Limewire Lawsuit

From LoveToKnow Music

The battle between the record industry and online file sharing groups continues in the form of the ongoing Limewire lawsuit. Limewire, a popular P2P file sharing network, is being sued for millions by record labels who charge that Limewire’s executives are committing copyright infringement by providing the software which allows people to swap songs online. Limewire replies that they merely provide the software and are not responsible for the way people use it. This court case has long reaching implications for music fans that use the internet to share music and software developers who are creating software that has a number of applications, some of which enter legally uncharted territory.

adright

Limewire Lawsuit - The Basics

First, a basic run down of the players in the Limewire Lawsuit. The suit is officially called Arista versus Limewire, but other labels, like Sony BMG and Virgin are named as plaintiffs in the case. The labels are seeking compensatory damages as well as punitive damages against the Limewire Corporation of at least $150,000 per song traded using Limewire’s software. The case was filed in a District of New York court in August, 2006. Additional labels have until January 31, 2007, to join the case against Limewire. As yet, there is no date scheduled to hear the case, though a list of expert witnesses must be submitted to the court by May 16, 2007, and all depositions are due into the court by July 13, 2007.

Limewire has filed a countersuit against the record labels, alleging that the labels resorted to illegal business practices to intimidate potential Limewire customers.

What’s It Really All About?

The Limewire lawsuit is one in a long line of cases brought by record labels and the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) have brought against everyone from software manufacturers to music playing device manufacturers to private citizens who use these products. Record labels are downright terrified that new technology will rob them of their profits by allowing users to distribute songs as many times as they like, free of charge. The music industry managed to bring down the original free file sharing program, Napster, and forced them to change their business model so that the labels profited from songs distributed by Napster. Other companies like Bearshare, WinMX, and most recently, Kazaa, have followed suit, either folding or clamping down on the sharing of copyright protected files.

The recording industry also has managed to force Microsoft and Apple to pay a percentage of the profit from each sale of the Microsoft Zune and iPod to a music industry kitty, to be distributed among the major labels. MP3 Players are considered by many in the industry to be nothing more than “a vessel for stolen music” so MP3 manufacturers who do not pay a portion of their profits to the record industry often become targets of costly lawsuits by the recording industry.

Who’s Right?

Well, that’s a matter of perspective. We’ve been here before, though. When home recordable cassettes first become available, the recording industry panicked, and shouted from the roof tops that “home taping kills music.” Eventually, a deal was worked out between cassette manufacturers and the industry that a penny from each blank cassette sold would go into the industry pot. Sound familiar? Ditto when recordable CD-Rs became available. The major labels are hard at work developing CDs that will only play in your player, downloads that can only be listened to X number of times and so on.

But is Limewire, and companies like them, stealing profits from record companies, as alleged in the Limewire lawsuit? Record company profits are down, to be sure. How much of that is due to file sharing and how much of that is due to a decrease in the quality of the music being offered by labels is open to debate. A UNC/Harvard University study found that the effect of file sharing on music sales was exactly zero. Many music fans say they are more than willing to pay their favorite bands for the music they create, but they’re sick of buying albums with one hit song and 20 filler songs. The real question here might be for the major record labels to take a look at their business models and ask themselves if throwing a bunch of money at an artist with one song for a big wave of exposure that goes bust in month is more important than long term artist development.

Also interesting to note is that major labels, not indie labels, are suffering profit losses and suing the Limewires of the world. And only major labels, not indie labels, share in the profits from sales of MP3 players, blank cassettes, and CD-Rs.

What Do You Think?

Share your thoughts on the Limewire lawsuit by leaving us a comment at the bottom of the page. Stay tuned to LTK Music for all of the latest Limewire lawsuit developments.


 


Comments

i use some of these p2p software but I still either buy the whole album online or I go get the cd at an actuall store,if the labels loose money is because the image or music there marketing sucks ass!!! bottom line....

-- Contributed by: Richie

Wow, did I read that right when it said Microsoft and Apple have to pay the record companies every time they sell an Ipod or a Zune. That's bullshit, you don't have to pay the record companies every time you create a blank CD. I don't believe copyrighted media should be free, but this is becoming ridiculous. $150,000 per copyrighted song?

-- Contributed by: Mike

These Companies that are sueing for hundreds of thousands of dollars per song are more of a greedy cooperation. Where does the money go? Who get to pocket this huge amount of money? Sadly, I dont believe the artist get it, I believe the blood sucking lawyers, and music companies are responsible for ruining lives over a song. So they downloaded a song...! wooooo. There are real criminals who go out and intentially hurt, kill, and destory someones life, and then some kid downloads a song and he goes to prison and pays a hefty 150 thousand dollar fine. Goes to show that our justice system, and the people sueing are just as equally like the criminals. Since I have journey'd through sharing programs, and I have bought more music than I did before I could sample or hear a song. I subscribe to monthly services, buy music from itunes, yahoo, online record stores, and the local record stores, but mp3 is becoming the future of music, so the Riaa, and all these other companies better wake up and realize people are going to download music, rather it be from a sharing network or an online store. Also, the more these comapnies sue people over songs being downloaded the more people will not want to buy or have anything else to do with music. Why should we support greedy coorperations? besides, it is a cut throat business, which means it is all about money. They dont care about the artists as long as they get a paycheck. Look what radiohead accomplished. That was brilliant. Get their music for free, and or donate. I donated, but never downloaded the music. I just supported thier thinking. Well, if the RIAA or whoever wants to sue us go for it. You'll just continue losing music lovers, and eventually music sales will drop. That is how the market works. Once you ... on the fans the fans will ... on you...!

-- Contributed by: Clint

Comment on Limewire Lawsuit



(Displayed with your comment)                        (Will not be displayed)
Verification Code:   
    

Music

Sign up to get free email newsletters from LoveToKnow.



PRINT THIS PAGE

EMAIL TO FRIEND


You are here: LoveToKnow » Entertainment & Hobbies » Music » Download Music » Limewire Lawsuit