Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Piracy Music Open Source The Courts Your Rights Online

LimeWire Lives Again 278

Posted by Soulskill from the there's-a-lesson-here dept.
Slayer Silver Wolf writes with this excerpt from TorrentFreak: "'On October 26 the remaining LimeWire developers were forced to shut down the company's servers and modify remote settings in the filesharing client to try to harm the Gnutella network. They were then laid off. Shortly after, a horde of piratical monkeys climbed aboard the abandoned ship, mended its sails, polished its cannons, and released it free to the community.' And so, LimeWire Pirate Edition (LPE) was born. Based on the LimeWire 5.6 beta that was briefly released earlier this year and then withdrawn when Lime Wire LLC lost its lawsuit, LPE is now in the wild. In many ways, it is better than the version killed by the RIAA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LimeWire Lives Again More

LimeWire Lives Again

Comments Filter:

  • Why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deathtopaulw ( 1032050 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:16AM (#34172470) Homepage
    Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

    • Re:Why (Score:4, Funny)

      by martinux ( 1742570 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:27AM (#34172568)

      It's a wonderful reminder to the companies attempting to shut down such services that it's almost completely impossible.

      I think the fact that they can say, "we're back" less than a month after a court 'killed' the service is going to be very disappointing to the RIAA/MPAA and other international equivalents.

      Their legal representation probably just threw an impromptu party though.

      • Yep, I'm thinking of starting to use just to spite them, even though I've never used it before (maybe I installed a couple of times to test it, dunno).

    • Re:Why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tx ( 96709 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:32AM (#34172632) Journal

      Having an ecosystem of different file sharing software and protocols is valuable insofar as it makes it harder to prevent all file sharing. Assuming you don't want to shut down all file sharing of course. The authorities tend to focus on whatever are the protocols du jour (at the moment bittorrent and rapidshare-type file lockers), but meanwhile you have all sorts of protocols from the past like gnutella, dc++, edonkey etc still happily working away mostly under the radar. I'd guess if you're sharing stuff you'd be less likely to land an enforcement notice if you're using a more obscure protocol. Maybe you might escape notice of deep packet inspection systems and so avoid throttling by your ISP, if they have implemented that.

      Just guessing, but in any case it seems sensible not to just assume that bittorrent is the apotheosis of file-sharing, and that nothing else will ever be useful.

      • "The authorities tend to focus on whatever are the protocols du jour " But on a one-year delay. They don't react very fast.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zach_the_lizard ( 1317619 )
      My cousin uses limewire. How do I know? I was called in to remove the layers of viruses, Trojans, and rootkits from the machine. As soon as I saw that Limewire was on the machine, I knew this was a lost cause.

      • You can hear it in their voice from the first second. Limewire is popular with cocky bastards who will steal as much stuff as they can get their hands on.

        Thoughtful pirates aren't often using Limewire.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by bedwards ( 1937210 )

      Limewire has been so painfully irrelevant for the past 8 years now that it laughable to even still hear the name. It's like when an old man mentions "That damn Napster" as a free music service. I can only imagine the people who still use this thing are admins just wanting to test their corporate anti-virus.

      You'r right. Limewire is utterly irrelevant as a file sharing service - but it makes a useful case study in the use of litigation to destroy a product. If this pirate edition is well accepted, and traffic on the gnutella network increases, Hopefully the people that sued them will learn that lengthy, costly ligation against software developers is utterly futile if the developers release the code into the wild and the software is back a month later. Hopefully those who develop efficient file sharing paradigm

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by numbski ( 515011 )

      Y'know, Napster, and in turn OpenNap, are still what I believe to be the pinnacle of what music sharing is and could have been. I haven't used it anytime recently, but the last time I checked AudioGnome was still alive and kicking.

      Parts of Napster, like being able to browse each others' music library is still sorely missed IMHO.

    • And its been replaced by??? (Score:4, Informative)

      by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @10:57AM (#34174558)
      Limewire is written in Java, meaning it is portable. Limewire can download via a Bittorrent mesh of pieces, and it can also download via a Gnutella mesh of pieces, with Gnutella often able to use Tigertree hashes. So you have the best of both worlds.

      I don't see what has come out that surpasses Limewire. Bittorrent is dependent on a web page for searching for files and for finding peers. DHT and Peer Exchange help in this somewhat. Bittorrent is also dependent on web pages in searching for files. Tribler, Cubit and Torrent Exchange are attempts to solve this, but nothing has come out that deals with this, while it has been OK from day one with Gnutella. Gnutella is fundamentally peer-to-peer and extensible. If something better has replaced Limewire I haven't heard of it.

    • Not really. It's disturbing just how many idiots still use it. For instance, the Yahoo! Answers (that site has the lowest collective IQ of any popular page on the internet, even beating Youtube commenters) computer section has been filled with people asking what to do now that Limewire was shut down. Hey guys, maybe that's why you keep asking about how to get rid of viruses, too, because the crap that comes up on Limewire is lousy with them.

  • You can't win (Score:2, Redundant)

    by jank1887 ( 815982 )

    If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

    • My thoughts exactly. I'm glad you said it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chapter80 ( 926879 )

      If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine

      The first thing that popped into my head was: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

  • it's been said (Score:5, Funny)

    by Combatso ( 1793216 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:20AM (#34172504)
    that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

    • can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      can an infinite number of monkeys spell "infinite" correctly?

    • Too many high profile special interests are attached to either monkeys or keyboards. Therefore, the *IAA will have the FDA interrupt the normal food sources of monkeys; and require them to eat the same processed foods as humans. From the artificial preservatives and genetically engineered rape seed oil, the monkeys will eventually develop attitude problems and social dysfunction. Depending on the prevailing genetic traits of the monkeys, they will either recreate Linux or MS Windows.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sorak ( 246725 )

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

      If the RIAA has proven anything, it's that an infinite number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually write a series of Vin Diesel movies.

    • that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

      I think the "*IAA" in this case is the Publishers' Guild of America, but I don't know. (I don't live in the USA, FWIW.)

      [Also, starting a sentence in the subject and continuing it in the body annoys some people. Also also, it's `infin/i/te' and `/S/hakespe/are/'. JTYMLTK]

      • I don't worry about annoying people. However thank you for the markup, I will make those corrections before submitting my final draft.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by VShael ( 62735 )

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.. does this mean the *IAA will seek to outlaw monkeys, or just the practice of giving monkeys keyboards?

      Neither, since Shakespeares works are in the Public domain and we don't have an infinite amount of time.

      However, Dan Browns novels will take a dozen monkeys about two weeks, so I think you might be on to something there.

    • Re:it's been said (Score:4, Insightful)

      by debrain ( 29228 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @09:59AM (#34173770) Journal

      that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere

      Wouldn't an infinite number of monkeys instantaneously recreate the works of Shakespeare, or one monkey working for an infinite amount of time?

      Two infinites does not a greater infinite make.

      • I think you just showed the meaninglessness of using the word "infinity" in a physical context.

        "An incomprehensibly large number" does not mean the same as "an infinite number". There are not an infinite number of particles in the universe.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by j_sp_r ( 656354 )

      Won't a finite number of monkeys working for infinite time or a infinite number of monkeys working for a finite time also recreate the works of Shakespeare?

    • that an infinate number of monkeys, working for an infinate amount of time will eventually recreate the works of shakespere.

      That's been said, but now that we have the blogosphere we know that's not the case after all.

      • there is a difference.. the idea is that the monkeys are smashing their keyboards, producing mostly random garbage... with a small chance of actually forming words and ideas by mistake... or perhaps eventually they come up with written language the parallells ours... and by chance rewrite literature..

        Bloggers on the other hand produce seemingly random garbage that gets copy and pasted to other blogs, with no chance of forming ideas by mistake.

        • Fair enough, but when copying long strings of characters over and over like that, one might at least hope for the occasional mutation, and that once in a while one of those would actually be beneficial.

          I know, I know, idealist.

  • Limewire??? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Stooshie ( 993666 )
    Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Spotify Not Available to Me (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:28AM (#34172576) Journal

      Why would anyone use that virus-ridden "piece of eight" when you can listen to almost any piece of music you like, legally, on Spotify? (Legal film equivalents are being worked on too).

      Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org]? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

      But yes, I avoid LimeWire like the plague after several spyware debacles and am kind of curious why, if LimeWire's servers are down, you would use it over Gnutella when the networks it is connecting to are (I assume) all of Gnutella's servers?

      Hell, I would assume FrostWire is still a viable and better choice ...

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by mikael_j ( 106439 )

        Because you don't live in the very small section of the world where Spotify is allowed [wikipedia.org]? Also, LimeWire is GPL where as Spotify is proprietary (what are they storing about you?).

        Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

        • Hm let's see...proprietary...proprietary...proprietary...I think we can see what the problem is here.

          Proprietary software is designed to keep people divided like this.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hitmark ( 640295 )

            Mostly to pander the old divided world that technically came into being thanks to differences in tech choices, but that the industry later learned to harness for economic gains (staggered movie releases, anyone?). High speed net connections (especially flat rate and always on, allowing many2one p2p transfers) have thrown a very big wrench into this, and what we are seeing is the trashing of a dying animal (lawsuits, more draconian laws and more). This as at least one nation appears to have bet the national

        • Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere when all the americans realize that those of us over here can't download TV shows through the iTunes store and that Hulu blocks access as well (well, there are always US iTunes accounts and proxies but it's a serious PITA).

          This gets modded informative? Some guy bitching offtopic that he can't get his American TV shows when he lives in Europe? On a thread about LimeWire?

