We were just discussing how some anonymous developers had created and released a "pirate edition" of LimeWire, after the company LimeWire was required to no longer offer its software. Now LimeWire has put out an announcement demanding those who put out such an "unauthorized version" cease & desist. It does seem rather ironic that a company whose software was regularly used to access unauthorized works is now "complaining" about unauthorized versions of its own work. Of course, it's likely that the company is well aware of this, but has put out this announcement so that it doesn't get blamed in court for this unauthorized version.
It's not like this wasn't easily predicted, but following the judge's order to shut down Limewire, and the recording industry's immediate and premature declaration of yet another "significant blow," anyone who's followed this space for any amount of time had to know that most users would just move on to other options. And, of course, they have. But perhaps even more interesting, is the fact that a group of anonymous developers have jumped in and resurrected Limewire by creating their own "pirated," version -- the Limewire Pirate Edition (LPE). They actually claim that the new software works better than the old software (and has no adware either). We've pointed out that those who think they're "winning" the battle against the distributed nature of the internet really don't know what they're up against and this is just one more example. Whether you agree with the efforts or not, these sorts of things are becoming more common and each time this happens, it takes users to offerings that are less and less interested in working with the existing entertainment industry. Napster, Grokster, Streamcast and Limewire all tried to work with the music industry -- and all were sued out of business. The next generation of file sharing offerings was still somewhat open but definitely less interested. And these days, the folks involved simply have no interest in working with the industry at all. All the industry has done is driven consumers further and further and further underground.
This is hardly a surprise, given the earlier ruling, but the judge in the Limewire case has now ruled in favor of the RIAA that Limewire needs to shut down "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality." Basically, all of the functionality. Amusingly, Limewire is pretending it can still function without any... er... functions:
An important point of clarification, LimeWire is not “shutting down”, in specific regarding our software, we are compelled to use our best efforts cease support and distribution of the file-sharing software, along with increased filtering. And, that is what we are doing.
Of course, we've seen similar file sharing apps make similar claims when the judge's hammer came down, and they all went away. Of course, it's not like this actually means anything, other than the fact that people who want to file share have already moved on to other apps and services (mostly overseas) that are even less likely and less willing to work with the recording industry, and which will be that much harder to shut down. One by one, the RIAA has killed off the few firms that actually had an interest in trying to work with the industry, so everyone has gone to the groups that want nothing to do with the RIAA in any format.
While Limewire is facing a difficult future after losing its lawsuit to the major record labels, the company was also the target of a ridiculous propaganda campaign over the years, orchestrated by a few entertainment industry organizations, which tried to connect Limewire to identity fraud, by claiming that people were putting personal data into shared folders... and this was somehow Limewire's fault. Either way, the FTC stepped in to investigate and has now dropped the investigation, saying that, while the company could still do a better job educating users on how not to inadvertently share information, it didn't see anything that was actionable against Limewire.
This is hardly a surprise, given earlier rulings on various file sharing systems, but a court has ruled in favor of the RIAA and against Limewire, saying that Limewire "engaged in unfair competition, and induced copyright infringement."
You can read the full decision here:
As you can see from the ruling, LimeWire never really had a chance. It basically did everything that Grokster did (and potentially more), so under the Grokster ruling, it's a pretty open and shut case. Of course that doesn't mean this isn't troubling in many ways. In fact, it reiterates many of the problems with the original Grokster ruling. For example, it mentions things like the fact that LimeWire folks knew that LimeWire could be used to transfer copyrighted works. But that's meaningless. Email can be used for transferring copyrighted works. FTP too. The web as well.
Either way, I'm still wondering if, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the Grokster case, which solidified this non-legislative concept of "inducement" for copyright infringement (something that Congress had chosen not to put into the law -- despite having the opportunity), if it's possible to create a system for more efficiently sharing files that doesn't violate the inducement standard. In most of these cases, part of the problem is that these sites advertise themselves for the ability to infringe on copyrights, and employees at the sites were active in helping users infringe. As such, you can see how that's clear inducement. But what if a site was set up that didn't do all of those things, but was still widely used for infringement. Would that still be inducement? If so, that seems incredibly troubling. The law should not be set up in a way to outright ban a technology that has a wide variety of useful applications, and is used for plenty of legitimate purposes, even if it's also used (even if regularly used) for infringing purposes.
Viacom seems to have a bit of a multiple personality when it comes to online video. It's famously suing YouTube for $1 billion because some clips of TV shows have shown up on the site, but at the same time, it's been aggressively putting its own shows on a variety of sites. Yet, for the most part, it's focused on having full control -- that is, making them streaming versions only, on specific sites, often complete with advertising. However, it looks like the company is finally realizing that a little uncontrolled distribution isn't such a bad thing. Viacom-owned Spike TV is trying to promote a new TV show by distributing a commercial-free, DRM-free download of the show through a variety of sources including P2P system Limewire. The company admits that it's just trying to entice viewers to watch the series on TV when it debuts later this summer, but it makes you wonder how the company can stand up in court complaining about YouTube, when its out there telling people to do whatever they want to help promote this other show. In fact, the folks behind this offering admit that DRM would have defeated the purpose, which is to get the show seen by as many people as possible: "We're trying for a bit of a ubiquity here, to go where the people are." Wonder if this story will make its way into the Viacom-YouTube lawsuit.
