LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes to tell us that in a recent court battle, Arista v. LimeWire, LimeWire has filed counterclaims against the RIAA for 'antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct.' From the article: "LimeWire alleged that the RIAA's 'goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers.'"

For those lawyers out there

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) will quickly dispose of this.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Still, it's the P2P services pushing back. The P2P services don't offer music, they offer files.

It's high time that a P2P service fight back in a meaningful way.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Given the number of frivolous lawsuits that the RIAA puts out?

Re:For those lawyers out there

... a borderline-frivolous lawsuit in your humble opinion. Obviously not for some lawyers representing Limewire.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Yes, IAAL: It's hard to gauge frivolity without knowing more about the case, and about any evidence that Limewire may have that could prove out their claims. If their claims have no basis in existing law or lack any evidentiary support (i.e. are frivolous), then the lawyers, their firm, or even Limewire could be sanctioned under Rule 11.

Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think. Few lawyers go out and just take a piss when it comes to filing motions. There is too much at stake. Sadly, it's only the frivolous suits or the cases involving plaintiffs who receive big judgments from what at first blush seem like frivolous suits that the public really cares to hear about.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Now that I think about it, I suspect that Limewire's counterclaims are not as frivolous as we think

IANAL, and while in law terms it might be frivolous, in simple common sense terms, the counter claim isn't frivolous, it's just stating the plain facts. IMO that IS the RIAA's game. The fact they're able to target people who are breaking laws that the RIAA have helped buy merely allows them to have some aura of legitimacy. If these people were using p2p legally, they'd find other ways to try to crush p2p.

Follow the Money

If there weren't a single RIAA song ever transferred over P2P you think that the RIAA would care?

Yes, they would care.

The Record Companies and by extention the RIAA are just like the Agents in "The Matrix". "They hold all the keys, and they guard all the doors" If you are going to distribute music in a big way, you MUST go to the Lables. If you, as a retailer, want to sell popular music, you MUST go to the Lables.

The Lables, take most of the risk, putting out hundreds of albums a year, with only a few proving to be hits. But the ones that really are hits, make the Lables lots of money. Today, some of the best selling ablums, day in, day out, are Pink Floyd, and The Beattles. This back catalog, costs them nothing, but rakes in big money, day after day after day.

Why? Because in the indentured servitude of artist to the record lable. The lable owns the music forever and makes the big money off of anything that sells. If it is not fair, why then does the artist not sign the unfair contract and sell it themselves? Because the reality is, without a lable, you cant sell on a large scale or get airplay, for a large enough audience to hear your music.

P2P is one of the ways the internet changes that. And if ANY artist, any garage band, via there website sells their album, and via P2P, have people discover there music, and then there website. The record labels, see NONE of that money. They can't claim the lions share for taking the risk for the artist of putting the album out. They can't take the lions share for the burden of adverising. They can't take the lionss share for being the source of music that sells.

For the lables to continue to make the kind of money they are used to, being what, 80% or more of the acutal profit from record sales, they have to be THE SOURCE for music. P2P has the power to cut them out of that loop and reduce them to having to play fair with artits and retailers. Taking their fair share for the work they do, and the service they actually provide artits.

They may squeel like a stuck pig right now, over piracy, and how much they are loosing, even with them making more now than they ever did before. But in the shell game of what is real, and what is spin, follow the money. The shell with the money under it, the one they keep in motion, the one they are trying to distract you from. Is the one where P2P destroys their stronghold on both the artist and retailer.

IAALs unite

IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.

As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.

In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.

Re:For those lawyers out there

I'm just not sure a borderline-frivolous lawsuit is a "meaningful way" of pushing back.

There's no such thing as a frivilous counterclaim once you've been sued. It's defensive. Lime wire didn't bring this suit... they only need the jury to consider their side of any part of the issue when it comes to damages.

Re:For those lawyers out there

You can certainly get FRCP 11 sanctions on a counterclaim on the grounds that its frivolous. So, yeah, you can have a frivolous counterclaim.

(b) Representations to Court.

By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,--

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.

Now I'm just going to tell you this and then retreat from this argument, because I can tell you're not familiar with this subject. I don't think you've ever heard of heresay rules, for example, where judges determine whether evidence is admissable or not in a court of law (this is not "weighing the evidence, by the way--that is something different). Like most of what a judge does, it is a purely administrative function that has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of a party, but instead provides a kind of constructive legal environment in which that determination can be made. In fairness, I didn't know that either until I went to law school. Cheers.

