Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts The Internet United States Your Rights Online

LimeWire Likely To Shut Down Soon 264

Posted by kdawson
from the and-then-there-was-one-fewer dept.
suraj.sun quotes from a CNET story: "A federal court judge has likely dealt a death blow to LimeWire, one of the most popular and oldest file-sharing systems, according to legal experts. On Wednesday ... US District Judge Kimba Wood granted summary judgment in favor of the ... [RIAA], which filed a copyright lawsuit against LimeWire in 2006. In her decision, Wood ruled Lime Group, parent of LimeWire software maker Lime Wire, and founder Mark Gorton committed copyright infringement, induced copyright infringement, and engaged in unfair competition. 'It is obviously a fairly fatal decision for them,' said [an industry defense lawyer]. 'If they don't shut down, the other side will likely make a request for an injunction and there's nothing left but to go on to calculating damages.'" The article notes that LimeWire is used by nearly 60% of the people who download songs.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LimeWire Likely To Shut Down Soon

Comments Filter:
  • by Prien715 (251944) <agnosticpope AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:26PM (#32230690) Homepage Journal

    And nothing of value was lost. Seriously, who uses an inefficient cruddy program like Limewire when you've got bit torrent?

    • And nothing of value was lost. Seriously, who uses an inefficient cruddy program like Limewire when you've got bit torrent?

      But if they shutdown Limewire, where will my sister get all her Windows viruses from?

      • by Barny (103770)

        Oh don't worry, enough of the shoddy torrent tracking and search sites have a smitfraud based scare-ware lurking in a banner ad, and of course she still uses IE for browsing :)

      • by kdemetter (965669) on Monday May 17, 2010 @01:07AM (#32233652)

        From other clients that use the gnutella network ?

        Really , limewire just uses the gnutella network . It's like banning edonkey2000 , which uses the edonkey network.
          Unless they ban the entire network , but that's not likely to happen , as it's a decentralized network.

        So , in other words , it sucks for limewire , but someone else will take over when they fall.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by hairyfeet (841228)

        Not to mention all us PC repairmen that have made millions of dollars cleaning Limewire crap from folks PCs. The RIAA is a bunch of socialists and costing us jobs!

        Of course the nice thing about decentralized P2P is that you can't really kill it [wikipedia.org], especially with there being FOSS implementations, so I'm sure we PC repairmen will still get plenty of work from the next Limewire style Gnutella app that becomes popular. God bless you FOSSies, and thanks for helping spread those viruses! Keep up the good work! O

    • by Endo13 (1000782)

      Exactly what I was going to post. Not to mention a huge percentage of the stuff on there was fake already a few years ago. I can't imagine it's gotten any better.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:49PM (#32230866)

        For MP3s, it's actually perfectly fine. I've never gotten anything troublesome from LimeWire. Search results are always crowded with garbage, but the spam is so crude that you'd have to be a moron to download it:

        Pretend Example Search: kate bush wuthering heights

        1. "kate bush wuthering heights.mp3"

        Do not download files whose names are identical to your search

        2. "Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights.wmv"

        Do not download WMVs

        3. "Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights.mp3 ~ 3kB"

        Sort by size and find something near 1MB-per-minute

        4. "Kate Bush - Wuthering Heights.mp3 (rare live recording)"

        Strangely, every song ever recorded has a "rare live recording" that you probably shouldn't download.
        5. "underage porn sex girl with horse and dog"

        Even if you WERE looking for filthy, illegal porn you'd have to be an idiot to download that. But man, there are a lot of files with names like that.

        So you search, sort by size, download something with a sane name of the right size, and probably never play it in WMP, just to be safe.

        But really? The "index of" Google search has largely replaced LimeWire for me anyway. It's fast, it's easy, you don't spew your hot, sticky IP all over the Gnutella network, you can use it from any smartphone with a web browser...it's gotten extremely polluted with fake spam index-of sites, but there are also sites that helper filter the spam sites.

        BitTorrent just seems like a waste of energy for music...but I don't really know why. I suppose it works as well for small files as large... it just feels like more work to search for something so small in the browser, open it in a new app, clutter uTorrent with a thousand tiny downloads...

        LimeWire still has a place in my heart.

        • by Endo13 (1000782) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:53PM (#32230918)

          BitTorrent just seems like a waste of energy for music...but I don't really know why. I suppose it works as well for small files as large... it just feels like more work to search for something so small in the browser, open it in a new app, clutter uTorrent with a thousand tiny downloads...

          BitTorrent's role in music sharing is mainly for albums and artist collections. You know, like say if you wanted the complete works of the Beatles. When your typical MP3 player has room for tens of thousands of tracks, you're a lot more likely to look for those large collections to save time, if for no other reason. Got the space, may as well fill it up.

          • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:23PM (#32231146)
            Sometimes its just nice to save a step between the LP you still have and your MP3 player. Now I know the studios want you to "buy it again", but I prefer either recording it myself via a USB turntable, or if I've no time for that, the disc is available via torrent.

            I don't feel it's infringing on copyright, since I own the album. (And that is also true for out-of-print CDs and LPs as well.) I mean, I could track them down used, but that doesn't "give money to the artist".... So their argument is moot. That said, I'm not a "collector" of music in that I get discogs of every band and scour the web for bootlegs. I like the album enough to buy it, and I like the album enough to want it on my iPod... shouldn't be too difficult. (I know we're treading on "legal gray areas", but sometimes we just have to use a little common sense...Something the RIAA hasn't had, well, ever.)
            • I don't feel [downloading a copy of an album that I own is] infringing on copyright, since I own the album.

              A U.S. court disagreed with you. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) [wikipedia.org].

              • Re:UMG v. MP3.com (Score:5, Interesting)

                by paeanblack (191171) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @08:04PM (#32231402)

                There is a crucial difference between how lawyers and engineers view the issue:

                To an engineer, the content of a digital file is the primary attribute. Two files with identical contents are indistinguishable and interchangeable.

                To a lawyer, the pedigree of a digital file just as important as the content. Two identical files with different histories are different entities.

                What this means is that if you and your friend each own a copy of the same album, you may feel it is reasonable to copy data from his disk when convenient, since you legally own a copy with the exact same contents. In the eyes of the law, however, those song files are NOT the same, because they have different histories. The rights you have to your copy do not extend to all other instances of that file, even if they are indistinguishable or not.

                It's easy to say that the lawyer view is ridiculous, but (a) that is the view that defines the law, and (b) it seems far less ridiculous after one studies the history of copyright law beginning in the 1500s.

                There is a good article on this subject:
                http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php

                • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                  by Mr. Freeman (933986)
                  "(a) that is the view that defines the law"
                  What defines the law is what the population will put up with. If no one will put up with the lawyer's bullshit view then it's unenforceable.

                  "(b) it seems far less ridiculous after one studies the history of copyright law beginning in the 1500s."

                  It doesn't seem any less ridiculous, you can just see how something so stupid came from lots of smaller less stupid decisions. Doesn't matter how it got to where it is now, it's still fucking stupid.
                  • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                    by tepples (727027)

                    What defines the law is what the population will put up with. If no one will put up with the lawyer's bullshit view then it's unenforceable.

                    What defines what the population will put up with is what the major publishers, through the news media, tell the population to put up with. For example, every major commercial TV news channel in the United States (CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, and CNN) shares a parent company with one of the big six movie distributors (Paramount, Disney, Universal, Fox, and Warner).

                • It took since the 1500s for it to get this stupid. Make no mistake, copyright was never meant to be a property right until recently. I find the concept of copyright as a property right far more asinine than the "pedigree" of something. It defies logic.
                • What this means is that if you and your friend each own a copy of the same album, you may feel it is reasonable to copy data from his disk when convenient, since you legally own a copy with the exact same contents. In the eyes of the law, however, those song files are NOT the same, because they have different histories. The rights you have to your copy do not extend to all other instances of that file, even if they are indistinguishable or not.

                  Interesting you linked to a Canadian article to explain that, because Canada (in a rare moment of government sanity) actually legalized exactly this situation several years ago. Private non-commercial copying is legal so long as you don't distribute the copies. Who knows if it will stay legal with this new POS copyright bill being discussed, mind you..

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by K. S. Kyosuke (729550)

                  Two identical files with different histories are different entities.

                  So if I find a Beatles song somewhere in the Champernowne constant, am I free to keep it?

              • Yep. As they often do. Usually the most money makes these things go around. Remember the sham that was DeCSS?
        • by pipatron (966506)

          I always want the complete album from an artist, and I usually also want it in FLAC format if available. That makes each download about 200-500MB. There are very good music oriented bittorrent trackers out there, taking over after the previous gem "oink", where you know that everything you download will be well seeded, will not contain any virus or misplaced songs etc. what.cd being one good example. You say it's more work to search for something so small, I say it's more work to sift through the spam and r

        • For MP3s, it's actually perfectly fine. I've never gotten anything troublesome from LimeWire.

          While your luck (either actually due to luck, or because you are technologically savvy) has held out, many of my tech customers' luck has not. I recently (within the last 2 months) had a customer's machine in the where about 5% of their (Limewired) music was infected. A large portion of their jpegs were infected as well.

          Now, while 5% isn't a large percentage, in her case, it was a large number (about 100 viruses/spyware/trojans) - and of course, if you get the "wrong" one, it only takes one to truly hose

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:33PM (#32230738)

      It was as if a million viruses embedded in Britney Spear's singles cried out in terror, then were suddenly silenced.

      I fear something awesome has happened.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:36PM (#32230758)

      And nothing of value was lost. Seriously, who uses an inefficient cruddy program like Limewire when you've got bit torrent?

      You don't use a torrent to grab a three or four meg file: swarming protocols work best for sharing large files.

      The Gnutella network was, and is, very efficient at sharing small files (you know, the kind that keep media executives up at night.) That said, there are plenty of other ways to share such information, and all the RIAA has done is to (once again) continue the game of whack-a-mole. There are many other Gnutella clients available (personally, I like Phex: multi-platform, open-source, and does what I need. Pick it up on SourceForge) and people will quickly find them. Let the lawyers celebrate their "victory", for whatever it's worth.

      • by Endo13 (1000782) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:44PM (#32230826)

        You don't use a torrent to grab a three or four meg file: swarming protocols work best for sharing large files.

        Most people these days who used to use limewire now use torrents to download albums and band collections, then use iTunes to pick up the odd track here and there that was too much trouble to get from a torrent.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by black88 (559855)

          What I tend to do is, if there is a song on an album that I need, I will just download the torrent, open it in utorrent, and only choose to download that particular song.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by oakgrove (845019)
            Same here except for utorrent (I use transmission in Ubuntu). The only thing is, what if you want a certain cut of a particular song that isn't the album version. Also, it's a bit faster, for me, to just click on Frostwire and type in my search term vs finding the item on a torrent search engine, plucking the particular track out of the album, and downloading that way. Usually for a particular song, I guess I just find Frostwire to be a bit quicker on the draw.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by linzeal (197905)
          I know maybe 2 or 3 people who actually use iTunes to buy not organize music. Is it more popular in the under 30's or something, because everyone I know either buys CDs/LPs or pirates everything.
          • by Endo13 (1000782)

            It's a lot more popular with the under 25's. Particularly the ones whose parents bought them whatever they wanted from iTunes while they were teens.

          • by mikael_j (106439) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:23PM (#32231148)

            Well, here in Sweden it seems almost no one uses iTunes to buy anything. The main reasons for this seem to be:

            1. Spotify - Lots of people who are "casual" music listeners just use Spotify, it's like listening to the radio except you get the songs you want.
            2. File sharing started early here in Sweden - Which means that for-pay services lagged behind regular file sharing even further than in a lot of other places.
            3. No TV shows on iTunes - I've heard a lot of people here say they'd be more inclined to use iTunes to buy stuff if they could also pay for TV shows, not possible here in Sweden though.
            4. Downloading music, TV shows and Movies used to be legal/semi-legal up until quite recently - It was basically made illegal because the content industry told our politicians that we'd be transformed into a Internet equivalent of a third world country otherwise.
            • by Kjella (173770)

              Spotify is funny, it's pretty much the stop gap to prevent copyright reform in Sweden. If Spotify was available world wide it'd be a huge hit, if it wasn't anywhere the Pirate Party would be in parliament changging the law. But instead you keep the Swedes happy enough (bread and circus anyone?) while still making a ton of monay off the other markets. If there was ever proof that piracy will get yyou a better deal, Spotify is it.

