of virus and trojans.

      --
      "Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
      Aldous Huxley
    3. Re:Good Riddance by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Funny

      "a hotbed of virus and trojans"

      This sentence could be referring to the stuff you could download, or whatever came with the installation program itself. What a mess.

    4. Re:Good Riddance by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought you guys were talking about a frat party.

    5. Re:Good Riddance by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      It could also refer to an unfortunate sexual encounter.

      --
      signature is pants
    6. Re:Good Riddance by hweimer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that the closure of limewire will cause the amount of malware in the wild to drop dramatically.

      You mean, because the people wanting to download it will now have to go to "alternative" sites?

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    7. Re:Good Riddance by julesh · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced. I've used various file sharing networks over the years, including Gnutella, ED2K, and BitTorrent. During this period I have had 2 malware infections. You want to know where *both* of them came from? Drive-by browser exploits running in banner ads showing on thepiratebay.org.

    8. Re:Good Riddance by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Ivanna Fornikova?

    9. Re:Good Riddance by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Har! Did you choose "Haedrian" as a user name because "Pollyanna" was taken?

      I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

    10. Re:Good Riddance by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I do not get the reference I'm afraid. Care to enlighten me?

      -

      I have found that the people who use(d?) limewire (as opposed to torrenting) - were generally less techie.

      The kind of people who'd download

      awesome_song.mp3.exe
      or
      awesome_song.zip

      At least with torrenting, there's a sort of peer review for the files.

  7. Good riddance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I disagree with this whole sham, I honestly can't say that I'm sad to see LimeWire go. It is utterly ridiculous how many friend's and family's computers I have to clean due to viruses and crapware that came through LimeWire.

  8. They're still around? by the_humeister · · Score: 1

    Next you're going to tell me KaZaA hasn't shut down either.

    1. Re:They're still around? by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm still using iMesh and WinMX.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    2. Re:They're still around? by lanceran · · Score: 2, Funny

      Real men still use Napster.

    3. Re:They're still around? by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Funny

      It better not be shut down! I mean with limewire gone, what am I going to populate the new android port of winamp with! My nostalgia must be properly formatted!

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    4. Re:They're still around? by daveywest · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you know the IP address to any good Hotline servers?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotline_Communications

    5. Re:They're still around? by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Funny

      IP Address? That's one of them "Internet" things isn't it?

      Let me just insert this AOL cd into my drive and receive my X free hours and get online today.

    6. Re:They're still around? by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Funny

      With AOL, you can get the internet in your living room!

      So I hope you have a really, really big living room.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    7. Re:They're still around? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Wow, that bring me back to the days when you could check out all the new sites on the internet.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    8. Re:They're still around? by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Oh gee, I wonder what's new in the Internet Yellow Pages this year?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    9. Re:They're still around? by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      WinMX still works?! I quit using it because I saw the number of peers decreasing steadily every year...

      Does it still have that Matrix-y interface?

    10. Re:They're still around? by TeamMCS · · Score: 1

      Well my back garden is the world, can we put it there instead?

    11. Re:They're still around? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Uhh, Kazaa is indeed still around. It is a subscription service like Napster, but it is essentially still alive.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re:They're still around? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Can you help me download this Internet thing onto my computer? I have a 210MB hard disk, so there should be enough space.

    13. Re:They're still around? by Compaqt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm still using Archie.

      Oh, and get off the lawn!

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    14. Re:They're still around? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Anything worth downloading can be found through Veronica.

      gopher://gopher.floodgap.com/7/v2/vs

  9. They can't distribute the client any more? by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only there were some way for people who had Limewire to share the executable.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    1. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You could try connecting to Limew--d'oh!

    2. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Far as I know, if you take down the Limewire servers, the entire thing collapses. It isn't distributed like a torrernt network, and I'm pretty sure there's no peer discovery either.

    3. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you might be able to take it down, but banning distribution of the executable is moronic.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    4. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah. There are plenty of torrents available! ;)

    5. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gnutella (the protocol LimeWire uses) is decentralized, but you have to "bootstrap" the client to find your first few peers. I believe LimeWire LLC operates servers to facilitate this, but it could be done any number of ways. If you had a friend whom you knew was always on LimeWire and had a static IP, you could connect to him. The client could also cache the addresses of nodes that had worked in the past, and try them. I don't know exactly how LimeWire does it, but it seems to me LimeWire's failing is that by insinuating itself between its users and the network (for the purposes of operating a business), it makes itself the single point of failure.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    6. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by guyminuslife · · Score: 0

      Yo dawg, I heard you like file-sharing, so I put a file-sharer in your file-sharer so you can file-share your file-sharing.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    7. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by Sylak · · Score: 1

      Limewire just added minimal servers to the Gnutella network, not created one, and Gnutella is a decrtalized network network so...

      Gnutella at wikipedia incase you were wondering

    8. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by athakur999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Peer discovery is the very essence of the Gnutella protocol used by Gnutella. The Limewire client probably uses Limewire's servers to get an initial list of peers to connect to but beyond that, they shouldn't be needed. There are alternative methods to do this initial peer discovery as well so even if you take away Limewire's servers, things should still work fine, it just may take longer for your client to discover a decent amount of peers.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    9. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by br00tus · · Score: 1
      Originally there was no bootstrap, but if you knew of one servent (server/client) you would send a ping and get pongs in response. This created network traffic, something Gnutella networks always try to keep to a minimum, so pings and pongs started to die out and servents would tell you of hosts through other methods - like during the initial handshake.

      There have been a number of discussions of how to bootstrap. One clever program, I forget which one (Shareaza?) joined an IRC channel and servents would connect to each other. There was a webcaching scheme around for a while - some of them are still active, although it didn't really work out as they wanted.

    10. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Far as I know, if you take down the Limewire servers, the entire thing collapses. It isn't distributed like a torrernt network, and I'm pretty sure there's no peer discovery either.

      Yes, there's peer discovery. And it is almost entirely distributed. The only issue is if you don't have any peers in your peer cache, you won't be able to get a connection. It's been a while since I used limewire, and I assume they've switched from their old method (have a peer at a known address, router.limewire.com, that's always available to provide addresses of other peers) to the more common 'gwebcache' services used by other gnutella clients. If that's the case, it's a simple config change to point it at a non-limewire discovery service and get an updated peer list.

    11. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Last I tried it, Shareaza uses the web cache scheme for its connections. Not come across the IRC idea before, I'm going to guess that was BearShare, which is the only major gnutella client I never tried.

    12. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously because I'm a former Lime Wire developer. Here's how bootstrapping works:

      * The addresses of 10 bootstrap servers are hardcoded into the client
      * Each client also keeps its own list of known Gnutella peers
      * At startup, the client tries to connect to known peers from its list, and simultaneously pings the bootstrap servers for fresh peers
      * If the list of known peers is more than two weeks old, the client ignores it - in that case the bootstrap servers are the *only* way to connect
      * Now that the bootstrap servers are down, any client that goes offline for two weeks won't be able to reconnect

      The latest version of the LimeWire client (5.5.16) has been disabled using the auto-update "feature", but versions 5.5.10 and below should continue to operate. However:

      * About 40% of the Gnutella network has been auto-updated into oblivion - that means 40% less content
      * The remaining LimeWire clients are going to start having bootstrapping problems
      * The remaining LimeWire clients will show scary warnings to persuade their users to uninstall
      * LimeWire's anti-spam blacklists have been disabled, so the remaining LimeWire users will see even more spam and viruses than usual

      The upshot of all this is that even if you have a functioning client, the Gnutella network just got a lot smaller, and it's likely to keep shrinking. I *hope* that the minority of people using other clients (Frostwire, Shareaza, GTKG, etc) were sharing the majority of files... I guess we'll find out.

    13. Re:They can't distribute the client any more? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, there's peer discovery. Limewire (and any smart Gnutella program) keeps a cache of the last few hundred peers it's connected to and tries those upon startup. It also has a small list of GWebCache services that LimeWire currently operates, but that list is changeable.

  10. Well it's a good thing by loafula · · Score: 4, Informative

    That I prefer to use Frostwire.

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    1. Re:Well it's a good thing by doronbc · · Score: 1

      im surprised how few people have heard of frostwire, its been around for a while

    2. Re:Well it's a good thing by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Phex works well also.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Well it's a good thing by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      im surprised how few people have heard of frostwire, its been around for a while

      Dude, the first rule of Frostwire is ...

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Well it's a good thing by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      No, that's the first rule of U... No wait, you're right, it's the first rule of Frostwire, sorry!

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  11. FTP by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    Is FTP next?

    1. Re:FTP by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I sincerly hope you are not trying to equate FTP and limewire.

      Your metric space would have to be very broken.

    2. Re:FTP by countSudoku() · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, FTP is next. ;) Not my sneakernet though. Thanks for the reminder, I need to obtain a 1TB drive for more sweet, free, sneakernet content. Really, we only need one person to buy any single piece of media, then we dist. Everyone is invited. RIP, share, enjoy. Never been to limewire.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    3. Re:FTP by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, get rid of FTP, IRC, NNTP, SMTP, then HTTP.

      We'll all be back to Gopher! Reminds me of Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam:

      "Come on now! You kick out the gooks, the next thing you know, you have to kick out the chinks, the spicks, the spooks, the kikes and all that's going to be left is a couple of brain-dead rednecks."

    4. Re:FTP by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lets get rid of acronyms. Nobody really liked them anyway.

    5. Re:FTP by kheldan · · Score: 1

      You forgot a few: We need to get rid of TCP, UDP, DNS, and last but not least IP. After all, these protocols are also used for illegal file sharing, so they all have to go. Think of the children!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    6. Re:FTP by icebraining · · Score: 1

      What, no UUCP?

    7. Re:FTP by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      no, UUCP can stay

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    8. Re:FTP by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Yes! My CLNP connection is still good. Thanks OSI protocols!

      --
      SSC
    9. Re:FTP by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of data tapes.

    10. Re:FTP by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Gives a whole new meaning to the term "0-day courier."

      Are we going to have a digital data mafia next? Oh wait- we already do. My bad.

    11. Re:FTP by kheldan · · Score: 1

      What, no UUCP?

      I think somebody doesn't get it! :D

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  12. Yay! by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Piracy is solved forever.

    1. Re:Yay! by SomeJoel · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's about time. Those Somalians with AK-47s can release the hostages now. Ugly business, piracy - ships destroyed, sailors killed, lives ruined. I'm glad the government is finally doing something about protecting shipping lanes. Apparently LimeWire is some sort of service that these pirates use to track ships or something.

      --
      <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
    2. Re:Yay! by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 1

      I thought it was getting warm out.

    3. Re:Yay! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Good riddance. Limewire has been a cesspool for years. Nothing but bogus files, many of which are infested with malware. I just cleaned out an acquaintances computer that was rooted due to downloading phony music videos that were supposed to be WMV files. I told him I had to uninstall Limewire to prevent future infections (he is not a savvy computer user at all).

    4. Re:Yay! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Piracy is solved forever.

      Excellent! So software companies will finally quit using DRM that is more disruptive to their paying customers than it was to the pirates then?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Yay! by BobNET · · Score: 1

      This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of Limewire and it will soon see the end of piracy.

    6. Re:Yay! by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      I have actually been forced to pirate an application I bought to get around DRM headaches before...

    7. Re:Yay! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that. Usually it only requires downloading the 'no CD' crack, so you can play the $50 game you just bought without swapping out the CD every time.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  13. What about law enforcement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seems they love to troll Limewire to nab people for various underage porn possession. Can't imagine them liking having the easiest honey pot in the world being shut down.

  14. Let me fix that message... by countSudoku() · · Score: 0, Troll

    [sorry, the /. filter nazi made me go LC]

    this is an official notice that sneakernet is under a court-ordered injunction to keep distributing and supporting its file-sharing software. downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is awesome!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  15. CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can someone tell the judge to not use so many caps? It's like YELLING!

    1. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by tehniobium · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lawyers understand it better that way ;-)

      --
      No kitty, this is my pot pie!
    2. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell the judge to not use so many caps?

      The notice on the website refers to the a court order (written -- or, at least, approved -- by a judge), but is not itself a court order, and most likely is written by someone responsible for LimeWire's website (no doubt, on directions from one of their attorneys) after they received the order.

    3. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Dear Defendant,

      I typed this real loud, 'cause I know you don't hear so good anymore.

      Love, The Judge

    4. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Dear Judge,

      Thanks for that, but will you please type slower, since I don't read so fast no more neither.

      Hugs and Kisses, The Defendant

    5. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Email them an OBJECTION!

    6. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      We’ve got a /. summary which refers to a notice which refers to a court order... I’d think somewhere along the line of referrals they could have converted it into sentence-case to make it easier to read.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:CAN SOMEONE TELL THE JUDGE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone tell the judge to not use so many caps? It's like YELLING!

      Also, they are a few days late.

  16. Frostwire? by supersloshy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Frostwire's still up. http://www.frostwire.com/. Limewire != Gnutella, which is decentralized and thus impossible to shut down completely.

