Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud
from the this-may-get-interesting dept
Last month, the RIAA sued Limewire after Limewire wouldn't agree to simply roll over and pretend the RIAA's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was actually what the Supreme Court said. The court actually said that services could be found liable, if they were shown to actively induce infringement. The RIAA and the MPAA pretended this meant that any file sharing network that had unauthorized content was flat-out illegal. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch. So, it already seemed like it would be an interesting case, but now Limewire has hit back even harder with counterclaims accusing the RIAA of antitrust violations, consumer fraud and other misconduct. Specifically, they seem to be making the case that the RIAA only wants to shut down Limewire because it is a competitive distribution mechanism that they cannot control, which helps compete with their monopolistic control on traditional distribution. It's an interesting claim that does make some sense, though the RIAA will simply try to paint Limewire as a tool for "thieves." As with many of these types of cases, there's probably a decent chance that the sides will settle before any decision is made, but in this case, it would be very interesting to see the actual outcome of any lawsuit -- both on the issue of whether or not simply running a file sharing network is inducement and on whether or not there really is an antitrust claim here. If the case does go forward and the RIAA loses on the antitrust issue, it could have a big impact on the traditional labels, and could actually be a catalyst towards forcing them to accept the changing nature of the market. This is becoming a case well worth watching.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Go Limey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go Limey
Now the internet's here (been for a while even) and the riaa doesn't seem to understand that they have to change with the times. Gone are the days when we'd here a song, buy the CD and find out that the rest of the cd is shit. Now we can try before we buy. However, I admit that buying something I can have for free is very hard. My intentions are good but the whole motivation of it only being available through purchase is just not there.
So what does the riaa (fuck them) and the artists (salute them) have to do to get sales back up? Well, for one, artists need to make sure they've got a good cd not just a good hit on a shit cd. Another important thing is, there's some things we just can't download, like material objects. So instead of trying to sell the consumers a product that is lacking on all physical terms, give them something they can feel good about owning.
The best example I've seen of this is the latest tool CD, it's got a wicked case with an awesome 3D imagine setup. (If you haven't seen it, go and look). It's by no means the greatest thing since sliced bread but it is however innovative and gives the consumer something to actually hold and admire.
RIAA, stop complaining, for years now you've gotten away with murder, like a car salesman selling a nice looking car with a #$%#ed up engine, now you're unable to sell BAD cd's. Big deal.
You want unfair, how about paying $4 to download a 4 second sample onto your cell phone to be used as a tiring ring tone. Bastards.
Caid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck, they'll need it
Though I think I am inclined to believe the RIAA definitely has monopolistic tendencies and tries very successfully to keep out competition... mostly to their own detriment. (whew, that was a lot of big words, huh?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good luck, they'll need it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good luck, they'll need it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I so hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I so hope
...as are dozens of other things in this country, yet they are as common in day to day life as sliced bread. Ever heard the saying "it's only illegal if you get caught"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I so hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I so hope
...as are dozens of other things in this country, yet they are as common in day to day life as sliced bread. Ever heard the saying "it's only illegal if you get caught"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I so hope
A common misconception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I so hope
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all B.S.
GOOGLE was created for free porn. No need to install spyware laden p2p crap just to get porn.
Sheesh, some people are clueless.
As for your comment on downloading a single track from a legit service. There aren't any yet. Except eMusic, which doesn't carry major labels. DRM encumbered crap is not worth a damn penny. you're not actually buying the content when you buy drm crap, you're buying a license to listen to it today, with the implied expectation that you will buy it again and again and again if you want to listen to it tomorrow.
There is NO parallel between buying drm crap and buying a (red books tandard) audio cd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is all B.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all B.S. by I Buy CDs on Sep 26th, 2006 @ 5:31am
Stop downloading music illegally off sites like Limewire and go buy a CD or download a single track from a legitimate music distribution site. Use file sharing for what it was created:
-----------------------
You just proved Limewires case. File sharing is at the disposal of the USER, for whatever purpose they want.
Just like DOT is not culpable for thieves robbing a bank and then driving down their roads. Infrastructure does not imply intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A good analogy would be to sue Microsoft because the Unibomber wrote his manifesto with Word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice analogy, man. Dead on.
Captain Booger: Four letters: RTFM. You're even accountable for the parts that you don't understand. Play with fire, get burned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hes right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P networks
I for one think this is a step forward for file sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so how have they been allowed to exist for so long, when they pretty much have monopolized the industry before the internet came along?
see, the problem is that the RIAA and MPAA know that they are screwed, and that they cannot operate in a world with the internet that allows the freedom of creation. that's why they are working so hard to get DRM into all the hardware, like DVD players, TV's, CPU, monitors, video cards, etc. they want to be able to control the content. but they are losing that control, and they are scared. first thing you do when scared, scream bloody murder, which is what they have been doing with all these pirating campaigns.
but until they outlaw corporations from lining the pockets of politicians, things won't change. american politics is so corrupted by corporate money, it's hard to find any politician who is actually "for the people". until they fix that problem, i don't see any true fairness happening.
so fight the power, support content that isn't owned by the MPAA and RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where Have You Gone Oh RIAA?
Before they went after file-sharing, it was home taping.
These idiots throw tons of money (yours by the way) into stopping the exchange of music.
I hope they get nailed to the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Controlling content
AMEN! This whole RIAA/MPIAA fight is not about copyright infringement, it's about losing market share to independent content creators. "The little guy" now has the ability to create and distribute quality content without the need for the RIAA/MPIAA's services. That's what they are scared of.
DRM-ed content has not, and never will, to stop "fair use" (AKA "piracy"). However, DRM enforcing hardware can make it very difficult and/or expensive for independent content creators to distribute their non-DRM-ed content.
This is the world that the RIAA/MPIAA is fighting for, and it's already happening. My NEW DVD player refuses to play any DVD that I've made from my own 'Home Movies.' They continue to play "just fine" on my OLD DVD player.
Until recently, the ONLY way that an artist could mass market and distribute their creations was through the RIAA/MPIAA. And, in order to get them to LOAN you the money to develop your product, the artist had to sign over a large percentage of his or her rights to their creations. Artists still have to pay this money back, even if the album/movie doesn't return enough to pay for this loan. That's a major reason why you'll see 'one hit wonder' bands touring dive bars for years after they've faded to obscurity. They're often doing it to pay back the money advanced to them by their former record company.
The only people who buy the whole "it's for the artist" BS coming from the RIAA/MPIAA are the ones who have no idea about how the business actually works. With few 'big name' exceptions, online, self production/distribution leaves far more money for, and control to, artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.radiolovers.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limewire
This caused my connection speed to drop from about 700 kbs to 60-180 kbs.
Removing all traces of Limewire, plus not using it at all cured the problem completely.
I was never warned about this by Limewire. Fuck them.
The Captain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the Label!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
P.S> on the subject LimeWire vs RIAA (limewire doesen't stand a chance but its a good wake up call for the future).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limewire
This caused my connection speed to drop from about 700 kbs to 60-180 kbs.
Removing all traces of Limewire, plus not using it at all cured the problem completely.
I was never warned about this by Limewire. Fuck them.
The Captain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
Just check the options next time you download a P2P application!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limewire
You have no idea how funny a statement that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger picture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bigger picture
They own the market. They create a false demand by withholding material. They sue people for obtaining material they don't offer for sale.
So far, from what I have read, too, the RIAA has not paid artists for which monies on "legit" digital distribution has been obtained -- so their claim that they are protecting artists is also bullshit.
The RIAA is a band of thieves and deserves not only civil penalties but criminal penalties (fraud)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll be sending them money - I'll NOT buy CD's - but if you sue the RIAA, you may well get a donation!! lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sell it to me damn it, and I will buy it. Don't make it availalbe to buy outside certain countries then my only option is to P2p it. I guess that is why the RIAA only tends to sue state side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawsuit
That is beautiful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duh
I AM SICK OF THESE GUYS ONLY SELLING THE MUSIC/PROMOTING THE ARTISTS THAT THEY WANT TO. WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT THEY GIVE US, THINK ASHLEE SIMPSON. THESE GUYS HAVE CONTROLLED THE INDUSTRY AND RADIO FOR YEARS, AND ITS TIME FOR A REVOLT!!! LETS BRING EM DOWN!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: duh
-------------
Um, so at what point am I supposed to feel sorry for the band for joining up with RIAA? Every one of the artists that RIAA represents signed their name to the contract. No one put a gun to their head. And don't give me that "if you want to make money" line, either. If you want to make money, get a real job. You want to make music, do the work to put on concerts and distro your content. Stop signing the short cut doc and crying about it later. It's not RIAA's fault.
peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: duh
Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour? Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts? Or to produce a million CD's? I'll take that as a "no". Go down to your local night club Friday night and ask the band how much money they have in the bank. Do you have a job? Do you work for a company that produces something? Can I have it for free? How about 10 million of us, can we all have it for free????
The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed. Not paying for music won't fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: duh
--thanks
No one "made" anyone sign up with RIAA.
--ya
No one "made" you buy gas from "Big Oil" either, but if you want to drive somewhere . . .
--I use bioD. petrol is bad for the enviroment
Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour?
--ya, ever heard of starting small?
Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts?
-ya, again, ever heard of starting small? maybe 100 at a time... put in some leg work. do something other than get drunk and beat a drum set for 2 hours a week at a bar?
Or to produce a million CD's?
--ya, $24.95 per 100 blanks at Fry's + $150 for a good, fast burner.
I'll take that as a "no".
--you'd be wrong
Go down to your local night club Friday night and ...
--sorry, I dont like drunks
ask the band how much money they have in the bank.
--before or after they blew it on drugs? all the bands I know make a good profit, then again they arent wasteoids with no investment sense...oh right, and they don't suck. maybe there's a connection
Do you have a job?
--ya
Do you work for a company that produces something?
--ya
Can I have it for free?
-- sure! http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
How about 10 million of us, can we all have it for free????
--SURE! http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed.
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine
Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online.
don't quit your day job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine"
this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Together we stand, divided we fall
STOP BUYING MPAA and RIAA controlled materials.
Sure, we have to "suffer" with recording our music off the airwaves, like we did 10-15 years ago, then take OUR private copies, and mix our PRIVATE compilations.
I avoid, to the largest extent I can, *ANY* RIAA and MPAA controlled item, unless it's like, "V for Vendetta" because I have no OTHER way to send the makers (and NOT the MPAA) my money for their outstanding work.
I can only say, that how much money does the MPAA get when I RENT a film from a rental company??? Unless I REALLY need to maintain a copy (V for Vendetta) for repeated at-will viewing, instread of having to download it from my ISP on payper biew, or drive to rental place. Considering the $3 per rental would mean I can see it (licencing?) eight (8) times for the cost that owning it and watching it 4 times in two years? Honestly... paying the MPAA and RIAA for THAT?!?!? puhlease!
I'll rent once or twice and save my money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as for suing state side, i don't think the riaa could sue outside of us jurisdiction
granted most uses of p2p are sharing of protected files, i'm glad to see someone taking a stab at the riaa. the internet isn't some free ticket you can use against people because your maket methods are outdated. i doubt the riaa would lose a battle with limewire, based on shear money limits. but ohwell. good luck all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've used Limewire for years
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCK THE RIAA, or anyone for that matter, trying to take away a medium that allows people to share their works.
and for the retard who says its "spyware laden".. dont "assume", we know what that does.
and for the other retard, who lost 90% of his "connection" speed.... you should know better that a p2p app works because other people are "losing connection speed" when YOU download. Dont flame something just because you couldnt figure it out.
"fucking car! i didnt know it used gas when idling in park!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: have to click "won't"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, on that note, I have to say, I honestly know a few people who are probably in that exact situation
Personally, Fuck the RIAA. They're just power-hungry and money-hungry and when something comes up that could get in their way, they try to sue it. Trying to sue the advancement of the world...blah, welcome to America, land of Fucking Idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh by Bob
I hate the RIAA. I hate the MPAA. I buy music and movies used to avoid putting my dollar in their pocket, and I buy everything legally. That said, I support the idea of file sharing and P2P. There are great sites with user created content like overclocked remix, as well as legit reasons for P2P, like downloading patches for video games and independant works.
I hate the monopoly that has become the recording industry and the movie industry have become. I hate that they use scare tactics. I hate that they alienate the consumers with foolish ventures like DRM. I really hate the DRM. Really. I hate that they can't change with the times. I hate politics here in America. I hate crooked politicians. I hate bribery. I hate lobbyists. I hate it all.
Here is my questions for you all. Who here has done anything at all? Have you all written your senators or representatives? Have you stopped buying new music? Have you done anything? These are easy to do kids. You can google your senators and they have ONLINE forms on which you can contact them.
But sadly, of the 20-25 people who are still reading this post, I bet that not one of you will. It's easy to sit back and complain. It's not that hard to stand up and take action.
Our apathy lends power to those we hate. Action is what causes change. Get off your butts and go complain to someone who can make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Duh by Bob
Absolutely the greatest quote ever. Should go down in history. The URL to take action:
http://www.senate.gov
It only takes a few minutes. BE HEARD! Then you can complain all you want, guilt free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberated music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank shouldn't be calling people names
One is the RIAA's copyright case against Lime Wire. The other is Lime Wire's antitrust case against the RIAA. Your comment doesn't seem to address the latter at all, which is what the news article is about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names
I'll let Ray speak for himself, but you do realize that he's a lawyer involved in a number of these cases? He knows the details pretty well...
Limewire's aintitrust claim has been asserted as a counterclaim in the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Thus, Limewire is attempting to defeat the RIAA's claim by alleging that the RIAA's actions (in defense of the copyrights) are anti-competative. My comment (and try to read a little more carefully this time) was that Limewire will have very little success attempting to convince the court that the RIAA is violating antitrust law by defending a valid copyright.
No, there's much more to it than that. Limewire is alleging that the RIAA is abusing its antitrust position in some of its actions. That goes beyond just protecting its copyright. That goes for completely shutting down alternate means of distribution, even if they have legal purposes. That's not just protecting a copyright, that's shutting down a system that others might want to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people name
Don't worry, I know who Ray is. I also know which side he's on and the agenda he promotes. As with all of the arguments on this board, "the details" are subject to some pretty heavy interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
It has been said time and time again, ad nauseum, that you can compete with free. The market has changed so that copies of music are available for free to those who can find them. Here's the point... those copies are crappy. It's poor recording at sub-cd quality. It's not the cost, it's the value. I've stated before here
I'm not saying that they shouldn't protect thier product. I'm saying they should use tacitcs other than an extortion racket.
And as far as "Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner."...
You're right. It is (possibly) a violation of copyright laws. I could throw out a bunch of what-if's but that's not what I want to do.
What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
I appreciate your coherent argument (as opposed to some of the lunatics on this board), but I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Protecting the intellectual property necessarily means protecting the distribution of that property. That's the whole point of copyrighting a work--so you can make people pay to see/hear/use it. If anyone can distribute the product (and here's the key) without paying the copyright holder, then the copyright is worthless.
As for the reduction in quality argument, I think you're being pretty disingenuous, because the difference in quality is negligible at best (we not talking about a tape made by placing a mic in front of the speaker of your CD player). It's also quite irrelevant legally. If I make a somewhat blurry photocopy of the newest bestseller and passes it out to anyone and everyone so they won't have to actaully pay for it, the copyright violation doesn't go away just because it's a little harder to read than the printed book. The key is that you're not doing anything to alter the substance of the work; it's an exact copy of the song, perhaps lower quality, but exactly the same in all substantive respects.
I don't understand how you can attempt so strenuously to justify what is clearly against the law. Is it really so important to be able to listen to the newest Eminem single for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
Thanks for the nod. It's nice to see that honest, good-spirited debate is still appreciated.
No the distinction does exist. The point I was making is that the ##AA doesn't care about the intelectual property. They know that if they lose that property, the can go clone some more. What they don't like about this is the loss of control over the distribution. It's a power, trip. Plain and simple.
Uh... google books? Wasn't it decided that that was not copywrite infringment?
As to the rest of the quality... yes, mp3's aren't that bad. But the RIAA has the resources to produce a product that is so far superior in it's value through features that they would be worth it to buy. They just don't.
I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of "it's the law". Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have thier purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it "just because it's the law" or, as you put it: "so clearly against the law".
I had this whole soap-box speech on a previous thread about giving up your little liberties. I think it applies here as well: Enjoy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
Are you new around here? The market has changed in a lot more ways than that.
How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, "Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production."
Not at all. As we've pointed out REPEATEDLY (do a search), there are plenty of ways that the RIAA and MPAA can embrace sharing and actually end up EXPANDING their market and making MORE MONEY. By recognizing the content, by itself, is a promotional vehicle for selling other things (and I won't go through the list of possible other things yet again, but it's long and quite lucrative).
Just because you don't understand that there are other business models doesn't mean they don't exist.
Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner. If it was your copyright, you'd want to protect it too.
Hmm. This is the argument I understand the least. We've defended this position repeatedly using FREE MARKET language. Nothing Marxist about it. Free market economics teaches you that price gets driven to marginal cost. In the case of content, that's zero.... It's all about free market economics.
I do agree that it's breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the copyright owner shouldn't realize there are other opportunities to make more money by embracing what it's customers want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
Just because you think it's a good business decision for the RIAA, Mike, doesn't mean you get to force them into taking that route. This is what I don't understand about your position: What gives you the right to decide that someone else isn't handling their business correctly, and that you should be able to take action to force their hand?
"Free market economics teaches you that price gets driven to marginal cost. In the case of content, that's zero." - Mike
I'm guessing you're not a Wharton grad, right, Mike? I think you mean that profit is maximized when price equals marginal cost. If the marginal cost of producing music was in fact zero, then the record companies wouldn't be making all this money that you all are ranting about. The marginal costs IS zero to Limewire users, because they didn't incur the costs of production. And the RIAA's big problem is that with file sharing, the price to consumers is now zero, well below the producer's marginal cost, which of course has a negative effect on profit.
I STILL can't understand how you can spend so much effort attempting to justify what you all know is theft. Wouldn't it be easier to just say (as some have on this board): "Yes, I'm stealing, but the risk of getting caught isn't a big enough deterrent to make me stop."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
I'll reiterate my previous point, and expand:
1) Who says its theft? Show me the court case that backs up your interpretation of copyright law that says downloading copies of digital music files is theft. Show me the court case that has been closed and is no longer being appealed and reviewed.
2) If we disagree with a common interpretation of a law, is it not our right to stand up and say so? Isn't that what our whole legal system of appeals and precedence based on?
3) Who says we have to share your view of what is and is not theft? Who says your interpretation is any more or less correct than mine? Now, if you are an official of the Judicial branch of our government, and you have signed off on a case that sets the precedence, making your interpretation the interpretation, then fine. I'll stop downloading. Until then, I believe I am right and I will continue acting in accordance with my conscience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)
I certainly hope it can get clearer than that. You pulled a quote from an opinion attached to the denial of an appeal. That appeal was for the injunction that was brought about while the full legal action was still being decided.
here's the problems with this:
1) that's a district court. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation that becomes the "law of the land"
2) this is the opinion of a circuit court judge (see #1) in relation to an appeal of injunction, not in the decision of a copyright case.
This excerpt does not constitute law.
See... here's where the RIAA is disagreeing with you.
They equate as follows: downloading = copyright infringement = theft = illegal. And this is what I'm disagreeing with.
If what you say is true in that "as the case above shows, it's clearly illegal", then you're contradicting you earlier statement that "there is no criminal penalty for copyright infringement". If it's so clearly illegal, then you would be guilty of breaking the law. There is penalty for that.
Again, this goes back to my statement about whether or not it is illegal. You say it is. the RIAA says it is. But I disagree and I'm choosing to act based upon my personal belief. If I'm wrong and charged... and I appeal it... and the appeal goes to the Supreme Court who then says that I'm wrong... then I will agree that it is illegal. Until then it's not the final law.
I do understand what you're saying. Due to the actions brought about by the RIAA against Napster et al, it would appear that hte interpretation of copyright infringment being illegal would be upheld. But the point is that no one has gotten it far enough for a decisive interpretation by the Supreme Court.
I would like to point out that no one has been found guilty of copyright infringement. So far, the "closed" cases have been settled. While you could interpret that as "Napster knew they would be found guilty", that is not the same thing as actually being found guilty. I will also admit that I am not 100% sure that no one has been found guilty. But I don't see any evidence through searching that there has ever been a guilty verdict. Please prove me wrong if I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)
The case I cited is from a United State Court of Appeals (the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be exact), not a district court. The court's langauge makes it clear that file sharing copyrighted music violates copyright laws, and is thus illegal (not criminally, though). I think you could spend a whole lot of time trying to find a single U.S. court that has ever determined that P2P file sharing of copyrighted music DOES NOT violate the copyright, and come up empty handed.
And you are wrong about the law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have to issue a ruling for a law to become final or enforceable. The law is enforceable as written, unless a successful challenge is raised.
Finally, while your terminology is again confused (civil defendants are not found "guilty"), I point out that every default judgment taken against a defendant in the RIAA cases constitutes a finding of liability and a violation of the copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)
No, I'm quite familiar with the difference. I deal with liability all the time and I know how that works. My point is that illegal is illegal. Shouldn't matter if it's criminal or civil. The RIAA and you believe that downloading is illegal. I disagree.
But that excerpt wasn't the court's language in regards to the legality of file sharing. That excerpt was an opinion expressed in the denial of an appeal of an injunction. That opinion does not speak to the final legality of sharing. That injection was to stop the defendant from operating while the copyright case was being heard. Such an opinion expressed in that copyright case would be more along the lines of court-stated law.
And again, your last sentence there is exactly my point. Not to wax-Schrodinger's with you, but as long as it can be appealed, I hold that it is not a final law. Yes, along that line of thinking, there are very few "final laws". But my point is that while I may not be 100% correct currently or yet, I am not wrong. While that enforceable law means that someone could be accused and "tried" (criminally or civilly) does not mean that they are guilty of a wrong-doing (again, criminal or civil). That's why the appeal system is there. So the innocent can protect themselves from false or incorrect accusations. Otherwise, the RIAA, or anyone in a similar position, would be able to just accuse their competition out of the picture.
I may not be on the same page with the whole "guilty" terminology, but I would like to point out no RIAA cases have gotten to the point of a judge saying "you're wrong, pay up", which is what I meant by "being found guilty". They have all been either settled before that point (those RIAA extortion settlements), or they are still getting to that point. So until those cases are heard and decided, I'd not state so easily that they are definitely guilty or in violation of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
borat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
If you disagree with the law, you should fight it within the proper channels, instead of taking the law into your own hands. Our legal system is not based on vigilante justice. Otherwise, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
i mean the content doesnt come out of thin air, it comes from someone who owns the material and or otherwise viewed it.
Im really curious about this.
Also, wouldn't the person who came up with the conversion code for MP3 be the owner of all digital Audio in MP3 format ?
we use they're code and its now as common as a knife and fork ?
wanting ownership on everything will bring us down and tear us apart. it would be like claiming the Moon
You must admit though, with the changes made in recent history through fear and control the world isn't seeming like an altogether excellant world.
Control creates Chaos ... its the natural order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons
How should the RIAA adjust?
1) Work with the people, spend some money in developing better technology, not suing college students.
2) Pay the artists that deserve it. Finance 50 great acts not 5,000 crappy ones.
Are these concepts over your head, Mr. Marx?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Shawn B.
Just like DOT is not culpable for thieves robbing a bank and then driving down their roads. Infrastructure does not imply intent."
Brilliant. We need more thinkers like you.
Case Closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Shawn B.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny Shit
Very shameful world we live in now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmmm
So they are screaming FOUL because they THINK they could have made more money. Look how they do their math... If 10,000 have illegally downloaded a song that cost $0.99, they say they lost $9900.
1. They didn't loose anything... just a potential sale..
2. What make's them so sure that without file sharing, 10,000 would have paid for the song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Idol by Anonymous Coward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P2P offers more than Itunes ever could.
20,000,000 songs isn't all that much when 19,999,500 are garbage crap tracks that all sound the same.
I rest my case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: P2P offers more than Itunes ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
feel bad?
I feel bad when I see musicians bitchin and moaning about people downloading music......with their million dollar houses and 8 exotic cars in the background, they are barely getting by! I used to be a Metallica fan until the Napster episode....now I turn the radio station whenever Metallica comes on....no kidding!! I will not even listen to them!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa, whoa, whoa...
Talking about twisting things up. What's the difference if I download a song off the internet, or I wait for it to come on my choice of *free* radio stations and record it? The difference is the transmission method and storage method. One is digital, one is analog (or digital depending on what you use). I'm not taking the music I download, renaming it to list my name, or band, and resending it out as *my* original work. I'm just listening to it. I'm not selling it. I'm not in anyway, shape or form, altering the original song/movie.
Since when is it a crime to use your ears and listen? It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've heard it all!
This same old crap over and over...I wanna PUKE!
....WoooWhooooaaaauuugh!!!....Oh excuse me...
*Shitheads saying sharing is illegal.
*Other shitheads say it should be bought.
*Still more shitheads talk of nurturing competitive growth.
*Further, shitheads with fireside legal knowledge, contemplating copyright laws.
Does it ever end? All you shitheads are just that...SHITHEADS!
An artist..a true artist (art for arts sake) could care less about being compensated for their work. First, the artist must be good at what he does. If they're good, the RIAA and the MPAA don't even matter. They are there to get paid, not the artist. A good artist can produce art, get paid and be famous without either institution present.
All we get from these institutions, now, aren't even artists. They are first businesses, and if any even possess an iota of talent, artists second. All these products from these instituions are just that...products.
Talent sells itself..it always has and always will. Sure artists will get paid for their work. They may not make millions but thay will manage as all of us do. In fact, the greatest asset an artist has are the fans and fans have a unique way of turning others on to their art far better than the media can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First: I despise the RIAA and it's tactics. They are underhanded and unethical. They rely on the financial inability to defend ourselves to browbeat us into doing things thier way.
Second: The RIAA is right to enforce the copyrights they impose. But, has it been decided by law that P2P is violating those copyrights? Serious questions here, I don't remember if anyone said a definitive "yes" or "no"
Third: it was said that the RIAA is a bit overboard. Ya think? Seriously. I don't have the link, but a previous TechDirt article pointed to an article written by a defense lawyer that was helping one of the moms that was fighting back. The article explained the RIAA's tactics and how questionable (but not quite illegal) those tactics were.
Basically, the RIAA gets a list of songs that it "knows" were downloaded and a list of IP addresses that it "knows" facilitated the downloads. The resultant John Doe's are subpoenaed and are found to be in default when they don't show up (nice loophole, huh?).
Once that happens, the RIAA gets court orders to scour those IP addresses for names, then hits each individual up for every one of the songs on that list, without proving that the individual downloaded any of the songs at all. That's why the RIAA drops the cases that start to fight back. They know there's no proof of their allegations. They are relying on the belief that we lowly pirates won't be able to afford to lose the fight, and therefore won't risk it. We'll take the definite loss of the settlement in exchange for the possible higher loss.
So, that's the process some in this thread were coming damned close to defending.
Now, all that said, let's look at points from the posts:
and this will help how? The law is already in place. The Legislative branch has done its job. Now it's time for the Judicial side to interpret that law and decide how it is to be enforced (i.e. precedence). Unfortunately, they've done a cock-up job of it so far.
You know, I almost gave this a pass until I realized you were serious.
How much of those extortion-like settlements that the RIAA has bullied from consumers has actually been paid to the artists? How many artists have seen one single red cent from that? Yeah. Thought so.
Uh... American Idol is entertainment... well, for some anyway. Hate it myself.
AI comes out with one new "idol" per season. That's hardly enough to say "there's our voice changing the music industry". The point is that our way of changing the music industry should be our purchasing power. If a band is well-liked, people will by the albums. If not, the band won't go anywhere.
Now the choke-point of that is through distribution. If no one hears of you, how can they buy your stuff. That's where the RIAA still holds its control. We're seeing things change as more and more artists are doing small, local releases and telling fans to spread the love. Also, the MySpace music thing is a step in the right direction.
But I hardly see American Idol really doing anything about the Cookie-Cutter-Crap-Pop problem now-a-days.
Given what I said about how miniscule an effect AI has on the music industry, I'd go so far as to say that the voting and opinion-voicing ability delivered by AI is a token at best.
So, it's there for a reason. One could argue that it's a way for the record companies to placate us by giving us something that will make us say "finally, a way to voice my opinion!". If that's the case, then you are letting the record companies win by voting.
My final penny:
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is well thought out and substantiative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gabriel Tane
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's what I get for coming in after 70 posts. Sorry bout that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Anonymous Coward
My point exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it again
If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.
Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damin this site!...I get lost some times...sorry..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you love music...
I am not dumb about what is going on either. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to fund a grand tour for a famous band across many contries. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to produce millions of cd's and market to spreak the artist's work and not all recording industries are bad. I point at many industries that are formed by artists themselves. (Nothing records.... blue black labels... ect. ect. ect.)
People need to be more informed because it's becoming more and more difficult for smaller bands who might rely on p2p to create a name out there to actually thrive. Metallica was giving away tapes in their infancy and if people weren't copying them for one another then who knows how they would have ended up?
Alright, I'm done.
Later.
later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal shit
BASTARDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Sharing/File Sharing
Or perhaps authors should sue websites that tease readers into buying a book by giving the first chapter[instead of the first 13 lines, which is technically not publishing, though an entire chapter is]
I myself am a musician, though I'm certain you've never heard anything I've recorded, unless you know me. I don't have a label or anything fancy like that. If my songs were being swapped around on Limewire I would be excited. I exalt musicians who promote music "sampling" such as Green Day[they sell green day patterned blank CDRs, with the banner "You downloaded the music, now heres a place to shove it!" on the website]
The RIAA does nothing but keep Musicians and Profit down. They do no good for the people they "serve" and only cause chaos and terror in the general populous...and thus, we can safely say, that the RIAA are Terrorists...in fact i wouldn't be surprised if their monopolistic scheme were somehow tied into Al'Qaida...
j/k on that last part...but for reals, way to go Limewire, kick their ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
QUOTE
"Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online."
thats the right quote and again my response
this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck RIAA and bible hugging assholes
Games, Movies, Music... LimeWire is fucking awesome. I grew tired and weiry of Ares and spyware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Case
Ultimetly it is up to the user to decide how the product is going to be used. If people decide to steal music that is thier choice not Limewire's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
analogy
People are embracing 'open source' more and more every day. Why do we try to go backwards and asserting Intellectual Property on songs ?
If the sales of records keeps going down day by day, then the artists will eventually realize they can do better without pimps. The pimps rarely helps, the whores with looks and talents will be the popular ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People really need to listen
Limewire does not contain any spyware, go to kazaa for that BS.
The vast majority of the time people use Limewire for single songs not downloading full albums, thats what bittorrent is for.
You would think the MPAA & RIAA would learn that charging rediculous prices for CD's, DVD's ect. would make them lower the price instead of loosing Millions of Dollars sueing little girls and boys.
They have shut down countless websites and guess what? they reappear in a different country on a different network! they will never stop the file sharing world, unless they grapple on to it properly and stop with 15/30 bucks for DVD.
NCMITGBM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The breakdown.
By Steve Albini (produced Nirvana's "In Utero")
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
And one lengthy one by (strangely enough) Courtney Love:
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml?pn=1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p2p increases profits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and i may use those tubes how i please. and those who provide me with certain ways to use those tubes have no liablility on how those tubes are used
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this is gettin rediculious
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's not very fair. I'm sure they use hitmen too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re: Limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck yea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control me.
Do you feel it yet? I always have and always will. Down with the pathetic institution of copyright and control. Our societies are shackled by our own greed.
Disgusting scum who believe all pirates are the equvilent of bank robbers and grocery store bandits are imbeciles who only kick and scream about wanting to be one in a million. You're just one in the millions who want to be one in a million. The songs have been sung. The poems have been written. The RIAA and its fanatical followers need to realize that this is unstoppable. Dispite the fact that Limewire may lose you cannot control all of society no matter what the threat may be.
Make the sentence death, I will still stand by my beliefs. Down with the RIAA and its attempts to put a leash on our minds.
If a musician truely loves his music even if its played on the streets he will be happy. Because it pays well we're getting an influx of ignorant, worthless, pathetic music artists releaseing trash in the hopes that it will fill their pockets. Musics soul is fadeing away and the meaning is being lost in the greed.
Say what you will, but they are just words. A word to all downloaders. Unleash hell, or should I say Release hell.
Yeah I know this sounds fanatical but hey, I guess I can't be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you are looking for a major change then look no further than the free market. This is what Limewire provides. We need to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough!! Don't try to hide behind this copyright bullshit, these are not original ideas folks they are excessively recycled crap. When recording artists promote downloading through their lyrics or public comments it’s time to ask questions. Bottom line, we are not the cash cow for these people to be "milked" so they can buy their new merc. GO FORTH LIMEWIRE AND DESTROY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buying cds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: buying cds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support Limewire, but it's going down anyway
Not to mention music companies (probably) deliberately spamming Limewire with fake files.
Limewire used to be good...until you could download the premium $30 version for free ON it! LOL!
Anyway, even if Limewire doesn't win, it's still very symbolic in the fight against totalitarianism (can't think of the right word at the moment).
www.afterthought.cjb.cc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a few thoughts
I do not have any stores within 25 miles that sell CDs. Wal-Mart being the exception, but I'm not 7, I don't want edited music. So I am expected to drive 30+ miles, spending over $10 in gas, at least $10 on the disc, and get 3 good songs? That is bull shit.
My theory..., I own over 600 CDs, most of which only have 2-5 decent songs, I think for my other 6000 songs that suck, I should be able to download 6000 I do like, because I will not be listening to the ones that suck. Hell, if they can come up with a solution, they can have the damned things back. heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm... there can only be one outcome
There are many sites and programs that can be used to share files and the RIAA is starting at the top of the list and working down it. Knocking off all of the biggest sites first. This is reminiscent of the America's most wanted list where people are killed and knocked off the list.
However Limewire will not lose either. Limewire is not breaking any laws and so can't lose. Now if Limewire had copyrighted materials on there servers then they could be sued as this is an infringement - allowing copyrighted materials to be downloaded from them. But as Limewire is only software that has the potential to break the law it is not Limewires fault if someone does break the law. Users search other users computers for files they want and so Limewire has no control over this and as long as they make clear to their users that it is illegal to download copyrighted materials (which they do) and as long as they say that they have no control over the files and so some of it will be copyrighted materials and so illegal to download (which they do) then they arn't breaking any laws.
When was the last time a gun company got sued beacuse one of there guns was used to kill someone. I certainly don't remember it. And when was the last time guns were banned because they have the 'potential to kill, or potential to break the law' just like Limewire.
So really however much we all want Limewire to win it really isn't going to happen and my guess is it will end in a stalemate probably with a settlement before it goes as far as court.
Thsi process will continue for many years to come with the RIAA using scare tactics (sueing anything that walks... and most stuff that doesnt for ridiculus amounts of money. But then they settle before they get to court for something much much less like £100. lol. But we only hear of the original amount they wanted which was like £10,000,000 and so this sacres us. P2P IS NOT ILLEGAL and just like anything else if its not breaking and laws it cant be stopped until a law is introduced to say it can. The sooner the RIAA come up with better ways to deal with the problem the sooner we get out of this loophole. The RIAA definately need to change from thes outdated policies and scare tactics.
Just one mans oppinion anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirates
YOU ARE A PIRATE!! xD
actually according to FSM belivers, increasing the amount of pirates will help against global warming. there is a statistic showing that the global average temperature has increased dramatically and synchronizedly with the amounts of pirates decreasing.
besides, should I get arrested if I took a cd from my self and loaned to a pal of mine cause he wanted to listen to a few songs on it without having to buy the whole cd?
basically SOMEONE paid for the songs thats on the net, and he decided to share it with others. the songs still has been paid for. they are arguing over money that they COULD have made, they did not lose any money. its like trying to arrest people for crimes they did not do but for what they could've done.
"omg, u could liek killed that dude on the other side of the road if you had driven over the road."
"where's the god damn polce?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morality of the RIAA
Now, I'm not saying record labels are a bad thing, what I'm saying is that they're far too concerned with making money. Greed is what's pissing people off and making them turn to Limewire. It's already been stated that it costs next to nothing to make CDs. There's not much of a labour force to pay; everything needed to make CDs is automated. Price per cd? 24 cents, retail. Price to produce? I wouldn't know, but how much does a hunk of raw plastic cost? Not much. What costs the most to make CDs is the machinery, which is a one time cost (plus maintenance). How about paper? Paper is dirt cheap. Always has been. Ink? Ink is cheap, too. The costs of making one music CD with album art, etc. is less than two dollars plus machinery costs. So, their profit margin is AT LEAST 400% once they're past the costs to set up the operation. 400% is huge. And that's minimum. Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?
Now, look at it this way... what if artists skipped the whole label thing? There's plenty of sites popping up online for artists to upload their music to to be shared. And if they give the say-so, you can download, and distribute. Simple as that. Check out www.purevolume.com . There's a lovely 'random profile jump' button that takes you to random musicians' page within a genre. Great for finding bands in your preferred genre. Get enough sites like that up and running, and there'd be no need for labels anymore. Easy access to any band in the world makes it very easy for bands to get publicity.
Mm. Running out of time on my end. And to anyone who doesn't like my sporadic way of presenting my thoughts, fuck you. Anyone can memorize a format, and I choose not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this b.s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
were withy oyuuuuuuuuu
:))))))))))))))))))))))))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why would people use limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GO GET EM !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes!
The music I listen to is from Japan and I'm not paying $40 a CD because its an import.
LIMEWIRE FTW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LimeWire vs. RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go P2P!!!
As a canadian, i download what i want. thank goodness my country has a SANE goverment and ETC. like, there crooks, but not stupid noob idiot crooks.
and GO canandas filesharing laws! w00t!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support the bands i like by seeing them in concert and buying their merchandise (stickers, tshirts, posters, DVD's, etc.)
Truth is album prices are so high because of the fact that so many people download them for free... but its kinda like pollution, just because *I* stop using my car, air pollution isnt going to get any better... we ALL need to stop driving, and thats just silly. Same with albums, if i start buying albums they're not gonna get any cheaper, we'd ALL have to start buying them... even then they wouldnt get cheaper... if demand was higher prices would increase too.
So i'll continue to get my albums for free, anything and everything i want. If its a band i'm a loyal follower of i'll buy it, just to help push them up on the charts or get closer to that music award.
i'm sick of stupid laws telling me what digital media i have the legal right to possess.
its a losing battle, i mean, you shut down limewire, BANG, another P2P pops up. may take a few years to get good, but it will happen. you cant stop the net, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, no and No. CD prices haven't increased since this whole piracy thing started back with Napster. CDs were still ridiculously priced back then. That's one of the arguments against the RIAA's claims... the fact that there has been no observable impact on album sales or price by piracy.
And, without going into a long lesson in economics, higher demand does not mean higher price. Higher demand without an increase in supply would mean higher prices. I seriously doubt we'd see an increase in prices if "we all started buying albums". Especially when you consider that most of us do already buy albums... as we've argued before. We "pirates", more often then not, go buy the album anyway. The number of people who would "start buying cd's" is much less than you think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screw the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modern industry
If the RIAA wins this.. in 10 years ill be sued for playing music in my car with any person next to me, because they didnt pay for the music. No music in restaurants, no music in movies, no music anywhere exept on a personal iPod-like device (only made by Microsoft.. "doh!") that refuses to boot up if it doesnt read the 12 gigabyte encryption key implanted in a chip in my right wrist. And it only supports two earbuds that read the heatsignature of the inside of my ears. And i can't play it too loud or it'll automatically dial an ambulance to treat me for eardrum damage.
Either join the amish or move to europe.. Because america hasn't been free since the civil war. (slavery yadayada.. is that an oxymoron? not good at english ^^, but thats what im dutch for) And the RIAA is just the agency to prove that. People in the US have guns to protect their rights, they dont need agencies for that!
FOR F*CK SAKE, WHERE ARE THE COWBOYS?
In the rare case i watch a western (off of bittorrent of course, because my government doesn't bitch like yours) it makes me cry to see what a pathetic country full of even more pathetic people the US has become. The only reason the us is so powerful is because it is the only country in the world that has 200 million down-right drones in it's service! Long live aristocracy!
(FYI: Advertisement amongst youth is about 10 times more effective in the US than in the EU. 9 out of 10 sales in the EU is based upon either personal experience or personal experience from a trustee of the customer with a product. Sounds like we actually think before we buy.)
P.S.: Start listening to music with character, instead of the "I've got feelings too!" mindless crap that gets shoved up your behind. Music that makes you cry makes you weak. Weak people don't get good careers and eventually start to hate themselves. Weak people give in to criminality. Weak people don't dare to act upon government.
About weak people; funny how a bunch of stupid mouseclickers proudly calls themselves pirates. I like to punch immigrants and weak people while listening to P2P'ed music on my iPod. And I don't think im anywhere close to being a pirate. Although you have no idea how ****ing powerful I feel when I'm just being me.
P.P.S.: It's bookmarked, looking forward to reactions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modern industry
As a regular kid in Britain, I find that many British bands especially have prospered due to the Internet, and it's growing cult followings, none of which were widely known or labeled.
These are only 2 examples:
Arctic Monkeys, distrubuted their stuff through Myspace alone, and now their music are played numerously on national radio stations, (And one international station, if I was going to be picky)
Biffy Clyro, a great scottish band but hardly anyone's heard of them. Simply due to the fact that they are happy with the fanbase they have.
There is some huge talent out there, and for many bands, Limewire has recieved high acclaim for essentially helping to distribute there otherwise obscure names.
This is the future of the modern music industry, and if it isn't then surely it should be? Music like any other art, shouldn't be easy to break in to.. so shouldn't musicians do the work for themselves, (IE gigs, merchandise and doing things the old fashion way.. personally) Much more importantly, they should prosper themselves for doing so, without the need for a thrid party.
The fact that creation and it's distribution is so horribly restrictive. It simply goes to show that the US government is an appaling thing to behold, that makes "the toppling of a dictatorship" an almost hippocritical thing to say or in fact do.
This isn't directed at Americans per se, simply your government. As an outsider looking in, you've seriously gotta sort it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's about damn time...
OK first off I'm an online Radio DJ and yes I use limewire to download music BUT it's music I already Bought. Yea I'm too lazy to rip the music myself why should I pay for something I already own. I shouldn't. And yes I'll even admit I download I sometimes download the advanced versions of the new artists songs before or shortly after the album hit's stores but you know what I go out an buy the CD. I have a friend who got FINED and threatned with prison time because he down;oaded music of the net. Sure he downloaded entire albums but like me HE ALREADY OWNED THE CD and was too lazy to burn it himself. thats why I'm so angry at them because they could turn arround and do it to me.
If you go to the RIAA's website you'll see they have a video up about fileshareing and it's the biggest load of SHIT I've ever seen.
I'm sure the EFF should be helping limewire if not then make a donation to them and help them fight the RIAA. Or if you cant aford money Help out by Writing your Congressman and senators, but make sure you use the words OR YOU WONT GET MY VOTE OR ANYONE I KNOW"S VOTE especaly if they are up for re-election. Hell even contact the canidates running against them and ask them there opinon to help you vote for the right person. and if you cant get any of them to listen then write in NONE OF THE ABOVE. Dont not vote make your voice heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
go lime vvire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same song, different players
And lets also not forget that the president of RIAA and Metallica once ENCOURAGED people to copy their Metallica tapes and share them with friends. Metallica used to toss their tapes into the crowd before they were signed so that people would listen to it.
But now........ now that you can get the entire works of Metallica in under 5 minutes in perfect quality, they want to cry foul. So which is it? A great way to get a band discovered, or a criminal act? You can't have it both ways just because you have most of the music industry's nads in a vice.
And yeah, I download movies and music from time to time. Music I download because I'm NOT paying $17 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs I like. And if I download it and like it, I usually run over to MSN Music or another online music store to buy a high quality copy for 99 cents. The only CD I've gotten in the last 10 years was given to me by a buddy who's the drummer in a local band.
As for movies, the ONLY company hurting because of me is Blockbuster. Why? If I think I'll like a movie I ask my friends, if they like it I'll download it. If I download it and like it I buy the DVD. And in the last year I've gone from a DVD rack made for 32 DVDs to one made for 267, and I'm looking for something to take its place soon.
The RIAA and MPAA don't like what they can't control, that is the cornerstone this case is based upon. They hated Napster until they assimilated it into their Borg hive, now its "okay". And so it is with Limewire, Grokster, Bearshare, uunet, IRC, torrents, 0-day sites, and so on.
My hope is that they expend SO much money trying to put all these little companies out of business that they'll end up putting themselves out of business, or at least diluting themselves to the point of insignificance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music = Art
Some people just don't have the money or are saving up for something great in their lives; I really think the artists should really be happy to be heard and (maybe) could get signed as a result of how easy it is to get exposure online on Limelire and other FileSharing online locations.
In a way, the net is just another canvas for various artworks for anyone to paint upon.
I know I'll get flamed for this and I understand that I don't make sense, but I must ask you this:
Who will see the art without the medium in which it must be set upon?
Go Limewire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
enjoy your life,, make it easy stop the hassels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F t RIAA pirates rule
mp3 shairing is like sharing a photo
it was taken once
and if someone wanted to be paid for it
they get paid once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
I'll leave it to the guys with PHDs in business.
Man, just reading this makes me glad I'm living in Canada where I don't get slapped with many problems like this....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limewire!!! hahahahahahahaha
cos i am a gay boy and like the ol cock up my shitter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limewire and 360share pro
Susanna
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I look forward to the day when major labels and the mpaa look at the p2p sites and realize that nobody is trading their material because nobody is interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mentioned the last part about buying out these websites because every website that has a revolution going on these companies descend upon it like a drunk man in a china shop and starts trying to find ways to exploit it. The place becomes history in no time and they end up destroying why people visited in the first place. Think of the old mp3.com.
The truth is they don't want you to hear the competition because when you realize that the artist they are promoting is worse than 10 other independants that are of the same style of music. And when you realize this....they are extinct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shit bag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps both the RIAA AND the bands need to realize that "making a fair living" from their work does not necessarily mean becoming millionaires.
I mean, really, most of us would be happy with six figures, do we really need 8?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LIMEWIRE U ROCK
YOU ROCK LIMEWIRE, YOU WILL WIN IN COURT CUZ U ROCK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey RIAA, WHAT DO YOU OWE ME?
Hey RIAA... what do YOU owe ME?
You're claiming that file sharing deprives you and artists of legitimate income. Perhaps so... but just how is that calculated? That there have been reduced sales of CDs and you believe the difference represents what consumers WOULD have purchased if not for file sharing? But music sales depend on what's being produced that consumers are willing to buy... right? There's not much new stuff I like so I haven't purchased a CD in perhaps a year.
Do you assume that each consumer must pay a license fee for each song they own?
If it's the latter... then by not creating a system where consumers can prove they purchased a song on, say a 45, LP, cassette, 8 track, whatever... YOU have been immorally collecting these license fees twice, perhaps THREE times, when a consumer upgrade from mono 45s to stereo LPs to CDs. Aren't much of what you consider your legitimate fees really just an acidential windfall from improved technology the artists had no part of creating?
So RIAA... since you're so good at calculating what you consider financial "losses" to P2P, do THIS math:
I have about 200 old 45s I bought back in the 60s, 100 pre-recorded cassettes, 50 cassette singles from the 90's, and 1200 LPs. I replaced some of those 45s with LPs. I replaced about 300 of those LPs with CDs and I've purchased some 200 songs at iTunes.
What do YOU owe ME for collecting unwarrented licensing fees on MY music purchases these past 40 years?
The reason the rights of people like myself are not protected from this ripoff is because no one I know is fighting this legal fight. YOU immorally collect all those unwarrented profits because your lawyers can bully lawmakers and consumers.
So PLEASE, RIAA, don't give me any crap about the immoral nature of P2P or defend your Nazi-like tactics until you come clean about your own despicably immoral behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
JUST MY 2CENTS
THANKS, ALWAYS & FOREVER PIRATING
LUKE SKYWALKER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gfgfgf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limewire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
F the RIAA, MPAA, and the DMCA
RIAA, MPAA, and the draconian DMCA!
These pigs sue working mothers and
college students, some of which didn't
even walk near a computer to download unprotected
songs. Treating people who buy
the music like thieves will suck out any potential
perceived value the work may have had. I'd rather
f'n die than give the RIAA one red cent directly
due to their recent copyright fighting tactics. They are not
winning over any hearts... and I am a die-hard music
lover!!! I have always happily supported the artists
that I enjoyedin the past, through RECORD & CD purchases, &
concert tickets.
BTW - I initially started loving those artists by passing
around a free copy of the record/cd/tape back and forth
with friends. WORD OF MOUTH. That is how
artists get popular... then it used to make it to radio, but
NOW most people have given up on radio, (cuz they suck!)
in the age of the IPOD and a ZUNE. WTF- is a ZUNE anyway? LOL
Microsoft kinda sucks too, for some of the same reasons the
RIAA, MPAA, and the DMCA do.
F DRM, I will avoid anything and everything that will
read me the riot act of where, when, and how I need to use
the product! Screw you, if I pay for it, it is now mine...
E.O.T. - End of Transaction. End of debate! EITHER FRONT
LOAD YOUR CONDITIONS & CHARGES - OR F YOUR DMCA
money grubbing bullcrap. My CD's don't self destruct
after I listen to them, and I'll never lay down 1 buck for
anything that will... EVER!
I think the whole thing could be solved overnight if the
Lawyers were required to be kicked in the nuts, and
not allowed to sue at the drop of a hat,
based on contingency fees.
IF YOU SUPPORT ANYTHING RIAA, MPAA, with the Digtal Millenium
Copyright Act... you've just contributed to part of the
problem! Let me be clear. All lawyers do NOT suck, but
the greedy corporate RIAA MPAA style lawyers do! They are why
many people think the effin Entertainment Industry sucks a
big one today! I think the fans are sick of it, and many of
the artists are getting sick of it too. Hey RIAA, MPAA...
lighten up, ya no good punk bitches. You're trying to
collect at the tail end of the purchase with a shotgun,
when you need to be collecting on the front end, with flowers
and a big "Buckwheat" smile.
Get the F over yourselves,
I have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go LimeWire!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA needs to rethink it's actions
- Doesn't work most of the time
- Has obscure file formatting
Seriously, nothing wrong with paying for MP3's, but iTunes just simply doesn't do the ideology justice.
Second of all, the RIAA needs to realize they can't stop everyone sharing files. They just can't do it. Like someone said earlier: Stopping ALL file sharing would mean banning the internet. Instead, they need to find a way to use the internet effectively, or stop bitching. OR, here's an idea: Lower CD prices! No one wants to spend $15 dollars on something that only took like a $1 to make! Music is an art form, not a commodity. The record labels are greedy. In theory, if the record labels are greedy, so are most of the artists.
They are driving away the very people they want to attract in the first place: music fans. They are defeating their own purpose, and showing to everyone, "We like to sue our consumers!" I'm sure people have a reason for downloading music, the RIAA just fails to realize it's not just because they want it for free. I'm sure that's a reason too, but it's not the only one. Many people don't buy CD's for a few reasons:
1. Don't want the CD, just a few tracks. This is a big reason! Most people only want the "hit songs" off a disc.
2. Don't have the money. Let's face it, there is no way to cover this one up: CDs are expensive. You'd be naive and blind not to think so. You get 30 songs from 3 CD's, and it can cost up to 50 bucks. No one has enough money to buy them: their interest is high but they just can't do it.
3. Local CD shops don't have what they want. Another big one. A ton of great metal and punk CD's are just flat out impossible to find at your local Wal-Mart.
In conclusion, the RIAA needs to stop and rethink what they are doing. They are bullying their own consumers; that's what will lead to their sales dropping, even if it's just a little. I'm all for music, but until the RIAA changes it's ways, I will be against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.
Lime wire should never had been sued, they are not responsible for copyright infringement. It is the few people out there who had done these copyright infringement laws, but the RIAA and record label companies need someone to blame since they cannot find all the people abusing copyright infringement laws. Too many people catch and no way to find them; so the RIAA has to blame someone, so they blamed Limewire and any other p2p company and sued them since RIAA profits went down since these p2p companies been given existance.
Like everything else many large corporations are corrupted due to greed, people just can't be happy with having a million dollars anymore. The RIAA and a few record label companies fall into this category.
I love listening to music from all over the world and many types of genre, majority of times depending where you live, buying a music cd can be rare and hard to find for what you are looking for. This is where many people would turn to p2p or filesharing. There are many artist and genre of music I have never heard of before since it is never played on radio, never on t.v. or never at any music stores, but when able to search through p2p, filesharing or online. It is much more easy to find and had discoverd great artist unheard or unseen before and now a few of them I heard of I recommended to friends then few years later they became very popular and heard from a bit all over.
RIAA is very corrupt corporation, they are not there for the artist at all. Much of the amounts of money they sued against many p2p companies, they have not ever shared a single cent to any artist. They just keep all the profit for themselves.
Companies or programs that are similar to Limewire and such have helped other new beginning artist and musicians get discovered and heard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.
It's one of the main reasons I started posting my music on YouTube also,it was like free advertisement. Same with Limewire and other companies, but I am against copyright infringement laws, but Limewire is not to blame. It is the actually culprits to blame, but the law of the RIAA can not attain these criminals. There's just too many. Rapidly growing, so the RIAA needs someone to blame. So they blame the owners of the program that had no partake in any illegal activity.
RIAA does nothing for music artist, they just keep all the profit for themselves, there's only a select few music artist who make a lot of profit now a days and that only caters to certain types of genre of music that is very popular by todays demands and scenes. But for other artist differntly, RIAA could not careless because they don't profit a lot from these types of music artist. RIAA is only in the business for business of making money for themselves. They are afraid of the changing times in technology that will drop there great Profit making, but yet they are already financially set for life and regardless would still have millions in the bank, that is if they budgeted and saved wisely...
I think we should get rid of the RIAA, they have become corrupted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.
It's one of the main reasons I started posting my music on YouTube also,it was like free advertisement. Same with Limewire and other companies, but I am against copyright infringement laws, but Limewire is not to blame. It is the actually culprits to blame, but the law of the RIAA can not attain these criminals. There's just too many. Rapidly growing, so the RIAA needs someone to blame. So they blame the owners of the program that had no partake in any illegal activity.
RIAA does nothing for music artist, they just keep all the profit for themselves, there's only a select few music artist who make a lot of profit now a days and that only caters to certain types of genre of music that is very popular by todays demands and scenes. But for other artist differntly, RIAA could not careless because they don't profit a lot from these types of music artist. RIAA is only in the business for business of making money for themselves. They are afraid of the changing times in technology that will drop there great Profit making, but yet they are already financially set for life and regardless would still have millions in the bank, that is if they budgeted and saved wisely...
I think we should get rid of the RIAA, they have become corrupted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]