      • by sznupi (719324)

        Let the lawyers celebrate their "victory", for whatever it's worth.
        Reply to This

        But is is a victory...they got their fat paychecks over the years. Part of them possibly bonuses.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by zmollusc (763634)

          Yeah, like the music industry can afford expensive lawyers after losing trillions of dollars per day to teh pirates. Those lawyers will have been on less than minimum wage.

          • by h00manist (800926)

            Yeah, like the music industry can afford expensive lawyers after losing trillions of dollars per day to teh pirates. Those lawyers will have been on less than minimum wage.

            yeah i"m sure they are applying for a job flipping burgers right now so they can at least get minimum

      • by b4upoo (166390)

        There are two ways to go with this. One is to rename Limewire Glimewire or some other similar name and locate it in a nation that does not honor use laws. The other is to find an individual who is safe from legal actions due to owning nothing etc. and put the entire operation in his name. That will put the existence of the tool in operation beyond any real reach of law.

    • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:38PM (#32230788)

      A lot of non-tech people who don't understand he difference between Bit Torrent let alone what Bit Torrent even is. Although, usually when I see Windows machines infected or doing strange things at the local coffee shop, the person has lime wire installed.

      My understanding was there were more virus and other malware infected stuff on limewire than just about any other source. Granted that was a few years ago.

      • by BLKMGK (34057)

        No, still true. Had a kid's computer over here a week ago and found three files pegged as viruses - weird thing is they were using the MP3 file identifier. I'd have gone further trying to figure it all out but had no desire to risk my machine and the HDD was dying on me. Sure enough he had Lime on there - I just shook my head... Oh and all of his music files were poorly tagged, low bitrate, and really bizarre CRAP. Sadly there was also almost no p0rn to save. Lime had some of THE weirdest p0rn I've ever s

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nomadic (141991)
      Seriously, who uses an inefficient cruddy program like Limewire when you've got bit torrent?

      Or itunes, or Amazon's MP3 store. Oops, wait, I forgot I shouldn't admit I actually feel a moral obligation to actually pay for the music I buy on slashdot.
      • by adona1 (1078711)
        Exactly! Oh, except Amazon won't let me pay for their mp3s because I don't live in America. Plus I run Windows so putting iTunes on it is one of the less clever things I could do.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mcclungsr (74737)

        I buy music on Amazon, and once iTunes offered DRM-free tracks that became an option as well (since I mostly listen on linux boxes). I don't think of this as a moral issue, it's a convenience. The bitrates are good, and less work even than torrents. For $1/song, the money really doesn't seem like a big issue. I still buy CDs that I rip myself from time to time, but more and more I'm just using the online stores.

        I call it being practical.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Darkness404 (1287218)
      Good luck finding a decent torrent for small files. Yeah, BitTorrent is great for downloading a 700 MB Ubuntu ISO, yeah, its great for getting every song a band sang, ever. But, for downloading a single song or other small files? BitTorrent is pretty terrible.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Most decent clients will let you download only specific files from a torrent.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Larryish (1215510)

        Bittorrent is excellent for downloading individual files.

        Most torrent clients allow you to download individual files from a collection via some sort of Properties dialog.

        You get the .torrent for the entire album or collection. Then when you load it in your client you go to the Properties/Files dialog and uncheck every song or file except those that you wish to download.

        It is good for things like John Mayer albums, where most of the songs on the new album are repeats of songs from the previous album.

        A lazy b

    • by sznupi (719324)

      Now, now, don't underestimate RIAA too much - if people were to switch to BT, where full albums are the norm, just imagine how much damages then the "industry" can claim!

    • The question you should be asking yourself is: after whom they'd go next?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ash Vince (602485)

      And nothing of value was lost. Seriously, who uses an inefficient cruddy program like Limewire when you've got bit torrent?

      I always wondered why everyone uses a centralised system like bittorrent to illegally download other peoples hard work when the gnutella network existed. It might be less efficient and slightly slower to find what you want, but at least they will never be able to shut it down completely. I know this may result in the death of Limewire, but that was not exactly the only Gnutella client in existence.

      The fact is the gnutella's inefficencies are also in many ways its benefits.