    On a related note, I can't believe how stupid this ruling is. It's a Gnutella client! That's it! Limewire is responsible for nothing; it's the illegal distributors of copyrighted works, which LimeWire isn't, that are legally responsible for any of this. What's next, making HTTP/FTP/BitTorrent/the Internet illegal because it "encourages illegal file-sharing"? Give me a break! Some of the best legal to download music I've found was promoted by Frostwire! The problem isn't file-sharing, obviously, but an outdated business model and a resistance to change.

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    1. Re:Frostwire? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On a related note, I can't believe how stupid this ruling is. It's a Gnutella client! That's it! Limewire is responsible for nothing; it's the illegal distributors of copyrighted works, which LimeWire isn't, that are legally responsible for any of this.

      Part of what got Limewire shut down was their marketing.
      Ontop of everything else they put on their website, they bought keywords like kazaa, morpheus, and napster.
      Limewire did this to themselves in their rush to fill the void left by previous filesharing programs.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Frostwire? by Orestesx · · Score: 1

      You're seriously still arguing this? You and I understand this as a matter of common sense, but the precedent has been set.

      Napster
      Grokster

    3. Re:Frostwire? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      What's next, making HTTP/FTP/BitTorrent/the Internet illegal because it "encourages illegal file-sharing"?

      If the RIAA/MPAA and their friends could figure out how to do it, they would. They've been trying for quite some time (witness, ACTA).

    4. Re:Frostwire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Limewire is responsible for nothing; it's the illegal distributors of copyrighted works, which LimeWire isn't, that are legally responsible for any of this.

      Now you know how Smith & Wesson feels most of the time.

    5. Re:Frostwire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, so what's wrong with buying those ads?

    6. Re:Frostwire? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      IANAL, so what's wrong with buying those ads?

      Kazaa, Napster, and Morpheus were all filesharing programs that lost lawsuits for inducing infringement.
      Buying those keywords, alongside everything else LimeWire did, essentially showed the Judge their bad faith w/regards to copyright.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Frostwire? by westlake · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem isn't file-sharing, obviously, but an outdated business model and a resistance to change.

      Tell that to a judge and he'll tell you that for twenty five years he has heard the same argument from every petty thief caught scarfing a tray of doughnuts from the neighborhood mini-mart.

      It's a Gnutella client! That's it! Limewire is responsible for nothing; it's the illegal distributors of copyrighted works which LimeWire isn't, that are legally responsible for any of this.

      It is fair game for a court to ask why an infringer chooses to distribute content through a service like Limewire - and it is fair game to ask how a service like Limewire invites, promotes, and profits from the infringement.

    8. Re:Frostwire? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. This ruling flies in the face of precedent. Many, many precedents from many, many cases, that have consistently found that a tool that has significant legal use may not be outlawed merely because it can be used for illegal purposes.

      In an attempt to get people to understand just how bad this ruling is, I would like to point out that if this were accepted as valid legal precedent, it would open the door to outlawing the possession of baseball bats, kitchen knives, heavy wrenches and even rocks because they might be used for illegal purposes.

      This judge is a frigging idiot, and I hope he's laughed off the bench.

    9. Re:Frostwire? by julesh · · Score: 1

      No, those aren't valid precedents.

      Napster was limited to sharing MP3 files, meaning almost all of its content was illegal. You couldn't share your Ubuntu ISOs on there, or your home-made porn (these two being the largest legal uses of other filesharing networks, I believe). Plus, because of its architecture, search requests crossed over Napster's servers. The court held that Napster could prevent infringement by not allowing searches for infringing content; they were shut down for failing to do this.

      Grokster was about active steps made by the company to encourage illegal use. All the other file sharing companies have been much more wary about how they advertised their systems; Grokster openly stated that it was designed for unauthorized sharing of copyright content. The supreme court justices were very cautious in their judgment to make it clear that it was *not* the tool that was the problem, it was the *way it was marketed*.

    10. Re:Frostwire? by Markizs · · Score: 1

      mod parent up! hope that those hordes of Slashdot readers who still doesn't understand this point will read it!

    11. Re:Frostwire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give me one example of your "legal to download music" that was "promoted by frostwire" in a way that wasn't a way to "legitimize" frostwire by gratuitously distributing and promoting such content in a way that wouldn't have been more convenient and practical to do via http and various social networking sites (facebook/myspace). no, really. put up or shut up,

    12. Re:Frostwire? by hedpe2003 · · Score: 1

      Shhhh! Dont tell them about BitTorrent... :\

      --
      Comprehensive solutions via a competition of ideas like no other.
    13. Re:Frostwire? by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      Since your phrasing is so vague and subjective that the answer could encompass all music promoted that wasn't under copyright or none of it I suspect that, given your displayed bias, you will simply deny any example provided. So why do you expect anyone to waste their time since your mind is obviously made up?

    14. Re:Frostwire? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      in a way that wouldn't have been more convenient and practical to do via http and various social networking sites (facebook/myspace)

      If you’re implying that it is more convenient and practical to promote and distribute free music via some other method, why were/are so many people using LimeWire/FrostWire?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  17. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by tehniobium · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually people should continue making shitty file sharing services and basing them in the US. That way the *IAA's of this world can feel like they're winning even as they are completely unable to do anything about torrent.

    ...And while you're at it, make those programs easier to use than torrent, so all the newbies make them popular and it seems like BIG NEWS when one gets whacked on the head with a hammer!

    --
    No kitty, this is my pot pie!
  18. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by xhrit · · Score: 1

    I am astonished that anyone still uses this...

  19. Ignorance by cosm · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Either I am ignorant, or the judge is.

    DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL.

    Yes, that is correct. But how can they shut down LimeWire through the vicarious actions of its users? It is the user's who are responsible. They share the data. Unless LimeWire themselves is hosting the copyrighted bits, what are they doing wrong? If they provide some helper service for getting nodes connected, perhaps that is the 'gotcha'. But even then, if they are just managing connections, they still are not hosting the data (AFAIK).

    Should we shutdown chat clients and protocols because they allow people to disseminate links to copyright infringed data?
    Should we shutdown production of all copy machines because they could be used to infringe copyright?
    Should we ban hard-drives because they could be used to store copy-righted data?
    Should we ban the human-brain because it could retain the contents of a copyrighted document?

    Re. Tard. Ed.

    Also, does the injunction necessitate YELLING? I know the out-moded channels are scared and all, but that is just icing on the cake.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Ignorance by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      But how can they shut down LimeWire through the vicarious actions of its users? It is the user's who are responsible.

      Under the law, the fact that A committed and is responsible for action X does not imply that B is not also responsible.

      Unless LimeWire themselves is hosting the copyrighted bits, what are they doing wrong?

      As found by the court, they had profited by knowingly fostering and enabling copyright infringement.

    2. Re:Ignorance by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the judge realizes the ruling makes no sense and is illegal by Constitutional standards. But people exchanging others' work is intolerable, so a little judicial activism is called for. Practicality is far more important when creating law than justice or logic.