P.S. These are rules of civil procedure (i.e. they work great for civil cases, you know...lawsuits). Murder cases use a supplemental set of rules that prevent exactly the situation you described.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

not really, a judge's duties are to interpret existing laws and weigh evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of a party.

FYI, the court rules are created by the court (although there may be procedural rules enacted by the legislature as well). So for example, a State Supreme Court might promulgate rules of procedure to ensure a fair process, and local courts will all have their own special local rules (e.g., attach X cover page to Y motion, Motion Z are heard every Tuesday at 1:30, etc. etc. so long as they don't conflict with the generally applicable rules -- the Feds do the same thing essentially). It is very non-astonoshing that a court would then interpret rules it created, and FWIW, when a court interprets it's own rules, it is not engaging in the practice known as "legislating from the bench".

The purpose of Rule 11 is to prevent parties from engaging in abusive litigation. In the most general terms, Rule 11 means that if a party brings a suit, they need a minimal basis for that suit. Rule 11 is a court adopted rule and as such, it should be expected that courts will be responsible for interpreting and applying it. Remember, court procedure is merely about creating a fair forum so that a fact finder (judge or jury) can decide the ultimate issues. Shotgunning the court with baseless claims is detrimental to a fair process. Because it is the court's duty to provide a fair process, it must be able to step in when things get out of hand.

Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test

Not quite: "abusive" means without a basis in existing law or fact, or that there are no reasonable arguments to extend existing law. A law is not "abusive" just because one dislikes it. So for example, if a person violates another's copyright, the content-owner may sue the infringing-user for damages.

An example of abusive litigation would be if the RIAA intentionally sued someone when it absolutely knew he/she had not violtaed their copyrights. It is not likely to be considered abusive for the RIAA to sue someone if they have a reasonable factual basis to believe a violation took place. Note, a "reasonable factual basis" is not the same as an "ironclad case". So linking an IP address "owner" with shared music files is probably a strong enough basis to start a case. Other facts might change this during the discovery process but at least intially, it certainly wouldn't be "abusive" in the sense used here. For example, if in discovery it came out that the IP address "owner" didn't actually buy the network service, but someone else did after stealing his credit card, the RIAA would really need to drop the suit.

Re:there's nothing frivlous here

The whole point of copyright is temporary exclusivity.

There is a world of difference between temporary exclusivity on a single piece of music and ongoing long term exclusivity on a controlling percentage of the market.

If the law doesn't recognise that then the law is an ass.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot has many lying astroturfers [wikipedia.org] fraudulently misrepresenting company propaganda as third party opinion. FUD [wikipedia.org] too.

Re:there's nothing frivlous here

"The whole point of copyright is temporary exclusivity"

It's temporary in the sense that Earth is temporary - we're gonna get swallowed by the sun or "Big Crush"ed or something, but the fact is that there's no real reason to believe, given current trends, that copyrights are gonna expire, just like there's no reason to believe the sun won't rise tomorrow. Copyrights have been extended so many times now that it's silly to believe that they'll end without massive changes in Congress.

Re:For those lawyers out there

You know, I am just establishing an international, standardized computer network. But it is not my fault if people keep feeding that chain with spam or child porn on the other end. I'm just keeping the supply chain running, how am I supposed to control these things?

Indeed.

Re:And for those of us who aren't lawyers?

FRCP 12(b)(6) basically is grounds to dismiss one or more claims in a lawsuit because even if all the factual assertions made by the plaintiff are true, they have not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.

IANAL. This isn't legal advice.

Re:For those lawyers out there

The RIAA wants you to pay for that single, not download it for free. And while I agree that it may suck that you would have to go to Tower to indulge in your obsessive love for all things Britney, it's not as if the RIAA is trying to steal or throw out your vote, or kill your grandmother.

Exactly.. they sell you something then insist you're not allowed to do as you please with it, which is direct impediment of the individual right to personal property in the civilized world. This itself is not the most damning manifestation of this attitude though.. they now insist on slapping DRM all over everything... This would be like me selling you a house but denying you the right to open any exterior or bedroom doors, it is a spit in the face to the democratic concept of self determination and the capitalistic concept of individual property. You essentially become a serf.. you're not allowed to own what you buy.. you have to pay taxes on it though!