    • by LBt1st (709520)

      Older P2P networks such as LimeWire allow you to find things that would otherwise not be seeded on BT. BT's fantastic for speed but unless you want something that the majority of others also want/have, your SOL.

  • by Aranykai (1053846) <slgonser.gmail@com> on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:27PM (#32230692)

    ...in 3, 2, 1

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:29PM (#32230710)

      Its the gnutella network.

      There are already a half-a-dozen alternative clients.

      Its like the legal profession is completely naive of how software on the Internet works.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:51PM (#32230894)

        Its like the legal profession is completely naive of how software on the Internet works.

        Or they know exactly how it works and the lawyers like making gobs of cash playing whack-a-mole?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Aranykai (1053846)

          Its like what I started doing when I was a teenager. My summer job was mowing lawns, so I started offering a bonus service to fertilize it in the spring for a small amount. Just about everyone that took that service switched from 10 day mowing to weekly mowing cause the grass grew faster.

          I made a good chunk of change that year.

      • As long as they get paid why should they care?
        The fact that other networks will take over in the blink of an eye just means another paycheck years down the line.

      • by tepples (727027)

        Its the gnutella network.

        There are already a half-a-dozen alternative clients.

        But do alternative clients provide their own set of Gnutella Web Cache servers [wikipedia.org]? Without one, a client doesn't know of any active nodes accepting connections into the network.

      • by blueg3 (192743)

        You can't sue the Gnutella network, but you can sue the people who made LimeWire, which is by far the most popular Gnutella client.

        The lawyers may not understand the distinction between Gnutella and LimeWire, but I guarantee you someone on their side hired someone else to explain it.

        You can't shut down Gnutella effectively, and I'm sure they know this. They can, however, shut down the most popular client and make people think twice about writing a Gnutella client or using the Gnutella network.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)

      ...in 3, 2, 1

      Limewire was nothing special: just a Gnutella client with extensions. The Gnutella "network" is alive and well, has been for years, and there are many clients out there for it. Limewire just suckered a lot of people into paying for software that was readily available for free. I don't care that Limewire is getting nailed, I just don't like the media companies winning cases like this. It's bad for everybody, including them, if they just had the wit to see it.

  • by dexterr (1401221)
    As the title says; 60 percent!? Really? Except for my girlfriend (wich by the way stopped using it when she met me because I recommended better protocols) I don't know anyone who's using it or have been using it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:37PM (#32230768)
    I stopped using Limewire years ago after downloading a few nasty viruses and hundreds of low quality and incomplete music. Free music was no longer worth my trouble. I switched to iTunes and legal music purchases and have never looked back.
    • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:55PM (#32230938)
      Yeah, Limewire is generally crap because so many songs are incorrectly attributed, wrong titles, etc.

      The problem with iTunes and the like is it is impossible to get many artists, other times you can find early or later works by a band but can't find the ones you want, or in extreme cases iTunes wants you to pay $10+ for the album when you really want one song.

      Music distributors finally got their heads out of their rears recently and eliminated DRM for the most part, but there is still a lot of things they are doing wrong.
      • by AK Marc (707885)
        My wife is the same. She goes to iTunes first if she wants one and only one song. But when they don't sell the song individually, then she puts in a request that I find it via "alternative" methods. If every song made was available for $0.50 with a good client, guaranteed results and all that, there would be very little song piracy. It's worth the cost for good searches, correct metadata, and re-download capability and such you get from a real store. Oh, and no DRM so that it just works however they wa
  • FrostWire (Score:5, Informative)

    by Meneth (872868) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:37PM (#32230770)
    It's not like the Gnutella network will shut down. Even if LimeWire stops distributing its client, there are plenty of others. For example, FrostWire [frostwire.com].
    • by sznupi (719324)

      Heck, for all practical purposes, FrostWire is Limewire...just a fork done a bit more right.

  • I thought it fizzled out years ago. I had no idea it still exists.

  • by segedunum (883035) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:43PM (#32230818)
    Limewire has been around for years and they've only now just got around to trying to close the thing down?
    • by Endo13 (1000782)

      I think this case was merely a token battle on the part of the RIAA. They have to know by now that they're never going to get rid of P2P sharing by going after the software developers, but at the same time they have to make it look like they're still trying.