    3. Re:Ignorance by cosm · · Score: 1

      As found by the court, they had profited by knowingly fostering and enabling copyright infringement.

      By that logic, all IRC channels and usage should be banned because botnet proprietors profit from using them to control their hordes.

      Get real.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    4. Re:Ignorance by cosm · · Score: 1

      Under the law, the fact that A committed and is responsible for action X does not imply that B is not also responsible.

      Nor does it imply that B is responsible! If you use Slashdot as a forum for coordinating criminal activity, is Slashdot responsible? It is an easy way out to blame the tools, but it is the people who use the tools that are responsible. Should gasoline be banned because gasoline manufactures knowingly foster and enable the production of a chemical that could be used for illegal things? Hell no.

      A chooses to commit action X.
      Action X is illegal.
      -----
      A is responsible for committing illegal action X.

      And somehow party B is responsible? Sure I can say the above logic doesn't imply that they are not also responsible, but that is like saying that because your user ID is 970822 it doesn't imply that your are not also a child molester.

      See the disconnect?

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    5. Re:Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already banned the human brain. Look at the American education system.

    6. Re:Ignorance by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      Actually... those two have no correlation, what are you talking about? That would be true if all IRC channels were owned by botnet proprietors, and used for distribution, but unless that's true, the IRC needs to know for a fact that a botnet is being expanded through their channel and ignore it(and, to keep in flow and context, profit from it) before they become responsible.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    7. Re:Ignorance by Nimey · · Score: 1

      judicial activism

      You could just say "I disagree with the judge's ruling"... oh, you did, but under the cover of a code phrase.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Ignorance by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Either I am ignorant, or the judge is.

      DOWNLOADING OR SHARING COPYRIGHTED CONTENT WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION IS ILLEGAL.

      I'm betting on the judge. Downloading isn't the illegal part, it's the distribution. Whoever is making those files available is the one who is liable, which is why the RIAA has been going after file sharers not, as is popularly described, file downloaders.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    9. Re:Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Legal documents are normally written in all caps, since it makes it easier to read. (Same with Radio/TV transcripts)

    10. Re:Ignorance by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      It's not judicial activism unless one of the two major parties gives a damn.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    11. Re:Ignorance by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      Should we shutdown chat clients and protocols because they allow people to disseminate links to copyright infringed data?
      Should we shutdown production of all copy machines because they could be used to infringe copyright?
      Should we ban hard-drives because they could be used to store copy-righted data?
      Should we ban the human-brain because it could retain the contents of a copyrighted document?

      In the minds of Big Media? Yes.

      Whatever it takes. Literally, whatever it takes.

    12. Re:Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh.... don't give 'em any ideas. This has already happened in the Netherlands, where we are looking at special taxes on MP3 players "because they only function with copied music". Insert the word "illegal" wherever you like. We already have special taxes ('to pay the duped musicians") for this purpose on blank cd's and blank cassette tapes. They will want to do the same on hdd's and so forth. Needless to say, the organisation that does the books never pays up unless you're a famous musician that might be interested in talking to the press. Google "Brein" or "Tim Kuijk" and be amazed at the audacity of these folks.
      Oh yeah, publishing your own music is also illegal in the Netherlands...
      We have a free country over here because we can smoke pot, yeah right. By now, we need that freedom dearly as it's the only liberty we have left.

    13. Re:Ignorance by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      In your example, are we asuming that using slashdot to facilitate crime is a major probem, and that the Slashdot admins do nothing about it?

    14. Re:Ignorance by MareLooke · · Score: 1

      Same shit in Belgium; except the thing on hard drives is already in effect. First thing I do with every cd I buy (omg, someone still actually buys cds!) is rip them onto my hard drive, so I get to pay extra for my legal music because I get taxed on the digital media player and the hard drive... Not to mention that SABAM (our local version of the RIAA mafia) gets money when I backup any of my personal data to some optical medium, and I sure as hell don't think I owe them any money for my vacation photographs... And they somehow manage to think this is justified?

    15. Re:Ignorance by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      By that logic, all IRC channels and usage should be banned because botnet proprietors profit from using them to control their hordes.

      Wrong. The court didn't ban the tools LimeWire used that are parallel to IRC channels (i.e., it didn't ban the use of the Gnutella protocol.) It prohibited LimeWire -- the entity that it found profited from knowingly fostering and enabling copyright infringement -- from continuing to engage in the activities by which it had knowingly fostered and enabled copyright infringement.

      So, insofar as it is parallel to your example at all, it would be similar to an injunction prohibiting the actions of the botnet owner, not one prohibiting all use of the IRC channels.

    16. Re:Ignorance by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Nor does it imply that B is responsible!

      True, but irrelevant to the context of GP, which was as a response to GGPs claim that because users are responsible, LimeWire cannot be responsible. That argument only works if responsibility is absolutely exclusive.

      If you use Slashdot as a forum for coordinating criminal activity, is Slashdot responsible?

      If Slashdot knows about, and structures their business to encourage and profit from it, its quite likely that, yes, Slashdot would be criminally responsible.

      And the rules for criminal liability are generally narrower than those for civil liability, which is what is at issue in the case at hand.

    17. Re:Ignorance by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. All-caps makes it harder to read.

      Miles Tinker, in his landmark work, Legibility of Print, performed scientific studies on the readability of all-capital print. His findings were as follows:

              All-capital print greatly retards speed of reading in comparison with lower-case type. Also, most readers judge all capitals to be less legible. Faster reading of the lower-case print is due to the characteristic word forms furnished by this type. This permits reading by word units, while all capitals tend to be read letter by letter. Furthermore, since all-capital printing takes at least one-third more space than lower case, more fixation pauses are required for reading the same amount of material. The use of all capitals should be dispensed with in every printing situation.

      Other critics are of the opinion that all caps letters in text are often “too tightly packed against each other”.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    18. Re:Ignorance by splatter · · Score: 1

      Shit that would be fine with me as long as I can download to my hearts content. Of course with out jumping through a bunch of hoops that only slow connection speed and not really protect oneself from a lawsuit.

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  20. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    yeah... really

    And with the advent of magnet links, no central tracker is needed, meaning no one but the search sites to sue.

  21. LAMENESS FILTER by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    Didn't you read the lameness filter? Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

  22. "a decrtalized network" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you need one of them newfangled LCD monitors to use it? CRTs are banned?

    1. Re:"a decrtalized network" ??? by Sylak · · Score: 1

      the funny part is that i thought i had copy+pasted from wikipedia because i kept typoing that

  23. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the search sites can very well be hidden onion services... just add a Tor client to popular torrent clients and a button to launch the browser configured to use the Tor proxy, and anyone will be able to use it.