In order to prop up this regime they make sure EVERY political candidate is under their thumb. They do this by a carrot(bribery) and stick(threats of bad press.. their holding companies own the main stream press) approach.

Then when they can't properly keep a lid on it.. and keep up with technology, consumer demand, and the times, they extort random people into bankruptcy via manipulated laws.. threatening to "sue".. but if they simply don't challenge it they'll "only" have to pay 4 to 10 grand.. isn't that nice of them..

They are also campaigning and engaging in "re-education" of the populace.. isn't a representative democracy supposed to reflect the will of the people? I thought "re-education" only occurred in orwellian dystopias and totalitarian regimes.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Yeah man... the like revolution is like on its way man. You just wait dude, Americans of all types are going to put down their sushi, SUVs, and Bed Bath and Beyond discount cards like fight the man... man.

Please. If Americans (and I say this as an American) can't be bothered to go vote in numbers greater than 50%, I am pretty damn sure that the revolution over fucking music copyright infringement is probably not on its way. You can't even get Americans to vote yet you think that they are going to go into the streets or pick up weapons? Ahaha. Please.

The US already has a perfectly effective way of changing the rules that makes the notion of a revolution laughable. Just because Americans don't bother to use their democracy doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Hell if anyone can remember past 6 years ago, Ross Periot of all people came damn close to becoming president. The system works. We just don't use it. If there is anything wrong with the system is that it requires American citizens in order for it to run properly.

Re:For those lawyers out there

So this is why 2 american presidential candidates were arrested trying to gain entry to the 2004 debates?

The green and Badnark got arrested for trespassing. You can get yourself arrested too without much trouble; that doesn't make this Soviet America. You can't even put the US and a solid half of the world nations on the same scale when it comes to political freedom. Suggesting that you can simply shows deep ignorance about the state of the rest of the world.

oh please!.. the 2 reigning parties have essentially made it impossible for new parties to form.

I don't disagree in the slightest. You miss the larger point though which we shall get to in just a moment.

ross perot had 2 billion dollars at his disposal. Unless everyone else has that kind of money no.. the system does not work, and how dare you try to pretend otherwise

Ahh, now we are getting closer to the "problem" with American politics...

And this is why the majority of americans dont vote.. they know it's essentially communist china here with a little potpurri on the grungier and more totalitarian aspects.

And this is where the point flies right over your head. The Americans could have made Ross Perot president if they wanted to. Nazi storm troopers didn't drag Perot off in handcuffs. No evil corporate death squads showed up to prevent people from voting. Americans just didn't vote for him. They could have and they didn't. End of story.

Ask yourself why Ross Perot did so well. To give you a little history, this man for a brief time actually was LEADING in the polls. He only started to get trounced after his somewhat defective personality was brought to light by his public appearances. Ross Perot almost won because of marketing. Don't get me wrong, he had a message too, but what made him different from the Greens and Libertarians that loose each year is that not only was his message centrist enough to appeal (lets face it, the Greens and the Libertarians are extremist), but he had enough money drive his message like a spike through every single American's head.

This is the heart and the root of the problem with American democracy. Americans are too fucking lazy to learn about politics. You need to practically beat the American public in voting. You need to blast the airwaves and the TVs. You need to shove your message down their throat and send out armies of volunteers. The problem isn't that the poor oppressed masses of Americans don't have an alternative. They do have an alternative; they just either don't know about it because they don't bother to look. Even when they do have the alternative (as was the case with Perot), they further fail to not just vote for the alternative, but the majority simply fail to vote. The Americans are not the poor oppressed people whose will have been broken as you make them out to be. They are just flat out lazy and/or stupid. America's lack of choice is American's fault. Pure and simple.

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power. If Americans spent 5 minutes on the Internet, found an alternative, then voted for the alternative, the democins and republicrats would be out within a week. The Gestapo isn't going to stop them from voting or rig the election. No one is going to be sent to the Gulag for failing to vote for one of the two established parties. If they simply voted differently, the established parties would vanish.

Any political failures in the American political system are not the fault of evil corporations and politicians. The blame lies completely and ONLY on the shoulders of the voting (and more importantly) non-voting public. The failures of our political system stem directly from a failure to exercise the political power that all Americans over the age of 18 have.

So can it with the inane talk of revolutions and evil corporations. If you think the system is so corrupt, do this

Re:For those lawyers out there

Or, as Thomas Jefferson wrote [virginia.edu]:

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree.
-- Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782.

And . . .