  • by Alien1024 (1742918) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:45PM (#32230834)
    Next thing they will be turning down is WinMX. With audiogalaxy gone, things look all gloom and doom for P2P music downloads.
  • Corporate Veil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomcircuit (938963) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @06:45PM (#32230836) Homepage

    Yeah but will they be able to pierce the corporate veil [wikipedia.org] and hold the CEO personally accountable? Otherwise his company becomes worthless and he keeps all the money that he's been paid in salary.

    • by westlake (615356) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @08:16PM (#32231494)

      From Reuters:

      First, the judge found Gorton, who is also LimeWire's sole director, personally liable for infringement, observing in her ruling that "an individual, including a corporate officer, who has the ability to supervise infringing activity and has a financial interest in that activity, or who personally participates in that activity is personally liable for infringement."

      That will likely strike fear in the hearts of would-be P2P moguls who may have been clinging to the belief that they could hide behind corporate shells, insulating their own assets if the law ever caught up with them.

      Ruling could have chilling effect on P2P services [reuters.com]

      • From Reuters:

        First, the judge found Gorton, who is also LimeWire's sole director, personally liable for infringement, observing in her ruling that "an individual, including a corporate officer, who has the ability to supervise infringing activity and has a financial interest in that activity, or who personally participates in that activity is personally liable for infringement."

        That will likely strike fear in the hearts of would-be P2P moguls who may have been clinging to the belief that they could hide behind corporate shells, insulating their own assets if the law ever caught up with them.

        Ruling could have chilling effect on P2P services [reuters.com]

        The one good thing that may come of this is that if it is upheld, perhaps it will set some sort of precedence for dealing with other corporate "bigwigs" who violate numerous laws with the expectation of hiding behind the "corporate shield" - betcha more companies would be straightforward with their dealings, prevent riskier actions and be less likely to knowingly break the law.

        Regardless, every time I skim the article (dont worry... I didnt actually read the whole thing... I do know this is slashdot I'm o

      • by h00manist (800926)
        pr sponsored scare tactics. they stick this stuff into the news, and that's the main strategy - to reduce p2p by fear, intimidation, and technical complications. they know it's not going away completely, but they are going to do their best to make it reduce. they know it's failing, but they have no other alternative.
  • Considering FrostWire exists, I'll bet the actual limewire usage is nowhere near what is projected there. Frostwire = Limewire Pro for free. This is what happens when you open-source your stuff! :)

  • 60%? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Arancaytar (966377) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:01PM (#32230980) Homepage

    That number seems either misleading or bullshit. Earlier reports were saying that the vast majority of peer-to-peer filesharing goes through BitTorrent, and now a different network is supposed to have more than half of the traffic?

    Perhaps they mean 60% of the non-torrent traffic?

    • by Larryish (1215510)

      Perhaps they meant 60% of total p2p client instances.

      Most of my relatives have no idea what bittorrent is, and they are totally ordinary Fox News and American Idol types. Most of them use LimeWire.

      Fortunately they live in states other than this one, which cuts down on the amount of ZOMG I HAVE A VIRUS!!!1 tech support calls.

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      One figure is what fraction of users use this particular client (LimeWire). The other figure is what fraction of bandwidth a particular protocol takes up, They're completely different measures.

  • Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RichardJenkins (1362463) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:17PM (#32231080)

    The sooner we get these people off Limewire and onto Bittorrent, the sooner I can stop having to clean trojans off my friends PCs every few weeks.

    • by moreati (119629)

      No sarcasm, or piss taking, I really am curious. Why does switching to Bittorrent mean fewer trojans/infections?

  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by devent (1627873) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:19PM (#32231098) Homepage
    That's a good thing. I wish they could stop all illegal downloads of music, videos and software. When people finally can't download any free content from the mafia (i.e. content industry) the people will finally see how expensive and restricted the legal alternative is and turn to free and independent sources.

    Imagen, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore. Maybe than people will see and embrace the free alternatives which are more than sufficient for at least 99% of the users. The same with music, that people can discover that there are plenty of independent music bands with music good as on MTV. And there is plenty of DRM free games, a few free to download, like the http://mashable.com/2009/10/20/world-of-goo-huge-success/ [mashable.com]
    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shados (741919) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:22PM (#32231134)

      This. seriously.