  24. Now the real test starts by DodgeRules · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the cnet article:

    "RIAA lawyers have told the judge that LimeWire costs the record labels about $500 million in lost music sales every month."

    So with LimeWire shut down, will record sales increase by $500 million every month? Hopefully they will use current sales figures including the 2 months AFTER the shutdown to calculate the lost sales prior to the shutdown and not just take the RIAA lawyers word for it. My guess is they will see little, if any, sales difference after the shutdown.

    1. Re:Now the real test starts by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Funny

      $500 million per month works out to be 6.5 billion per year.

      I'm amazed that we actually have record companies around with giant losses like these. Won't someone think of the children?

      This post brought to you by the foundation for sarcastic replies.

    2. Re:Now the real test starts by grapeape · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That wont matter the will just shift the blame to the next target, just as they focused on Limewire after Napster, as long as there is anything to pin blame on they don't have to actually have any real data to backup their claims. I fully expect that at an upcoming awards show we will see some digital holdout musician like Paul McCartney touting a new pay service calling itself Limewire attempting to live off past name recognition despite a poor business model.

    3. Re:Now the real test starts by BlueKitties · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure -- upon hearing these huge damages record labels have had -- the judge will promptly fine everyone involved infinity billion dollars.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    4. Re:Now the real test starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $500 million per month works out to be 6.5 billion per year.

      I'd disagree with you, but maybe you're using some weird unit like "6.5 billion (units of $0.923077) per year".

    5. Re:Now the real test starts by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      so then i assume the record companies will update their tax information to reflect the additional half a billion in income each month?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:Now the real test starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't that been debunked well enough and long enough to go after these guys for perjury? Are lawyers exempt from perjury?

    7. Re:Now the real test starts by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

      My guess is they will see little, if any, sales difference after the shutdown.

      Well that's where you'd be wrong. My bet is on sales going down now that less people will be exposed to new music. Then within a few weeks it will climb back up as friends learn from friends about this new thing called...

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    8. Re:Now the real test starts by goathumper · · Score: 1

      Wow... your years last 13 months... no wonder your math is off - I'd have gone crazy too! Such an unlucky number of months to boot...

    9. Re:Now the real test starts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were connected with the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and I had a good idea of how much the Recording Industry was making prior to the shutdown of Limewire, I would insist on re-assessing them and make certain that they are taxed for an additional $500 million per month of revenue. They are claiming it, so tax them on it!

    10. Re:Now the real test starts by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      > Paul McCartney touting a new pay service calling itself Limewire attempting to live off past name
      > recognition despite a poor business model.

      Digital Holdout? Hardly! He's *all over* that Pirate Bay music store!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    11. Re:Now the real test starts by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      Considering Comcast is allowed to advertise a 250GB capped plan as unlimited on national television I'd say our legal system stopped caring about lying years ago...

    12. Re:Now the real test starts by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I fully expect that at an upcoming awards show we will see some digital holdout musician like Paul McCartney touting a new pay service calling itself Limewire attempting to live off past name recognition despite a poor business model.

      That would be exceedingly appropriate.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  25. The end of the lime for linewire by Hottie+Parms · · Score: 1

    A truly sad day indeed.

    1. Re:The end of the lime for linewire by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      When life gives you limes...

    2. Re:The end of the lime for linewire by Hottie+Parms · · Score: 1

      When life gives you limes...

      ...make frostwire!

  26. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually I've found it was up to this day VERY popular with the clueless. As a PC repairman I ask my fellow repairmen to bow their heads in a silent moment and give thanks to the HUGE number of viruses from the fake files on Limewire and Kazaa, which made many of us mucho money. Hell the whole thing was plumb full of "name_of_popular_song.mp3.exe" viruses that the clueless would fall for time and time again.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  27. Good by genfail · · Score: 1

    Good! Maybe my users will get less viruses now.

    1. Re:Good by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      Wish I could share this notion, but alas, I do not.

      If you go back in history a bit, you'll find plenty of relics along the way. You'll find Sean Fanning's Napster, ScourXchange, WinMX, Morpheus, Kazaa, Bearshare, and now Limewire. I don't care about any of those. My example right now is DVDXCopy. Back when DVDXCopy came out, I remember seeing it in the acrylic boxes at CompUSA, being sold for $100 a pop. Its claim to fame: making it stupid simple to make copies of copy protected DVDs. IMO it propelled the DVD burner into standard gear on computers in less than half the time a standard migration would have taken. Ironically, it was among the first mainstream applications (besides Windows XP and Office XP) to require activation.

      The MPAA sent a few love letters to 321 Studios, brought them to court, and won. 321 Studios tried to keep their shelf space next to Nero and Roxio, but they were more expensive and brought less to the table since they had a whole lot of court fees that Roxio didn't. They went bankrupt in 2004.

      What does this have to do with customers not getting viruses anymore? Well, DVDXcopy had the notoriety of copying commercial movies, so people would google the term...and get plenty of fake versions of it containing adware, malware, and plenty of other shadyness. It was a huge problem because everyone was getting infected and not knowing it. At the very least, I got plenty of calls from people who were wondering why the price was so high when the company itself had gone under, and why there were so many popup ads on their computers.

      Admittedly, Google and Bing have both gotten much better at filtering out malware serving websites, so it might not be as much of a problem. Still, if people were able to get themselves infected with limewire, they're going to be dumb enough to either move onto another Gnutella client (Frostwire has gotten plenty of traction recently even before the C&D) where the same sets of files will inevitably be shared, or they'll keep searching for Limewire until something makes a green, fruit-like icon appear on the desktop and let them download Justin_Bieber_Rare_Live_Recording.mp3.exe.

  28. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Amen to this. Every single charity case home PC repair job I took in from one of our users had malware of some variety. And every single one of those had Limewire installed and actively used. Let us ring the village bells and partake in feast to celebrate the slaying of this most wicked beast.

  29. A Victory For The American People. by BlueKitties · · Score: 5, Funny

    The media companies have stood up against rampant piracy to protect artistic expression and innovation! This is truly a victory for The American People.

    --
    "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    1. Re:A Victory For The American People. by Haedrian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      parent.content.getSarcasmLevel();

    2. Re:A Victory For The American People. by BlueKitties · · Score: 3, Funny

      IT'S OVER... well actually it's about 31, I forgot to declare my int long.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    3. Re:A Victory For The American People. by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      The media companies have stood up against rampant piracy to protect artistic expression and innovation! This is truly a victory for The American People.

      Which is especially amusing considering how little innovation comes out of the large media companies.

  30. heh by luther349 · · Score: 1

    well part of what killed limewire was the fact they tried to sell pro versions. lets not forget how loaded with spy-where it is loaded with. they where in it for the money it was pretty dammed clear. and being the client is genutella i dought shutting it down is gonna do anything. we still have frostwire and im sure someone else is gonna use the gpl code and make another one.

  31. Well, by pdxp · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the end of the lime for them alright, and it's sad to see such a historic piece of software going out on a such a sour note.

    1. Re:Well, by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      It's the end of the lime for them alright, and it's sad to see such a historic piece of software going out on a such a sour note.

      Sorry man, no mod points left.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  32. Caps lock by HamSammy · · Score: 1

    Cruise control for cool, like most Limewire users.

  33. People still use Limewire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was talking to a younger cousin about file-sharing, and when I mentioned Limewire he said that was kind of old and listed newer file-sharing sources. It completely blew me away. We aren't even that far apart! Although it is expected, since when I was younger my high school group went from Napster to Kazaa to Limewire to BearShare to Shareaza, etc, but still. It's like that whole "when I was young we [insert soothing tale of yore]" concept is happening faster and faster, and I'm not even old yet.

  34. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    My favorite was the "name_of_popular_song_crack.exe". I guess they thought if they cracked the song they wouldn't get a please insert the original cd prompt when playing their mp3?

  35. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen.

  36. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually people should continue making shitty file sharing services and basing them in the US. That way the *IAA's of this world can feel like they're winning even as they are completely unable to do anything about torrent.

    The *IAA's don't want to win. Winning would mean a marginal increase in new sales (from the downloaders who actually can afford the stuff they download), but a sharp decrease in profits from extremely punitive lawsuits. Their optimal move is to continue playing both ends of the game (dues from artists paying essentially protection fees and settlements/damages from lawsuits). All they really have to do is continue lobbying enough to keep the status quo and drown out any artists that attempt to call them out.

  37. Killed by the Battlestar Metallica by KlomDark · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    All I can say at this point is Fuck Lars Ulrich, and fuck everything they've made since the black album.

    For many many years, they were my favorite band by far. But now I only purchase Megadeth for my thrash metal fix.

    // The system HAS failed

    1. Re:Killed by the Battlestar Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny... I stopped listening Metallica long before they showed their true colors (suing filesharers and even parody musicians).

      For me they just sucked, maybe since the black album (which I didn't like too much !).

    2. Re:Killed by the Battlestar Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No point insulting Lars Ulrich. He's already dead!

      Listen closely, I don't have much time. Metallica is dead! In 1992 they were murdered in their sleep by record-company-grown pod people who then replaced the band so they couldn't reveal that the "Black Album" was written entirely by Bob "Rock" and recorded in secret by a cover band as part of a plot to make the band more radio-friendly and thus destroy metal!
        That's why the band appeared with short hair at the Video Music Awards that year: when the record company discovered the band had not only refused the deal but were actually going to go public, the suits were forced to kill and replace them, and the pod people didn't have time to grow their hair in!

        It's so obvious, right? Everyone knows the real Metallica would never cut their hair and sell out! It's a dead giveaway!

        Seen in the light of this undeniable evidence, all the shitty albums, the insults towards old fans, the endless string of music and concert videos, it all makes perfect sense!

        Spread the word! Keep the faith, brothers! They can't hide the truth forever! I have to go now, before they can silence me.

        Oh god, it's too late! They're at the d&$FY()#$BFDP{%#:"P
      NO CARRIER

    3. Re:Killed by the Battlestar Metallica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought that Metallica have always sucked.

      Thus it's always been pretty easy for me to ignore them and their bellyaching.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. Truth and consequences. by westlake · · Score: 1

    The advantage of P2P's like Limewire was that it did not share crappy_commercial_music.mp3 while you were downloading crappy_commercial_music.mp3, and as such you could not be fingered for the crime of distributing crappy_commercial_music.mp3 since you were in fact not distributing it.

    False.

    The LimeWire client had a tray icon and instantly accessible animated bar graphs displaying traffic to and from your shared files folder.

    You could view the shared files folders of other users and link to them directly.

    Comments and ratings could be attached to files.

    The ego of the uploader who was a primary source of a file could be as visible as a billboard on the I-90.

    LimeWire had its own built-in chat client.

    The workings of the system were fully exposed to even the most naive user.

    1. Re:Truth and consequences. by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hi. Let me walk you through turning the fucking file sharing off, since you are apparently TOO NAIVE to have looked through the entire thing in order to understand the workings of the system.

      You first install it (ignore the ask toolbar as always, uncheck it and move on)

      When it FIRST LOADS UP, it asks you where you want to download, and which folders you want to share - uncheck all the folders under 'shared' box, click them and hit 'remove,' and pick your download location or leave it default, click next.

      Tell Limewire your connection type, click next.

      A couple more menus in, it will ask you what file types you'd like to share directly with LimeWire itself, uncheck all of those, click next.

      Before you've even had the opportunity to download anything, you've been given the options to turn off ALL SHARING.

      You are no longer sharing files and will not upload whatever you download.

      Was it that hard? You didn't even have to look for a settings menu, THE INNER WORKINGS THAT MATTER THE MOST TO YOU ARE EXPOSED TO YOU BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING.

      Don't speak unless you've actually used the program, please. I re-installed it A. for nostalgia and B. to prove you know absolutely nothing of which you speak.

      Frostwire (the free 'pro' version of Limewire) has the EXACT SAME PROCEDURE, as does any faithful open-source LimeWire clone using LimeWire's open-source.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Truth and consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone did this there would be nothing to download

    3. Re:Truth and consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making the gross assumption here that Joe User is going to take the time to read, understand, and act on those dialog boxes during the install. He's just going to keep clicking on 'Next' as fast as he can until the program is installed and he can get to downloading.

    4. Re:Truth and consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      meta: did not see that coming

  40. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by jonwil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of those are actually bots that listen for any query and based on it, return a plausable sounding result that really points at a virus.

  41. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    It's all my sisters know how to use, unfortunately. Similar case with lots and lots of people. I've thought of teaching them the art of Google + BitTorrent (honestly, I find almost all of my music from searching Google), but it seems too complicated for them (and they'll still get their computers infected, possibly easier).

    Never understood why torrents didn't catch on as well. First mover advantage, perhaps?

  42. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 4, Informative

    profits from extremely punitive lawsuits.

    Would you believe that they actually lose money on that shit? Lawyers aren't cheap, especially evil lawyers (even though they make up most of the supply).

  43. Yeah, you're right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12 x $500,000,000.00 = $ 6,500,000,000.00! I'll tell you what, if you give me $6,500,000,000.00, I'll give you back $525,000,000.00 per month for 12 months. OK? Think of all the profit you'll make on your investment!

  44. Shittiest Document Scan Ever by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

    I am reasonably sure that the injunction requires that the injunction document itself be published. I'm not sure because reading what would have to qualify as the world's shittiest scan of a facsimile of a document would do irreparable damage to my eyesight.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  45. Whaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You only just noticed?!
    Between the difficulty and the extreme popamole, video games have been through some serious decline during the last decade!
    The last decade for the most part has obviously been one of graphics whoring; I am sick and tired of graphics being placed ahead of everything else, this means that gameplay and plot suffers tremendously. If I was to use Fallout 3 as a benchmark, I'd claim that plots and settings have become completely inane.
    It doesn't help that reviewers gawk over the graphics and pass 9/10's out like candy on Halloween.

    not that I mind, it has just resulted in me buying very few games.

    and now to get modded as troll and/or flamebait...

  46. Dang, there goes my anti-virus business by flyingfsck · · Score: 0, Troll

    I made thousands of dollars from removing crapware on Limewire infested machines. Now what am I gonna do? Sniff...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  47. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, I'm the one who repairs computers for everyone I know, my computer has been in emmaculate shape for years, and yet I *gasp* have LimeWire on it! And I've never gotten a virus! Shocking!

    The real deal? Use your smarts and don't just download anything and everything from it and you WON'T GET A F*CKING VIRUS YOU MORONS.

  48. Don't give-up! Get your pens and papers ready... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we can always write the sheet-music to all these songs they don't want us to share, and then we can pass-around the sheet-music to our friends and fellow musicians so we can all play a tune at the expense of an often-hated Band. What will the judge do next, besides outlaw pens and paper? Do writing implements cause counterfeiting, like how so-many art-thiefs redraw a copy of a master painting and then slip into the museum to swap their copy for that expensive original? Does the judge outlaw brushes and ink as well to stop this? With so many "lay" judges that have no experience in the implementations of technology they quickly outlaw the medium rather than the MOTIVE. Let us not forget that the judges today are in-fact verry lay and worse they regard experts in the juries as vile simply because the judge is empanneled by the verry monopolists of commerce that put a many-toothed cog into the labor of society to draw the verry energies of the people into a proprietary form of counterfeit that is the privilege of the State consuming the Country.

  49. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

    Back in college in one of my lecture it was mentioned that on one of those networks that you could easily filter out all files of a certain size something like 95K of which over 99% were viruses (one of about four flavors) and that will eliminate something like 80% of the viruses and files on the network.

  50. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Yes! And they are useful for finding things that aren't on the torrents. http://www.emule-project.net/ is a good decentralised file sharing network.

  51. One down... by Neko-nyan+Ayakitty · · Score: 0, Troll

    Only, what, 300 Limewire clones left to go? lulz xP And then you haz torrents as everyone's mentioned. And Usenet. And half the things relevant to mai interests are mass-uploaded/mirrored to MegaUpload + Mediafire + Hotfile + Rapidshyte.. etc.. I hope that Federal Judge feels proud of himself, he might as well have killed his first mob in an mmo. Congrats d00d, you only have about 999,999,999 left to go before you accomplish anything :3

  52. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by sexybomber · · Score: 1

    Amen, brother. Limewire-induced viruses paid my beer money all through college, and in fact got me laid on more than one occasion. (Yes, I know Slashdotters don't get laid, but I'm not joking!) I found it was quicker and easier to pull a backup-and-reinstall job with most virus infections, rather than trying to fight them. The process takes about two hours, the majority of which is waiting for file copying or OS installation. Combine this with clueless (not to mention broke) frosh women who were surprised the resident geek was unstereotypically cute ... yup. Good times. Cheers to Limewire, savior of geeks everywhere.

  53. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    name_of_popular_song.mp3.exe

    I can't seem to download your link? I keep clicking but nothing happens.

  54. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by definate · · Score: 1

    And the "marginal increase in new sales" is debatable as you'd be eliminating a portion of your network effect from free/warez distribution. While this is also small, there's a chance it could be a greater effect than that from people who now need to buy it.

    --
    This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  55. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's immaculate, fuck-stick. Pretty sure the only reason you think you've never gotten a virus is you're too stupid to know when you've got one.

  56. Limewire is GPL by KBrown · · Score: 1

    So I don't get the point.

    Someone could just put a mirror somewhere else in the world (as allowed by the GPL) and allow other people to keep downloading it..

    --
    --
    1. Re:Limewire is GPL by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      You don't want to focus Big Media's attention on the GPL, believe me.

  57. Took long enough. by jfz · · Score: 0

    Is the whack a mole machine broken or something?

  58. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by promythyus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't get your panties in a knot, the virus he doesn't have disabled his spell-checker so he didn't know.

  59. if its not a long int by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT'S OVER... well actually it's about 31, I forgot to declare my int long.

    If it's not a long int, it can still go to 4294967296 if it is unsigned. Shortest you'll get is bit (max 1), then byte/unsigned short int (256)

    1. Re:if its not a long int by julesh · · Score: 1

      If it's not a long int, it can still go to 4294967296 if it is unsigned.

      GGP's post looked like Java to me. Java doesn't have unsigned ints.

      Still, the fact that the value reached 31 (rather than a negative number) implies it must have been at least 4294967327, if not actually higher.

  60. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "As a PC repairman I ask my fellow repairmen to bow their heads in a silent moment and give thanks to the HUGE number of viruses from the fake files on Limewire and Kazaa, which made many of us mucho money."

    *WHAP!* That's for implying that torrents are anywhere near safe.

    Do you know how many idiots have a fucking rootkitted Windows install because they got it from torrents? I live in Southern California, I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO shortage of business on that end.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  61. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen to that!

  62. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by julesh · · Score: 0

    It's immaculate, fuck-stick.

    Nah, he actually meant emasculate, which means, well, lack of fuck-stick.

  63. How can there be unfair competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can there be unfair competition against a monopoly? That's what copyright is. A monopoly. Therefore there IS NO competition.

    And if all this "property" is so valuable, how come they aren't paying taxes on it?

  64. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hell the whole thing was plumb full of "name_of_popular_song.mp3.exe" viruses that the clueless would fall for time and time again.

    You ought to thank MSFT. They hide extensions, auto execute files, and do not require any special action to enable an executable to run.

  65. 'Unfair competition'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the irony...

  66. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only real idiots would download it. You can identify the fake files very easily, their wrong filenames are just glaring... You can also identify them by their filesizes and filetypes.

  67. Who cares anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too slow, too big, too unwieldy, too Java heavy (thus slow), and there are plethora of other SW to step in, like Azureus. So long, LameWire, it was nice to meet you, but your time has now passed into obscurity.

    Your Former User.

  68. Quick !!!! by JokkVahl · · Score: 0

    Upload the songs to napster.....