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

Re:For those lawyers out there

Ok.. I've boiled your reply to the most relevant phrase which sums up your point..

If Americans were not so complicate and easily swayed by corporate sponsored political marketing campaigns, corporations would have no power

You do realize that modern marketing campaigns are designed by behavioralists and psychologists.

While the popular media depiction of "brainwashing" is a bunch of hodoo-voodoo nonsense, there is a real technique of what is termed "Conversion tactics" in psychological circles. It is a real process by which a person who has properly learned about the techniques can, with cold calculation, manipulate people's opinions, propensities, preferences, outlook, and behavior.

It's been in use by revivalist preachers since the 1600's, and studied and formalized by pavlov among others.

The guns and troops method is not the only method of subjugating the will of a population.. from a competitive market comes much more efficient and subtle ways to do it.

The few who recognize what is going on are diluted by the converted masses, and the even fewer who are able to excercise the carisma and talent to reverse the effects are carefully identified and unobtrusively "removed" from society before they can rock the boat.

It's not well publicised, but king was not assassinated for advocating civil rights for african americans.. it was only after he began speaking out for the poor and against the domination and exploitation of lower classes by moneyed interests that he was put down.

My argument may have been presented in the grandparent with a little more than a "bit" of hyperbole, but still the root stands.

Does anyone else want to say...

stay off my side? I agree with that LimeWire is saying, and I like LimeWire, but their business model is based off illegally downloading music, for the most part. I don't feel like I want this business model fighting fo rour rights. It doesn't give legitimacy to our side.

Re:Does anyone else want to say...

You do understand that our forefathers were traitors by definition of english law, that civil rights protestors were breaking jim crow laws, union men during the time of rockafeller were breaking laws, and finally anyone who drank during prohibition was breaking the law.

When the law is wrong people will fight for their right to do what is criminal. that said.. what is criminal is not necessarily morally wrong.

Judge Says: "Don't waste my time criminal"

Whatever they claim just doesn't sound right because, you know... That whole Napster thing... And, you know, those napster users were probably smoking teh pot too. Criminals. All of them.

The judge is thinking there's no way files can be legitimately shared... Who makes their own music? Why would they want to give it away? Smells like some kind of crazy thing my weird liberal parents might have done.

Let's not forget the judge has a windows desktop using totally proprietary software with antivirus and antispyware and anti-this and anti-that run by a system administrator who babysits the judge when the computer has a hic-up.

The judge experiences it all as working and working well, so where's the crime here?

End of LimeWire.

FRCivP 12(6)(b)

Every defense, in law or fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.

Hurray!

Tagging it as "hurray". Why didn't I think of this first? It seems obvious now - sue RIAA for antitrust. Ingenious! No sarcasm.

yeahhhh, right there, oh oh ohhhh, joygasm

Even if nothing happens, at least I got a good laugh with (at?) Limewire and the RIAA (yeah, definitely laughing AT them). It just adds a new paragraph to this already hilarious and ridiculous saga.

There is one hope here....

At least as I see things. That is the hope that in the 'exploitation' of this countersuit, the judge sees some evidence of wrong-doing by the RIAA, and that judge, in some way, agrees they are using anticompetative practices. If that is all that is firmly established in this court case, it is enough to let other lawyers build upon, or I hope that it is.

One thing is sure, as my grandpa used to say, there is no smoke without fire. The trouble is often seeing through the smoke to find the fire. I for one hope that Limewire and their lawyers at least make it more than slightly noticable to John Q. Public that the RIAA is anti-competative and anti-consumer. I hope they are able to blow aside the smoke so we all can see the smoldering fire of the RIAA's business model.

About time on the antitrust thing

As much as I wish someone other than a file sharing software maker was running the ball on this play, it's still a big deal for someone to be bringing up antitrust issues as a plaintiff against the RIAA - even if it's only as a "counter plaintiff".

For the time being, I say forget who LimeWire is and what the majority of their users do; get behind them in this. Whether LimeWire prevails in their defense pales in significance compared to the importance of these counterclaims.

IANAL of course.

Poor excuse for a counter-claim

First, IANAL, but I am in law school and have at least a basic knowledge of counterclaims, the FRCP, etc...

I'm glad to see someone finally attempting to take the RIAA to the mat on this one. There probably is some substance to the allegations, and it certianly would do a good job of airing the RIAA's dirty laundry, since this counter claim will entitle LimeWire to all sorts of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Unfortunately....

This is a very poorly written counterclaim. It reads like a junior-high anti-RIAA manifesto, not a pleading appropriate for a federal lawsuit. For example (this is all taken from the counterclaim):

"27. Counter-Defendants' latest attack on such 'disruptive' technology is not new, for history shows that when new technology is invented that potentially disrupts the exclusive distribution channels content owners are accustomed to and profit from, they usally attack such technology with a vengance"

"28. This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models."

Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts), but c'mon. These are extraordiarily sweeping generalizations. Further, LimeWire may have problems actually proving the RIAA is attempting to destory "all innovation", as allegation 28 claims. I imagine that they are attempting to use this pleading as some kind of a manifesto, but that is not appropriate for a court of law, and virtually ensures limewire will not survive RIAA's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Fortunately, pleadings can be easily amended, and I hope LimeWire will amend them so the legitimate issues can actually have a chance to be litigated. Such sweeping allegations do little to set precedent, even with a summary judgment motion (as a smarter litigator would lay out more specific claims, largely precluding any precedental effect); nonetheless, it makes the anti-RIAA cause seem childish and devoid of intellegent argument against the RIAA's monopolistic practices.

RIAA, Limewire, Kazaa, whatever...

I don't download tunage. I go to a friend's house with my hard drive. Plug it in, and click and drag and click and drag....

The RIAA will have a hard time beating an MP3 LAN party....

RS

Genius

My respect for limewire just went up ten fold. As for the RIAA, I still loathe them. I'm glad to see someone going for the jugular even though I somehow doubt this will accomplish anything. Perhaps it will motivate other businesses to gather arms against the RIAA?

Wait, you forgot!

...and artists!

Thanks!
rhY

RIAA IS Running Scared

The RIAA is running scared. Thier stranglehold om the music industry is about end. THis is good. Not becasue the RIAA is EVIL, but becasue it is in my opinion Stagnant. The best artists it seem never get a good break as oftwen as it seems. THe interent is just beginning to open the floodgate on what is available in Music. The RIAA does not have control over what people are listening to any more and the music industry will change for the better. The people who take adavantage of the internet will profit for the good of us all. The RIAA is still trying to hold the status quo and is terrified of what the internt lets people do. Pick and choose the music THEY THE CUSTOMER wants. The actions of the Anti-trust suit is the defense of the individual from the dying Dinosaur on a rampage trying to stay alive. The RIAA NMust change with the times and accept what is happening or it will die a slow painful death.

Good luck limewire

You will need it. They have a tad larger war chest, and win the war of attrition pretty easy. But good luck anyway.

It may very well be doomed from the start....

But what the hey, it's the thought that counts, right?

There's nothing to see here, move along

IANAL, but I do work in patent/copyright/trademark law. Antitrust counterclaims are so common, it's ridiculous. This counterclaim doesn't mean anything. Basically, antirturst counterclaims are just reflixive defensive maneuvers. What happens is that I sue you for infringement, and then you countersue me, claiming that my initial suit is knowingly baseless and that by asserting it against you, I am in violation of antiturst laws. That is, my suit against you is an unfair practice against competition; by filing it against you, I am using a baseless charge (which I know to be baseless) to stiffle competition. Almost all of these go nowhere. That's not to say that none of them do, but really, almost all of them have no bite except to add a few more filings with the court and a little more discovery and arguments on each side.

Watch closely; Lime Wire has them dead to rights

I think this one is different, because it is totally true. Basically all of the facts it alleges are indisputable. As any antitrust lawyer knows, even under the purely undisputed facts, the 4 major record labels have definitely stepped over the line vis a vis the antitrust laws. The only question is whether the Lime Wire defendants have the staying power (read: "money") to see their excellent claims through to fruition. This is the most important technology case in the country, and I will be watching it closely, linking to the key *pdf court filings here [riaalawsuits.us].

Stupid.

As much as I'd like to see the RIAA and it's international equivalents get a kick up the backside, 'see the light' and implement a decent, legal alternative that includes all artists at a reasonable price, this is just a silly claim.

First, it's reactionary - counterclaims seem to be a bit childish "You said I did this, but YOU did this, ner ner ner-ner ner" and most of them never even see the light of day.

LimeWire is a content distribution system, not a competitor to the record industry, and the content that they distribute is actually owned by the record *industry*. Were this a single record company that was dictating how and when it's music could be sold, and they were a record shop who had been denied the right to buy/sell their products, they may have a case.

Additionally, quite a lot of the content that flies over LimeWire is actually not legal at all, vastly outweighing that which may be legal. This is like a video shop that sells mostly pirate videos suing the movie industry for "monopolising" the video industry and not letting them distribute their videos as they see fit.

It won't go anywhere. It won't even make it past the court's most basic ruling stages.

I Need To Know

Does anyone know what evidentiary demands have been made of the RIAA in the past? I know that they attempt to prove that the defendant allowed people to download songs from their machine, and therfore sue them essentially for distribution. But it seems to me that an effective defense would be to insist that each download be tracked to the downloader, that for every instance the inifringement should be proven. No doubt there are cases where the downloader owns the CD but is too lazy to rip it himself...I know I have done this for at least half of my MP3s. Could this strategy have any merit by raising the bar of proof, since fair use no doubt would cover a copy of somethign you already paid for?

And yes, I know that they want us to pay each time we download it, until we die, over and over again. I know they're evil, but is there an option here for an effective defense?

This is good

While I'm against piracy of all kinds, and see little justification for it in most cases, (despite pirates hypersensitive claims to the contrary) I see this as a good move.

Limewire?

I'm surprised Limewire of all people is fighting back; I would have thought BitTorrent or such would have struck back before Limewire.

Nonetheless, I am happy the RIAA is finally getting hit with their own medicine; this whole online music fiasco is really starting to annoy me, let alone make me worry about the music I have and what punishments I may get for buying any RIAA-sponsored music labels. This is why I currently don't buy anything RIAA-sponsored.

The eventual plan

I figured this out the other day.

The eventual plan of the copyright cartels is this: First, continually lobby Congress for longer and longer copyright protections. That way, nothing ever falls out of copyright.

As time goes on, the cartels will buy up all the copyrighted content they can, from individual content producers. Not all content producers will be willing to sell to the cartels, but many will.

As the amount of copyrighted material piles up, it'll be harder and harder to produce something which doesn't resemble other copyrighted material, most of which will be owned by the cartels.

So the cartels will sue (or threaten to sue) the individual content producers for violating their copyrights -- and the deal they'll offer is either to buy the content for a pittance (and drop the lawsuit), or to take it all in the lawsuit (which they will have little trouble winning, most of the time).

The end result is that the cartels will control almost all copyrightable content. The only material they don't control will be the content that's been produced so recently that they haven't had time to sue the creator yet.

How about artists that use Lime Wire sue?

Been gone for months -- work contracts in fall take up 20 hours a day. Weird to be back.

I repudiate copyright. I make content -- written word, music, we even design lighting shows for congregations. We copyright nothing and openly allow people to copy it. I now produce 3 bands who repudiate copyright. At their shows, they say "Hey! Buy our CDs if you like our music, copy it for your friends and family." Why is this bad? The music is a nice income, but their SHOWS are their real labor. A great album takes me 4-12 weeks to produce, and can make significant money for the band over years of show dates.

How about bands (and content creators) get their music on Lime Wire NOW, and try to get their music into the music stores? How about anti-RIAA supporters download this LEGAL music from Lime Wire. Now individuals, NOT CLASS LITIGATION, can work together on a Wiki site that encourages EVERYONE to put together a nice lawsuit to file individually, locally. What does it cost the individual to sue the RIAA in small claims for hampering their freedom to transact business? The RIAA _can not stop_ all the lawsuits, so judgements might be had.

I'm not talking about any group boycott, I'm talking about enabling individuals to help each other in their individual testimony against the RIAA.

FWIW, I repudiate the law, as well, and I would never sue another person in court. If I have a beef, I get a third party arbitrator. I don't do business with individuals who won't agree to this basic hand-shake agreement. Just an idea for others.

Price fixing

The RIAA exists essentially for illeagle price fixing, and it's high time that somebody called them on it.

Much as I enjoy slamming the RIAA...

Much as I enjoy slamming the RIAA, I'm not sure how antitrust comes into this. There's thousands of artists distributing music online, either directly from their own websites or through sites like the Piano Society, download.com, Magnatune, emusic.com, and many others for free or for pay.

And so, it begins . . .

Trust me: win, lose or draw - this is not the last time *AA will be sued. Their previous policy of attacking only the defenseless was mind-shatteringly brilliant. Unfortunately, now they're not involved with granny and her "computer thingie", or taking nickels off school-kids - they've attacked somebody's income, somebody with more than a few G's to lose! Damned straight they're gonna fight back like hell. I just hope the RIAA doesn't choose to settle out-of-court.

