Difference between revisions of "Limewire"

From Dead Media Archive
Jump to: navigation, search
(History)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
 
== History/Versions ==
 
== History/Versions ==
  
Line 15: Line 14:
 
== Legal Troubles ==
 
== Legal Troubles ==
  
 +
Before the lawsuit leading to the shutdown of LimeWire, the most significant court case for Limewire and all other file sharing software was the 2005 case, MGM v. Grokster.  In this case, the court essentially ruled that peer-to-peer file sharing companies can be liable for its users practice of illegal sharing of copyrighted items.  Before this case, file-sharing companies such as Grokster and Limewire followed the precedent set forth in the 1984 case, Sony Corp. V. Universal City Studios, which ruled that Sony as producers of the Betamax, a technology capable of illegal copying of material, were protected from copyright infringement of its users because the technology was “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.”  Through this ruling, Grokster had been able to side step the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that Grokster and other peer-to-peer service Morpheus were not liable for copyright violations made by their users (EFF.org).  However, the Supreme Court overruled this outcome on June 27, 2005. 
 +
 +
This ruling called into question the future of peer-to-peer filing services, and CEO Mark Gorton considered stopping the distribution of LimeWire after the decision (Farzad).  The court’s decision seemed to say that as long as peer-to-peer services did not “actively promote” infringement among its users, they were not liable. The act of promoting infringement was known as “inducement” in the court.  Gorton did not believe that as long as he did not “induce” user infringement that he would be in the clear.  According to Gorton, the court gave “a tool to judges that they can declare inducement whenever they want to” (Farzad). 
 +
 +
Gorton’s uncertainty of LimeWire’s future was justified, as LimeWire was served a lawsuit only a little over a year after this decision, which would eventually decide the company’s fate.  Several members of the RIAA including Arista, Atlantic, BMG, Capitol, Elektra, Interscope, LaFace, Motown, Priority, Sony BMG, UMG, Virgin, and Warner Bros. joined forces to file their complaint of copyright infringement on August 4, 2006.  The suit claimed LimeWire is “devoted essentially the Internet piracy of recordings” and also implicated LimeWire’s inducement of its users, saying, “Defendants have continued to promote, market, and distribute LimeWire as the successor-in-infringement to these pirate services” (Arista v. LimeWire).  The pirate services the plaintiffs were referring to were of course the already defunct peer-to-peer services, Grokster, Napster, and Aimster. 
  
  

Revision as of 13:04, 15 November 2010

History/Versions

How Limewire Works: A Basic Guide to P2P Networks

Popular Uses

Napster Bombing

Legal Troubles

Before the lawsuit leading to the shutdown of LimeWire, the most significant court case for Limewire and all other file sharing software was the 2005 case, MGM v. Grokster. In this case, the court essentially ruled that peer-to-peer file sharing companies can be liable for its users practice of illegal sharing of copyrighted items. Before this case, file-sharing companies such as Grokster and Limewire followed the precedent set forth in the 1984 case, Sony Corp. V. Universal City Studios, which ruled that Sony as producers of the Betamax, a technology capable of illegal copying of material, were protected from copyright infringement of its users because the technology was “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Through this ruling, Grokster had been able to side step the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that Grokster and other peer-to-peer service Morpheus were not liable for copyright violations made by their users (EFF.org). However, the Supreme Court overruled this outcome on June 27, 2005.

This ruling called into question the future of peer-to-peer filing services, and CEO Mark Gorton considered stopping the distribution of LimeWire after the decision (Farzad). The court’s decision seemed to say that as long as peer-to-peer services did not “actively promote” infringement among its users, they were not liable. The act of promoting infringement was known as “inducement” in the court. Gorton did not believe that as long as he did not “induce” user infringement that he would be in the clear. According to Gorton, the court gave “a tool to judges that they can declare inducement whenever they want to” (Farzad).

Gorton’s uncertainty of LimeWire’s future was justified, as LimeWire was served a lawsuit only a little over a year after this decision, which would eventually decide the company’s fate. Several members of the RIAA including Arista, Atlantic, BMG, Capitol, Elektra, Interscope, LaFace, Motown, Priority, Sony BMG, UMG, Virgin, and Warner Bros. joined forces to file their complaint of copyright infringement on August 4, 2006. The suit claimed LimeWire is “devoted essentially the Internet piracy of recordings” and also implicated LimeWire’s inducement of its users, saying, “Defendants have continued to promote, market, and distribute LimeWire as the successor-in-infringement to these pirate services” (Arista v. LimeWire). The pirate services the plaintiffs were referring to were of course the already defunct peer-to-peer services, Grokster, Napster, and Aimster.


Death: Court Ruled Shutdown and Proliferation of Music Blogs