          What, do I have access to all of Great Britain's television shows? Do I have access to all the programming in Spain or Sweden? Do you think, for some reason, that because we're Americans we have everything over here? Heads up, we're supposed to be the idiots!

          Why is it when distribution contracts prevent you from enjoying something over Hulu, you

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 )

            Do you really think that every American is scheming to keep our precious reality TV from your eyes?

            Hmmm? We're not? We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little Europeans. Wicked, tricksy, false!

        • There are more Americans than there are Europeans who live in a country that gets Spotify. Plus, this is a US site.

        • I'm European too and I can't access Spotify, you insensitive clod! Europe has more than seven countries, you know?

        • Us europeans will stop pretending Spotify is available everywhere ...

          Everywhere? It's not even available in all European countries?

      • If you need to search with characters outside Latin-1 your choices are limited. Limewire is one of only two Gnutella clients available for Windows that support Unicode. Unfortunately they're both Java apps to you basically have to pick your poison.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by tehcyder ( 746570 )
      Well (a) you have to pay for the full spotify service, the free version is limited in the amount of time you can listen and has ads, and (b) there are other things than music that people download (movies, programs...)
      • £5 per month (£10 to include mobile) is much less than I would pay if I had to download and pay for everything I listened to. + all the extras like searching, sharing, bios etc...

    • Because you think that the entire world is America, er, Britain.

  • Evolution of the fittest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by captainpanic ( 1173915 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2010 @08:21AM (#34172514)

    Shut down a losing concept, and another improved version will take its place.

  • chop off its head, and ten grow back

    the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet. since that's not going to happen, and because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media, guess what: game over

    simple economics 101 have spoken: filesharing is here to stay, and the only thing that will die is distributors who make money off of distributing content. boo hoo

    economics is about supply and demand. the internet is disruptive media. it is disruptive, because it changes the basic technology, and therefore the basic economics, of media distribution: one teenager in 2010 has more global reach and distribution power than bertelsmann, time warner, sony, etc., in 1985

    so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible. you can't enforce a marketplace form a dead technological era on us

    people will still make money off of music, movies, etc.: ancillary real world revenues. like concerts, like cinema houses. avatar is the most profitable movie ever made... all in movie houses. concerts reap millions for artists. but DVDs, CDs... it's all going away. artistry is not dying, only the useless middleman. do not weep for him and do not believe his trollish pronouncements about hurting the artist. sure it will take time, and the death throes will be mighty, but the writing is on the wall. game over

    there is nothing for you to do, dear old school media distributors, save one thing: just hurry up and die already

    • the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet

      Even that is not really true; consider this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_n_Edie's [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dwandy ( 907337 )

      because you would need more money controlling and monitoring traffic (effectively) than any money you profit off of media

      Tho I agree with your post the problem is that they won't be spending their own money to monitor the 'net. They have already co-opted law enforcement to go after digital pirates and they want the ISPs to bear the cost of monitoring.
      So ultimately all these costs of monitoring and enforcement are then born by us, but the profits remain theirs.

    • the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet.

      Not really, no. They just need to block incoming connections to every consumer, requiring every connection to pass through a server (datacenters would be allowed to have incoming connections), which would be easier to track and kill.

      Sure, a few services like Skype would die too, but most of the Web wouldn't really be affected.

      This is already happening in part, with ISPs natting clients en mass.

    • so when the cost associated with supply = $0, demand follows to that natural economically determined price point, and no other price is possible

      The problem is, the cost to supply isn't zero. Somebody paid for the instruments, equipment, studio time, etc... etc... That someone usually insists on being paid back - so the natural price point is nonzero.

      Nor is the cost to distribute (what you confuse with the cost to supply) zero. Servers, connectivity, bandwidth, it all costs money. So again, that

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 )
        What if the cost is non-zero, but small enough that producers are willing to pay it themselves and take their reward in the form of personal satisfaction and some measure of fame?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by L3370 ( 1421413 )
        If I spend money making 1000 widgets expecting to sell out completely, that's my decision as the producer/investor. Whether I find customers who want to buy those 1000 widgets is a different story. If I don't sell enough widgets to break even, I lose money on a BAD investment

        The customer couldn't care any less what the supply cost is. They only care about the price--and will only buy if that price is within a range they are willing to pay.

        If a musician spends money making music, fine. If they fail to se

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 )
      "the only way to destroy filesharing is to destroy the internet"

      I have no doubt that right now a lot of very powerful people are trying to work out how to destroy the internet as it exists today, and reform it into something more favorable to making a profit.
  • Virus-ridden music files are now free again!
  • You can't stop the signal, Mal.
    It seems they'll never get this simple concept through their antiquated-business-model brains: People will find a way, even if it means resorting to SneakerNet.

Slashdot Top Deals

According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless.

Close