backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by Hase0.. on Dec 10 at 11:58 AM

Looks like the P2P conspiracy theories won’t get their day in court

LimeWire’s antitrust countersuit was thrown out last week after a federal judge granted the RIAA’s motion to dismiss claims against the company.

Many of the claims were dismissed “without prejudice,” which would allow LimeWire’s parent company, Lime Group LLC, to file new lawsuits under state courts.

Lime Group listed a wide variety of complaints against record labels and the music industry, with the overall theme being that industry execs conspired against LimeWire and others using a variety of schemes to undermine P2P and P2P companies’ efforts to legitimate themselves.

Some of these complaints include:

  • Claims that RIAA labels banded together to exclusively support P2P client iMesh and its acoustic fingerprinting technology, while simultaneously refusing to support a similar hash-based system employed by LimeWire; when Lime Group sought the necessary hashes to employ their technology, RIAA refused, instead demanding that LimeWire acquire the rights to use iMesh’s fingerprinting tech.
  • Further, if LimeWire insisted on using its hashing technology, it would instead have to license a similar hash-based filtering system from Altnet.
  • Music industry joint ventures MusicNet and pressplay – two services that PC World dubbed “25 Worst Tech Products of all Time” due to “stunningly brain-dead features” – were nothing more than conduits for price-fixing and market manipulation. (pressplay eventually became Napster 2.0 after its 2005 acquisition by Roxio.)
  • General claims of “unfair business practices,” including threatening P2P users with litigation, pressuring artists not to license works to P2P companies, and false accusing LimeWire of promoting child pornography and piracy, among other things.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Gerald Lynch wrote that most of Lime Group’s claims “fail to allege an adverse effect on competition market-wide.” Additionally, Lynch noted that record labels presented over 100gb of data totaling 29 million pages worth of information for their defense, while LimeWire failed to produce “any additional facts it would plead that would enable it … to demonstrate the existence of a conspiracy.”

Lime Group’s countersuit was filed in response to the RIAA’s lawsuit against the P2P client, which was launched just days after its $100 million legal victory over Kazaa.

RIAA executives applauded Lynch’s ruling, noting that Lime Group’s countersuit was nothing but a diversionary tactic designed to “take attention away from … [the] massive infringement that is the real focus of this case.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

hah
By excrucio on 12/8/2007 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 0
hah, man once RIAA started cracking on p2p i stopped sharing all together, and started paying the 15 bucks a month for napster, except i don't pay for each song, I still own them legally because i pay monthly...get it :D

People should stop p2p anyway, you know MAYBE your son will be a great singer, would like for his songs to be leaked making him lose money? yeah i thought so. ;) there isnt anything bad going legal. If your friend says your a dumba$$ for doing it, then maybe you should consider new friends.




RE: hah
By Pandamonium on 12/8/2007 7:11:21 PM , Rating: 2
P2P is far better than Client-Server. In the client-server scenario, someone has to pay a great deal to support the server's bandwidth. In the P2P condition, everyone shares their bandwidth to eliminate the need for a high-bandwidth server. Let's say there were only one Linux distro, and 5,000 people used it. Let's say that that group releases version 10.0 tomorrow. Instead of having a central server send 1GB x (5000 users) = 5TB, you could have each person with a complete file also become an uploader. This drastically reduces the infrastructure needed to rollout a new version of anything. BitTorrent takes this one step further by allowing people to share parts of files before they have complete copies. This reduces overhead even more. There's nothing inherently wrong with P2P or BitTorrent.


RE: hah
By Alexstarfire on 12/9/2007 3:50:33 AM , Rating: 4
You my friend, are confusing P2P with pirating. They are not interchangeable words. P2P is simply a transfer protocol while pirating is illegal downloads are such. By your definition downloading songs off a server isn't illegal/pirating.

P2P is a great idea because it basically eliminates having to own a server. That's a huge expense right there. Many small businesses can't afford servers.

I don't understand how the RIAA can sue the owners of BitTorrent client programs. All they did was make a program that downloads data via a torrent file. That'd be like suing Microsoft for allowing illegal downloads through Internet Explorer.


RE: hah
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/9/2007 11:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Blizzard uses a Torrent system for distributing it's patches for WoW.


RE: hah
By SavagePotato on 12/9/2007 6:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps there is more underlying to the RIAA's hate of peer to peer than the pirating.

Maybe it could be that they fear artists realising they can distribute their content without having to pay their royalties, and without the overhead of paying for bandwidth / hosting.

Could be it is a technology they want to villify simply because it's existance threatens theirs in ways far beyond that of simple piracy.

Just the conspiracy thought of the day.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki