Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

RIAA Goes after LimeWire 304

PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Goes after LimeWire

Comments Filter:
  • by CFrankBernard ( 605994 ) <cfrankb&gmail,com> on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:11PM (#15849784)
    Sun's website still has LimeWire: [] and a banner for downloading it was recently on the front page.
  • by sourcery ( 87455 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:14PM (#15849792)
    You forgot to mention the forthcoming suits against Sun for NFS and Microsoft for Windows File Sharing (both of which work just fine over the public internet, if your firewall permits it.)

    Oh, and I almost forget the forthcoming suits against the makers of FTP software!
  • The RIAA has no case (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cwalk ( 899502 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:14PM (#15849793)
    When you download limewire from, you are prompted to make the following decision before your download begins: 1) I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. OR 2) I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement. Case closed.
  • Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mayhem178 ( 920970 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:21PM (#15849818)
    I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.

    This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.

    I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.
  • by ewl1217 ( 922107 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @08:46PM (#15849923)
    That's a completely unfair comparison. Roads are essential in today's world. Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

    Now they make be going after the wrong people, targeting the makers of LimeWire instead of the file-sharers, but a nice crackdown on illegal file-sharing sure beats some new, twisted form of DRM.
  • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday August 04, 2006 @09:28PM (#15850065) Homepage
    Sorry counselor, but that isn't good enough.

    It sounds as though RIAA is using the new inducement theory of indirect infringement. The rule there is:

    [O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

    In applying that rule, the Court looked at everything from Grokster's business plan, advertisements, technology, and even their name. A little prompt might be a factor in LimeWire's favor, but that fig leaf isn't going to save them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04, 2006 @10:07PM (#15850223)
    I used scour. In a different way though.
    You could attempt to use Windows network neighborhood with the search results but you had to modify your lmhosts/host file all the time (back then Windows explorer and net.exe only worked with netbios names and not ip addresses) and it was not reliable (and still questionable today). The other option was the Scour client which would only allow one transfer at a time and each selection you wanted to copy had to be manually selected. If I remember correctly, the shearer could exclude specific file from being "seen" or listed to the others as Windows itself did not actually have specific file permissions back then.

    Enter smbclient via a *nix command line.
    You could attach to the person via ip address and copy *.* from their share to your computer. No "exclusions" because of the lack or file permissions. You got everything in that share if you wanted it.
    Another bonus. Win95 had a scaled down version of the msc for showing your shares and who was connected to them. smbclient allowed you to specify your computer name as an option, you could enter their computer name as your computer name and their Win95 machine and the Scour client they had running would not show you are being connected to their computer. I guess Win9x assumed you were local and the connection was not listed and Scour used that information in their client.

    On a side note.. Many times people having shared a directory for Scour use, also had shared other directories because they did not know what they were doing or for other computers in their house maybe? Either way, c or c$ was often shared as well.

    Even more off topic..
    About the same time as Scour, home networks and broadband were catching on and it seemed no one understood that by default, sharing a drive or directory meant you were also sharing it to everyone on the internet as well. Having a port scanner, nbtscan (or a similar version that attempted default passwords/no password combinations), was a fun time.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05, 2006 @01:58AM (#15850986)
    It is called []

    What is FrostWire

    FrostWire is a fork of the very popular LimeWire Gnutella client. The purpose of FrostWire is to keep and maintain the freedoms that LimeWire LLC may be forced to withdraw.

    LimeWire LLC has been considering an alternative path to keep them out of any legal situations they could be forced into. From what we understand, LimeWire LLC intends to implement a DRM filtering technology into their client. If LimeWire ever decides to implement this DRM technology, we will be prepared to remove it from our code and distribute the client under our own branding. However, we will continue supporting the LimeWire client development and do not wish to make fundamental or drastic changes to the LimeWire core itself. FrostWire will not break with LimeWire's design philosophy. We will always do our best to maintain a strong relationship with the LimeWire Development Team.

    FrostWire, although very much like LimeWire, will never offer a paid version or a subscription service for the download or use of the FrostWire application. FrostWire is a not-for-profit project. We will never bundle our software with any type of adware, spyware, malware or collect any personal or private data. FrostWire will always remain free as in both price and freedom.

    No troll BUT Slashdot is really going downhill if no one has even mentioned this yet.
    O RLY?
    YA RLY
    NO WAI!
  • by Inda ( 580031 ) <> on Saturday August 05, 2006 @05:10AM (#15851428) Journal
    I dunno... Maybe we should talk about the groups.

    Most ISP servers are worse than shit. How many people pay for a decent Use*cough*Net provider? How many of us have been paying for years and years? Paying for content is not new to us. Isn't that what the media moguls would like? Everyone paying for content?

    Bring it on. Headline news please. Highlight the actual cost of bandwidth. Tell the world that 700mb costs less than $0.50. Tell the world that from the first click to a picture on the TV takes less than 30 minutes.

    I've said too much, haven't I?
  • by greylion3 ( 555507 ) on Saturday August 05, 2006 @05:16AM (#15851445) Homepage
    The real issue here is Copyright - what imbecilic government gave away every citizens right to copy text (or anything else) in the first place?

    Have a look at the formulation of what Copyright really is - you might have to read it a couple of times to actually understand it: [] - I think the example with "Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse" is a good one..

    Maybe people don't understand it but just think that it shouldn't ever feel wrong to download, transfer or otherwise 'copy' a string of bits (ones and zeroes).

    Consider this: If I make a T-shirt filled with ones and zeroes of a copyrighted text, am I infringing copyright? What if it's the ROT-13 version of the same text? Or the same text, just mirror-reversed? (which you can practice to read as fast as normal text, or just use a mirror..)

    My point is; abstraction defeats copyright, therefore it shouldn't have been written into law in the first place. People downloading/copying copyrighted text or otherwise, is basically civil disobedience.

    Another way of defeating copyright is; []

    Next up; Software Patents: []
  • by orangesquid ( 79734 ) <> on Saturday August 05, 2006 @01:32PM (#15852696) Homepage Journal
    Nobody's in charge of the gnutella network---there's nobody to sue. (Side note: we all know about freenet and its drawbacks, but have any of the other projects that claim a goal of being faster and better than freenet gotten anywhere yet?)

    Hence, the RIAA will systematically sue every gnutella-capable software package they can track down. They can't sue things that are produced in countries outside their jurisdiction, but, that won't stop them from: (a) spying on you so they can sue people who download said programs [this is one advantage to freenet: some anonymity], (b) passing legislation to make it illegal to possess or write software that can be used to violate copyrights (DMCA et al)

    Where do I write a complaint letter? I use programs like limewire to share my creative-commons music (and other artists' similarly-licensed music) with both friends and strangers. Are they trying to deny me the opportunity to use a different distribution model for my music? P2P is great, because I don't have to shell out big bucks for bandwidth.

    That sounds like CD-distribution music companies trying to destroy non-CD-distribution music companies... it looks a lot like monopolistic behavior to me. :-/

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer