backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 33 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Aug 7 at 9:41 PM
The RIAA has sued another P2P software company and is asking $150,000 per illegally downloaded song discovered

The RIAA has filed yet another lawsuit in its crusade against peer-to-peer file sharing networks, this time targeting the popular LimeWire network.  

In the complaint the RIAA alleges that Lime Group LLC and its associates "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing'' its users to steal music and that the company is doing nothing to block access to copyrighted works. The RIAA further alleges that Lime Group LLC has built a business model that allows them to directly profit from piracy.

LimeWire began operating in 2000 and has since become the program of choice among P2P users as other P2P companies have shut down or changed their business models to allow legal file trading. Last year the US Supreme Court ruled that P2P companies could be sued for copyright infringement if they were found to encourage piracy when the court ruled in the Gorkster case. The RIAA is seeking damages including at least $150,000 for each illegally downloaded song.

The suit comes only days after the RIAA settled a lawsuit with Sharman Networks, the company that distributes Kazaa.  Record labels Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Vivendi Universal, Warner Music and EMI Group are behind this latest file sharing related lawsuit.  As part of "going legit," the P2P network Kazaa recently agreed to pay record labels $100M USD in a bulk settlement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
so...
By GhandiInstinct on 8/5/2006 5:53:02 AM , Rating: 4
How do they come up with that exact suing fee of 150,000?

Surely it can't be based off the superior quality of the songs downloaded..because how many songs out there are worth 150,000?





RE: so...
By Desslok on 8/5/2006 7:43:52 AM , Rating: 4
They need some way to pay their army of lawyers.


RE: so...
By thecoolnessrune on 8/5/2006 8:04:54 AM , Rating: 3
I cant think of many songs that are even worth the $1 they charge.


RE: so...
By vhx500 on 8/5/2006 11:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
From what I know, LimeWire is the only P2P software that is ACTIVELY telling its users NOT to infringe copyright. Upon installing it, it DOES ask you if you plan to used LimeWire to infringe copyright, and again, it asks you if you want to continue downloading something that it says doesn't have a license.

Anyway, since LimeWire is already open source (under the GPL), and with the wealth of other Gnutella-based clients (Shareaza, iMesh, etc), and of course with BT, this is nothing but a scratch on the surface for P2P. Muahahaha!


RE: so...
By Nelsieus on 8/5/06, Rating: 0
RE: so...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2006 11:33:39 AM , Rating: 3
> "I strongly disagree. I think Limewire is probably one of the worst at it, and so I'm very happy to finally see action taken against them."

From the statements of other posters here, it seems you're correct. More than a few people have claimed Limewire to be their primary source for downloaded copyrighted works.


RE: so...
By Ronson on 8/5/2006 3:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree. I have no interest in songs beyond the early 90s. :P


Hasn't everyone moved on?
By Falloutboy on 8/5/2006 10:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
haven't most downloaders moved on from these type of programs to torrents or newsgroups?




RE: Hasn't everyone moved on?
By Xavian on 8/5/2006 11:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Torrents are for larger files (like whole CD's) and Newsgroups can be a major pain to sort out, let alone the monthly fee to get any form of decent speed.

P2P networks are still amazing for downloading single songs or a small collection of songs. That is if you know how to avoid virus' and dud music files.


RE: Hasn't everyone moved on?
By crazydrummer4562 on 8/5/2006 4:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, it is difficult to find more obscure music on torrents.


RE: Hasn't everyone moved on?
By rrsurfer1 on 8/7/2006 8:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
No, it's not. If you have access to an exclusive tracker, that is !


RE: Hasn't everyone moved on?
By joex444 on 8/6/2006 5:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
Torrents work well for full albums, but most new releases have one decent song...


amazing
By Comdrpopnfresh on 8/6/2006 2:43:05 AM , Rating: 3
I think it will be funny when in 50 years or so when all the illegal downloading is stopped, how album sales will still be decreasing.. Has anyone ever compared the rate of illegal downloads to the rate of album sales, and legal downloads.... Maybe the RIAA should have some sort of reasoning for going after people.... I'm willing to bet that illegal downloading actually helps the industry.... This is just a bloom to get hundred of thousands of dollars on top of it...




RE: amazing
By goku on 8/6/2006 3:13:08 AM , Rating: 1
Considering that they feared every technological advancement, (MPAA VHS lawsuit comes to mind, MPAA=RIAA)they hate cassette tapes, they hate VHS, they Hate DVDs, they hate CDs, and they hate the internet!


RE: amazing
By masher2 (blog) on 8/6/2006 11:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
> "I'm willing to bet that illegal downloading actually helps the industry.... "

This is what's known as a "security belief"...the same reason people believe in religion, palm reading, and the healing powers of magnetic bracelets.


RE: amazing
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/7/2006 8:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Masher2 has a point there. Illegally downloading copyrighted music is wrong, granted most of it sucks, but that is not relevant to this discussion. iTunes is right over there, so are other places like Napster and Rhapsody which are all legit ways to obtain single songs from albums. Or go buy the CD and rip it, you still paid for the music.

Trying to justify something that is wrong, implies that your trying to create shades of grey in a problem that is black and white.

Now I don't agree with what the RIAA is doing with all of these lawsuits, but because people have given them the ammunition to persue such a drastic course of action, they are going ahead with it.


RE: amazing
By bob661 on 8/7/2006 9:49:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I don't agree with what the RIAA is doing with all of these lawsuits, but because people have given them the ammunition to persue such a drastic course of action, they are going ahead with it.
I actually think you DO agree with the RIAA but don't want to be on the recieving end of a flame war nor do you want to look like the "bad guy".
quote:
Illegally downloading copyrighted music is wrong
That is the same position as the RIAA. They are just taking an active role in eliminating this "problem". What is wrong with this? Nothing. They have every right to protect their investments and provide value to their shareholders. All companies should be doing this. BTW, I don't with how the RIAA is handling this.


South Park anyone?
By FITCamaro on 8/7/2006 11:05:17 AM , Rating: 2
Remember, downloading copyrighted songs means people like Britney Spears has to fly in a Gulf Stream IV instead of a Gulf Stream V. The Gulf Stream IV doesn't have a remote for its surround sound DVD system.

The artists are suffering. If things continue, they'll be forced to wait a month to buy their next multi-million dollar home. And the executives might not be able to buy the woman their cheating on their wife with a new $500,000 pair of diamond earrings until their next paycheck.




RE: South Park anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/7/2006 11:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
> "downloading copyrighted songs means people like Britney Spears has to fly in a Gulf Stream IV instead of a Gulf Stream V"

The thief who jacks a Ferrrari has the same excuse-- "the guy has plenty of money, he can afford it".

I won't even point out that the majority of artists don't make millions off their works, they may not even manage to pay off the front money for their album production costs.


RE: South Park anyone?
By PrinceGaz on 8/7/2006 7:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I won't even point out that the majority of artists don't make millions off their works, they may not even manage to pay off the front money for their album production costs.


The reason for that is the greedy record-companies take almost all the money.

The best thing to do is download the music for free and make a direct donation to the artist or group in question therefore bypassing the record-company (and the RIAA who the record-companies pay).


RE: South Park anyone?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/7/2006 9:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "The reason for that is the greedy record-companies take almost all the money."

Primarily because those "greedy" companies spend billions to promote those artists. There's a word for an artist who hasn't been promoted by a major label...its called "starving". The only artists who have ever gotten rich off music are those who've

Record companies quite often lose money on an artist, despite receiving the lion's share of the sales receipts. In addition to promotional costs, there's the actual recording cost of the album itself. Studio time isn't cheap, and an album can easily cost $100,000 just to record. Many labels tend to "throw bread on the waters", and sign quite a few bands, most of which they lose money on, in the hopes of having a few big hits.

There are plenty of smaller, independent labels that give artists a much larger share of the pie. You don't exactly see people lining up for their contracts though. If the major labels are so "greedy", why are artists still clamoring for their services?


I have a Suggestion
By jimmy43 on 8/5/2006 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 1
Why doesnt the RIAA, after their current business model has dried up (inevitably), become a law firm? They are damn good at it and it seems they spend an awful lot of time for a RECORD company suing people left and right. Shouldnt they be busy promoting music and searching for fresh new talent? Does their business model have ANYTHING to do with music anymore?