A credible defence to the RIAA for any infringer?

This is one of the best /. posts I've seen for legal interpretations - a lot of lawyers are explaining things in a manner that is educational for those of us not versed in law.

Kudos to all of you so participating.

I am sure this has come up before but I need to ask:

If the RIAA sues me because my IP address was noted sharing content, is it reasonable to say:

"You can't assume it was me - I have a wireless router running for my laptop and didn't set up encryption because
  or

It's likely that a number of other people are using my connection at any given time."

Wouldn't this pretty much make it impossible to flag you as the guilty party then, especially after you received notice that you were being sued and removed all traces of the p2p program and illegal materials from your system?

What about the antitrust issues?

I'm trying to understand why this discussion is being pushed towards everything but the antitrust issues which are the subject of the post.

Yesterday evening a critically important major antitrust suit was brought against the big 4 record labels. If this case is seen through to conclusion it will probably result in the breaking of the Big Music cartel's attempt to put a stranglehold on online digital music throughout the world.

And yet it seems that we are talking about everything but.

We are not even talking about the copyright issues that will be in play as a result of the RIAA's complaint which was filed 2 months ago.

It's about time!!!

It's about time. The RIAA has run over the rights of independant artists for so long, that no action to stop them is to extreme. Until we get weapons grade material, (we've already got the open source bomb project,) our best bet is to give donations to LimeWire for legal expenses.

Go Lime Wire!

Andy Out!

Buy LimeWire Pro

Good for them. I am buying a copy of LimeWire Pro, and will renew it every six months as long as they are standing up to the record companies in this manner.

Right suit, Wrong Company

Limewire is the last company who should be suing XXXAA.
If only Itunes would join suit....

They ought to hit 'em for RICO too.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest." -- Robert Heinlein, "Life-Line" (1939)

Score!

Title should read "Good guy lobs grenade over fence into RIAA territory"

Re:Limewire's claim has a point

Check his sig. I think he's doing his part.

Re:Comments praising Limewire sicken me.

Becvause some people disagree with the concept of content ownership. Others believe the harm being done is greatly exaggerated.

(And some others are hypcrites).

Re:Comments praising Limewire sicken me.

How can anyone with brains defend Limewire?

Read the countersuit completely. They attempted to 1 filter the material using a hash of the copyrighted songs provided by the RIAA, and 2 attempted to lisence the copyrighted material. The RIAA and labels would neither provide a license or hash of the copyrighted songs to use as a filter. The cartel failed to prevent damages and only decided to SUE SUE SUE. Limewire responded with We asked, begged and pleaded for both material to use in a filter, and license to sell DRM'ed legal audio files.

It's like back in the 1980's. Lucas films said they would never release Star Wars to the video market. There was no way possible to obtain a legal copy. Due to piracy they changed their mind. However by then I had a copy for over 4 years. Limewire is playing the same game. Please License, provide filter hashes, as we want to also open an online store. Now that the RIAA has opened the can of worms, the defense is there is no legal avenue to compete with price fixing of the cartel in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. They tried and begged at the door. They cite every new dirstrubition method has been met the exact way from Player Piano rolls, to Radio, to the Betamax case, to the Rio MP3 player, Online stores, and now Peer to Peer.

Please read the countersuit. I think it has some merit.

So what?

It's entire business model is based on making content they do not own available to entities not entitled to it.

So what? The recording industries model is based on owning content they do not make. They are surplus to requirements nowadays as the artists themselves (or their agents) can handle distribution just fine.

Re:The solution for everyone is so simple...

HAHAHAhahahahahah no they don't. They become more oppressive.

You'll re-buy parts of your music collection every time there's a format change or a hardware change.

You will have to pay more for used CDs (the RIAA argues royalties are owed to the artists for each sale, not just first sale).

You will have to pay fees to the RIAA for the purchase of blank media, since it can be used for infringing purposes.

More frivolous lawsuits that cost them little but potentially innocent defendants a lot.
I'd much rather their lawyers were busy tangling with LimeWire than thinking more ways to tighten their copyright noose.

Re:O_o

Yeah... I thought about that right after I submitted.

Oh well, apparently I've been abusively overrated - I hope whoever meta-moderates this realizes that my post didn't deserve a -1.