4 ms·

LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Suit

26 points by grellas 16y ago

madmaze 16y ago
Im not sure I understand how LimeWire is liable, sure they offer the software, but the infringement is done by their users and not the company themselves
- noarchy 16y ago
  Right, but look at how many other companies have lost in the courts, under similar circumstances. It isn't as though precedents have not already been set. The arguments about what users do with software are fine and well until you're on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar judgment.
- tptacek 16y ago
  If you know that your users are infringing copyrights, as Limewire surely does, and you facilitate that copyright infringement, as Limewire arguably does by providing P2P software principally to copyright infringers (as does seems empirically to be the case), and your product has little other purpose outside of copyright infringement (unlike, say, BitTorrent by itself), and you receive direct financial benefit from the actions of infringers, as Limewire does by charging ~$35 for their software, then you are exposed to a bunch of different vectors for indirect copyright infringement. This is not a particularly complicated legal area, except to the extent that it necessarily skirts a bunch of grey areas in copyright law.
  - qeorge 16y ago
    " your product has little other purpose outside of copyright infringement" That's the killer right there. LimeWire needed to show a fair use of its product, and failed to do so.
- pmccool 16y ago
  Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster%2C_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster.... for a summary of the relevant case.
- pwhelan 16y ago
  I think the fact that a strong portion of their traffic is infringement is pretty damning on liability. While some people will use LimeWire for innocent behavior, or BitTorrent, let's face it, they was developed pretty much to facilitate infringement, gained their fame aiding infringement, and stayed afloat by aiding infringement. I think the RIAA and MPAA are abhorrent, but I mean... you really don't see how they are liable? Just because they are slime doesn't mean people who infringe on their property rights are magically legally absolved.
barnaby 16y ago
It's all part of a natural cycle. New media companies are being sued by old media companies because the old media companies bought the laws that made what the new media companies are doing illegal ... just like how the old media companies were sued by older companies like Kodak who paid to have the laws make the recording industry illegal... When companies like LimeWire or BitTorrent become multi-Billion dollar corporations, they will pay to have copyright law rewritten in such a way to prevent the next generation of competitors. See, it's a cycle.
- jared314 16y ago
  Gandhi was right. You just have to survive the "then they fight you" part.
jrockway 16y ago
This is like holding Boeing liable for 9/11.
- JMiao 16y ago
  except boeing doesn't encourage terrorists to hop aboard.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    But Boeing was negligent in not making the plane refuse to fly itself into a skyscraper.
    - YogSothoth 16y ago
      I'm thinking this might be more like head shops. They sell water pipes that are surely used almost exclusively for illegal activities but can be used for non-illegal activities (i.e. smoking tobacco). I don't recall the head shops being asked to produce an actual example of a person smoking tobacco through one of their water pipes, how does this differ exactly?
shrikant 16y ago
Can someone explain why the CEO was held 'personally liable'?[1] Whenever companies behave like (at best) like dipshits, I've only ever seen 'the corporation is a person' and hence liable. Why single out the CEO personally in this one? Is this at the judge's discretion? [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/major-copyright-defeat-tastes-sour-for-limewire.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/major-copyri...

26 points by grellas 16y ago

Im not sure I understand how LimeWire is liable, sure they offer the software, but the infringement is done by their users and not the company themselves

noarchy 16y ago
Right, but look at how many other companies have lost in the courts, under similar circumstances. It isn't as though precedents have not already been set. The arguments about what users do with software are fine and well until you're on the receiving end of a multi-million dollar judgment.
tptacek 16y ago
If you know that your users are infringing copyrights, as Limewire surely does, and you facilitate that copyright infringement, as Limewire arguably does by providing P2P software principally to copyright infringers (as does seems empirically to be the case), and your product has little other purpose outside of copyright infringement (unlike, say, BitTorrent by itself), and you receive direct financial benefit from the actions of infringers, as Limewire does by charging ~$35 for their software, then you are exposed to a bunch of different vectors for indirect copyright infringement. This is not a particularly complicated legal area, except to the extent that it necessarily skirts a bunch of grey areas in copyright law.
- qeorge 16y ago
  " your product has little other purpose outside of copyright infringement" That's the killer right there. LimeWire needed to show a fair use of its product, and failed to do so.
pmccool 16y ago
Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster%2C_Ltd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios%2C_Inc._v._Grokster.... for a summary of the relevant case.
pwhelan 16y ago
I think the fact that a strong portion of their traffic is infringement is pretty damning on liability. While some people will use LimeWire for innocent behavior, or BitTorrent, let's face it, they was developed pretty much to facilitate infringement, gained their fame aiding infringement, and stayed afloat by aiding infringement. I think the RIAA and MPAA are abhorrent, but I mean... you really don't see how they are liable? Just because they are slime doesn't mean people who infringe on their property rights are magically legally absolved.

barnaby 16y ago

It's all part of a natural cycle. New media companies are being sued by old media companies because the old media companies bought the laws that made what the new media companies are doing illegal ... just like how the old media companies were sued by older companies like Kodak who paid to have the laws make the recording industry illegal... When companies like LimeWire or BitTorrent become multi-Billion dollar corporations, they will pay to have copyright law rewritten in such a way to prevent the next generation of competitors. See, it's a cycle.

jared314 16y ago
Gandhi was right. You just have to survive the "then they fight you" part.

jrockway 16y ago

This is like holding Boeing liable for 9/11.

JMiao 16y ago
except boeing doesn't encourage terrorists to hop aboard.
- jrockway 16y ago
  But Boeing was negligent in not making the plane refuse to fly itself into a skyscraper.
  - YogSothoth 16y ago
    I'm thinking this might be more like head shops. They sell water pipes that are surely used almost exclusively for illegal activities but can be used for non-illegal activities (i.e. smoking tobacco). I don't recall the head shops being asked to produce an actual example of a person smoking tobacco through one of their water pipes, how does this differ exactly?

shrikant 16y ago

Can someone explain why the CEO was held 'personally liable'?[1] Whenever companies behave like (at best) like dipshits, I've only ever seen 'the corporation is a person' and hence liable. Why single out the CEO personally in this one? Is this at the judge's discretion? [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/major-copyright-defeat-tastes-sour-for-limewire.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/major-copyri...