Judge Dismisses LimeWire's Charges Of Antitrust Violations Against RIAA

from the more-evidence-please dept

Tue, Dec 4th 2007 3:37am — Mike Masnick

After being sued by the RIAA, file sharing app provider LimeWire fought back. Beyond claiming that it didn't violate copyright laws (by not "inducing" infringement), the company also countersued, claiming that the RIAA had violated antitrust laws in trying to illegally compete with LimeWire and other file sharing systems. This claim always seemed like a stretch, and apparently a judge agreed, dismissing the antitrust claims, noting that LimeWire failed to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. While it would have been nice to see the RIAA run into trouble on this point, it's true that LimeWire's evidence wasn't particularly strong, so this shouldn't come as a surprise or even be seen as much of a setback. It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that.

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

Filed Under: antitrust, collusion, file sharing, record labels
Companies: limewire, riaa

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 5:00am

"It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that."

A pity the judges can't make such quick and correct decisions when it's the RIAA filing the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 4 Dec 2007 @ 5:37am

Shame
It would have been nice to see LimeWire win here, but maybe they will come back stronger with a decent case and evidence to prove it next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Max Powers, 4 Dec 2007 @ 6:26am

LimeWire should refile
I hope they refile and get it right this time. Maybe they were in a hurry for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reverend Davidius, 4 Dec 2007 @ 7:27am

Speaking f antitrust violations...
What about the big oil companies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 7:41am
  
  Re: Speaking f antitrust violations...
  Earth is screwed. The oil companies will stay as they are until the bitter end. I hope my future offspring have fun with what we left for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lyinggod, 4 Dec 2007 @ 7:51am

Beating a dead horse....
Lets face it, Limewire and its "peers" are in the same boat. RIAA, while being big bullies, is in the right. It is their stuff thats being stolen and Limewire, torrent software, etc, is the vehicle for it. If you want to fight against them, then do it by dealing with the musicans that sell direct online. As long as the RIAA is perceiving that they can recover income once their songs not are being stolen any more, they will continue to pursue those that steal. If you buy the songs directly, the RIAA doesnt get the money, and the little guy wins. As long as stealing continues, whether by the individual and/or through processes similar to limewire then those caught, just like stealing "real" items, are getting what they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chad, 4 Dec 2007 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: Beating a dead horse....
  What kind of idiot are you? You cannot steal virtual goods you can infringe on the copyright but unless you steal a CD or other physical medium you are not stealing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 4-80-sicks, 4 Dec 2007 @ 9:35am
  
  Re: Beating a dead horse....
  It is their stuff thats being stolen and Limewire, torrent software, etc, is the vehicle for it.
  
  If I rob a bank, should Ford be sued because I drove away in a Town Car? Or would Smith & Wesson be the more appropriate target? Or perhaps North Face, who made my ski mask...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re: Beating a dead horse....
  As long as the RIAA is perceiving that they can recover income once their songs not are being stolen any more, they will continue to pursue those that steal. If you buy the songs directly, the RIAA doesnt get the money, and the little guy wins. As long as stealing continues, whether by the individual and/or through processes similar to limewire then those caught, just like stealing "real" items, are getting what they deserve.
  Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Saying that it is is lying. Congratulations on earning your nickname, Lyinggod.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Susheel Daswani, 4 Dec 2007 @ 8:30am

It was about money....
LimeWire's antitrust claims were pretty bogus on their face. This was just a litigation tactic to get the RIAA to spend the money (Cravath is very expensive) to get the claim dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 8:38am

RIAA/MPAA
the RIAA and MPAA should pay 99.5% of there income from lawsuits to charity, and the other .5% to their bodyguards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 4 Dec 2007 @ 9:23am

Re: comment #9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justin, 4 Dec 2007 @ 9:28am

Re: comment #9
Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing. I'm against the record labels and the entire industry needs to change the way they are doing things, but yes file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong. The only thing is I believe the RIAA's and MPAA's tactics in the matter is more wrong. The prices of CD's and mp3's are insanely high and the artist only gets a small fraction of the profit from each unit sold. The record labels are greedy bastards and they just want to keep making billions of dollars and won't accept the fact that times are changing and they should change their game plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 4 Dec 2007 @ 9:57am
  
  Re: Re: comment #9
  Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing.
  
  Not really. From the Supreme Court:
  
  "Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Dec 2007 @ 1:04pm
  
  Re: Re: comment #9
  Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing.
  Then you need to check elsewhere because you're getting bogus information. Copying isn't taking and it isn't stealing.
  
  I'm against the record labels...
  You sure could have fooled me. You sound just like one of their tools.
  
  ... file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong.
  That statement is so broad as to be untrue. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works is illegal and I don't think many people would argue that. But your statement would mean that sharing Linux (which is copyrighted) is illegal and that is not true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- buckykat, 4 Dec 2007 @ 4:41pm
  
  Re: Re: comment #9
  um, nobody's reselling pirated stuff. (at least not limewire, TPB, etc.) if we paid for it, it wouldn't be called 'piracy', now would it? free pirated songs are free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
memorabilia, 4 Dec 2007 @ 10:44am

@#11
"but yes file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong."

Sure, distributing copyrighted material is illegal (in the united states), but downloading a copy of a song I already own fair use rights isn't.

For the RIAA to claim that all those downloads are illegal is just not in evidence. A 60 gig ipod would cost $50K to fill up, do you think all those college students have that much spare income?

Might as well sue apple as well as limewire, based on your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitalist, 4 Dec 2007 @ 8:44pm

so is this case law now?
If this is a closed case then it's case law... Demonoid could really use this information in it's current fight for survival with the CRIAA... the canadian version of the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]