      Its true with most things: When people dodge the law, wether directly or by loopholes, there's no incensive to get the law changed, and things stay in an annoying gray area, and thats not good for anyone. Deal with the law, see how much it sucks, THEN there's a chance things will change.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Animats (122034)

      Imagine, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore.

      The problem is buying a machine without Windows or MS Office, not downloading it.

      Photoshop Elements ($79) is enough for most people. Really, the typical teenager in his parent's basement has no need for CYMK separation capability. Most printing plants prefer to do that themselves now; they know their own ink and press capabilities.

    • by westlake (615356)

      magen, if you can't download Windows, Photoshop or MS Office anymore

      The OEM system bundle of hardware and OS software has been the gold standard in the consumer market for thirty years.

      I can think of almost no one who pays - or needs to pay - retail list for the full version of MS Office. I do know that MS Office skills are marketable locally at any age. The ticket out of a welfare or SSI disability income for some folks.

      Photoshop retail boxed sells for the price of a decent telephoto lens from Nikon or S

  • Shareaza (Score:2, Informative)

    For those of you who have a reason to avoid torrents. Shareaza is an excellent (clean and superior) alternative. ( http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] ). It supports eDonkey2000, Gnutella, Gnutella2 and handles bitTorrent acceptably. It is free software (GPL).

    windows only (kinda works on wine)
  • Google (Score:4, Interesting)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Sunday May 16, 2010 @07:45PM (#32231292)
    And what is Google doing during each of these cases. As the RIAA wages battle against these smaller search engines (because, really, that's what they are) and wins, they are building an ever-increasingly large portfolio of prior case law. Eventually the RIAA are going to decide that enough cases have gone their way that they can wage the real battle - to go after Google (and Bing and Yahoo). I am shocked that Google's legal department is just sitting and watching these cases unfold without offering assistance. Then again, I'm not a lawyer nor a multi-billion dollar corporation so what do I know?...
  • What the fuck is he talking about? LimeWire is just one client... just one client... for the Gnutella network.
    There are many many others! Hell, take a ready-made gnutella library and build your own one in no time!

    Gnutella is not going anywhere, as it, being completely decentral, can’t be killed.
    My bet is on TFA being MAFIAA FUD.

  • God damn, stick a fork in it already. FrostWire perhaps?

    LOL, LimeWire. [cristgaming.com]

    (Yes it's a Flash file. Here be the YouTube version [youtube.com] if that makes ya nervous, ya scurvy dogs.)

    --
    Toro

  • Just to what extent is LimeWire really encouraging piracy? I don't use it so I wouldn't know. But from what I've seen, it is NOT encouraging people who are NOT pirates into becoming pirates. Instead, it IS encouraging people who are already pirates to come use their service instead. At this point the argument could go either way. That can be seen as facilitating piracy or at least profiting from it. OTOH, the argument could go that they are attracting pirates into gradually turn them into paying custo

  • by bedouin (248624) on Monday May 17, 2010 @12:45AM (#32233522)

    A 10+ year fight against something most people use and have no moral objection to -- except a pushy minority with special interests.

    History repeats itself. Ban P2P and 'elite' FTPs will reemerge with private memberships. High quality private torrent trackers already exist. Instead of joining a free P2P network you'll pay a guy in China a nominal fee for access to his file distribution network. Remember how much money pirates made in places like Thailand in the 90s just by selling things for a few dollars? All of the shady rackets will return, along with even more viruses since individual files will not be checked by large groups of people, or distributed via reliable release groups.

    Ban P2P and watch real crime and extortion take place. Eventually it will be a burden on authorities to chase after 15 year olds who want the new 50 Cent CD; the RIAA won't have money to toss to lawyers either, because their income will remain just as shitty as money goes to shad(ier) sources instead.

    For a decade now the biggest sites were targeted and shutdown, yet for some reason it gets easier each year to find what I need on-line. Hmm.

  • 60%, really? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fross (83754) on Monday May 17, 2010 @05:54AM (#32234952) Homepage

    "The article notes that LimeWire is used by nearly 60 percent of the people who download songs."

    I take it the article was written before the suit was filed then, sometime around 2003?

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...