  69. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

    Actually people should continue making shitty file sharing services and basing them in the US. That way the *IAA's of this world can feel like they're winning even as they are completely unable to do anything about torrent. ...And while you're at it, make those programs easier to use than torrent, so all the newbies make them popular and it seems like BIG NEWS when one gets whacked on the head with a hammer!

    Then we can make the first rule "You do not talk about usen**, I mean torrents"

  70. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

    You could also easily sort by filesize... if you're looking for a 6 minute long song, chances are the mp3 of that is not going to be 60KB. It's going to be closer to 6MB usually. The problem is that it would require using your brain, and most users of the network weren't/aren't savvy enough to think that far.

  71. Lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing the judge did this just for the many lulz that would result.

  72. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by blueg3 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's also very popular among people downloading child pornography.

  73. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Yep, but let's all say a second prayer ... that these folks don't all start switching to Macs!
    The Mac Limewire users I've known were still able to run it, downloading anything they wanted, without a single issue .....

  74. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    I know. It's astonishing because people shifted off a "do a search and find something; it never fucking goes away" model to a "file on a network with a backing tracker that eventually disappears and the likelihood of leechers that download a torrent and then disconnect so 99% of the shit out there has no seeds." We left the model where you could always find anything ages ago.

  75. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Maybe because in one model, you keep finding torrents you can't download because they're behind paywalls and stupid shit, and the torrents vanish eventually, or never download because of no seeds; while in the other, information actually persists and the network isn't reliant on any given operator.

  76. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Winning would mean a marginal increase in new sales

    That's a fallacy. Music pirates have been shown in study after study to spend more on music than non-pirates.

    It has never once been shown by any reputable research that anybody ever lost a cent to piracy.

    The RIAA's war against file sharing isn't a war against pirates, it's a war against indies (their competetion), who use the internet to get their works in your ears. The RIAA has a monopoly on radio airplay, the indies don't.

  77. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

    *WHAP!* That's for implying that torrents are anywhere near safe.

    Do you know how many idiots have a fucking rootkitted Windows install because they got it from torrents? I live in Southern California, I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO shortage of business on that end.

    Funny thing about torrents. It turns out that usually the main install executable is perfectly fine - it installs a clean copy of whatever program you're pirating. And since most commercial developers even code-sign their setup.exe files, you can even view the digital signatures on the files and verify them.

    However, it's the attached keygen or crack that's usually either a trojan or has a malware wrapper around it. I'd say that most keygens and cracks are infected, and your antivirus is actually telling the truth when it says they're infected. It's practically impossible to get a clean keygen/crack, even ye olde crack sites often now unwittingly host them. It's far more profitable this way as it's trivially easy to release a crack and hope someone bundles it together with the software to make it easy.

    And even usenet's not immune. I can't remember a day when browsing I don't see thousands of identical posts containing the same virus executable with different names.

    Hell, it's even gotten into movies (the movie's 600MB, but it's just a 2 minute video saying "You need to install XXX to play, please visit www.fishysite.com to download").

    Explains the rise of the old .nfo file with the required serial number built in - you can't trust cracks and keygens to actually work.

  78. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Also you should thank Microsoft for making hidden filename extensions the default, so it's brain-dead simple to have someone click on Trojan.MP3.exe.

  79. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

    That's all fine and dandy until some *real* illegal content gets distributed through your node.

  80. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    If it were my sisters I'd put them on Emule, and simply place MSE or another free AV and have it scan their download folder upon opening. The only trick is you'd have to run it once for them, as there are bots that will put "Name_of_song.mp3.exe" but here is how you fix that, just do the first search and put in some BS like "flegalsnortch" and anything that shows up you flag as spam. There are also a few other tricks, like putting Peerrates server list as the ONLY source, by disabling "update server from clients" and simply have it use the Peerrates server list on startup. with Kad it is distributed and they'd only need the server list for the first few hookups anyway.

    While I fortunately don't need P2P, and my family spends too much time on MMOs to waste downloading, having to deal with customers that used to get infected via Limewire all the time taught me how to lower their risks. IMHO emule would be a better bet if you don't want to spend all your time cleaning crap out. The final bit of advice would be to use Peerblock, which helps block the spammers and leaches.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  81. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    It also acts as a torrent client.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  82. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use it a lot for finding specific MP3s that would never appear on a BT search site. I can fire up a Gnutella client and start downloading some obscure song that's too old or rare to be on iTMS or Amazon within a minute or two.

  83. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I don't really know how queries work on the Gnutella, but I assumed they work a bit like this (if it doesn't, it should):

    1) to search for "metallica shit music", a client hashes the words "metallica", "shit" and "music" to get 3 keyword-hashes;
    2) it asks for filenames containing keywords that hash to any of the 3 keyword hashes (by direct flooding of peers or any other more intelligent mean, like kadmelia-type of query routing);
    3) each client contains a table (or part of the global distributed hash table) containing the correspondence between keyword-hashes and filenames/filename-hashes (which was created when the file was selected as "shared")... it gives a reply based on that (the query may include logical operations like OR, AND or NOT, to refine the search, which should be processed by the client originating the query, to minimize information leaking).

    The results is that such bots cannot know what filename to return (in a way that it is a plausible "good result" for a certain search query) because the whole query string is unknown to them, unless they spend lots of time creating rainbow tables for this specific hash (i.e. they might as well just create copies of the virus with suggestive names containing lots of "good"/"hot" keywords, share them and hope people fall for it).

  84. all caps day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know courts are slow, but all caps day was several days ago.

  85. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    But what if they believe their own propaganda?

  86. Spammed by the RIAA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got this email

    This is an official notice that LimeWire is under a court-ordered injunction to stop distributing and supporting its file-sharing software. Downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is illegal.

    If you would like to unsubscribe from LimeWire software promotional offers, please click here

    It didnt sound like a promotional offer to me :)

    And why do they still have me on file for a product I bought (and stopped using) ~7 years ago ? I unticked all of the "Spam me" boxes.

  87. Spammed by the RIAA ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LEGAL NOTICE

    This is an official notice that LimeWire is under a court-ordered injunction to stop distributing and supporting its file-sharing software. Downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is illegal.

    If you would like to unsubscribe from LimeWire software promotional offers, please click here

    Didnt sound like a "promotional offer" to me :)

    And why do they still have me on file for a product I (sadly) bought in about 2003... I unticked all the "please spam me" boxes.

  88. Re:There are still non-torrent filesharing network by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 2, Informative

    Many versions of Windows have a "disable file extensions for known filetypes" option enabled by default.

    That means that:

    Super cool video.mpg.exe
    Hot naked girls.jpg.exe

    Are not obviously executable when viewed in explorer. Typically the icon is changed to match Windows' default, to further the deception.

    It's not all the stupid user's fault. Windows is helping, too.