Slashdot Log In
LimeWire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:31 PM
from the everyone-seems-to-know-except-the-lawmakers dept.
from the everyone-seems-to-know-except-the-lawmakers dept.
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.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: RIAA Goes after LimeWire 304 comments
PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. "
[+]
LimeWire Antitrust Claims Against RIAA Dismissed 67 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The antitrust counterclaims imposed by Lime Wire against the RIAA record companies have been dismissed. In a 45-page decision (pdf), the Court relied principally upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly that 'A party's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Ironically, the Twombly decision was the authority upon which the RIAA's copyright infringement complaint was dismissed in Interscope v. Rodriguez."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Does anyone else want to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone else want to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a great deal of respect for artists that are willing/able to break with the RIAA, and allow their music to be downloaded,
Judge Says: "Don't waste my time criminal" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Downloading music is a great way to try before you buy, so you don't get suckered into blowing your allowance on some one-hit-wonder crap band's whole album. Its a great way to explore different music and discover new bands, other than the "top 40" you might hear on the radio. If you had to buy every new CD that came out in order to hear new music, no one could afford it (maybe if you we
There is one hope here.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what the status of the RIAA is, but in many European countries, there is a single organization tasked with finding and prosecuting copyright violations. In other words, competition is prohibited by law. If the same is true of the RIAA, I don't see how they can be accused of anticompetitive practices.
``One thing is sure, as my grandpa used to say, there is no
About time on the antitrust thing (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, I know allegations set forth in a pleading do not require specifics (that what discovery and trial are for...to prove facts),
You mean specifics that are spelled out including the introduction of the Player Piano and piano rolls, The introduction of the Radio, The introduction of the Betamax VCR, the Introduction of the Rio MP3
The eventual plan (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
It's high time that a P2P service fight back in a meaningful way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Follow the Money (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
IAALs unite (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Informative)
(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;
Parent
Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (Score:3, Informative)
Well no kidding, that's exactly the kind of determination that a judge should be trusted to make. News flash! Judges can also determine the outcome of court cases as well! It's kind of their job!
(Incidentally, you might want to cite all of FRCP Rule 11 instead of just the parts that appear to be most "subjective" to you.) Plus, I'm not sure I even understand your point. Determining whether or not a suit is frivolous is ju
Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Actually, that would be jury nullification... (Score:3, Informative)
I was on a jury in a drug case.
Even if I did not have a personal policy of "no guilty verdict" in any drug case, I still would have had reservations regarding the lead detective. At the risk of sounding trite - he just didn't sound b
Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Can you say "totally subjective" frivolity test (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
there's nothing frivlous here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:there's nothing frivlous here (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:there's nothing frivlous here (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed.
Parent
And for those of us who aren't lawyers? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And for those of us who aren't lawyers? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL. This isn't legal advice.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:4, Informative)
And . . .
Parent
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The only thing wrong with the American democracy is that it relies on Americans to run it.
OK ,then Outsource it to India or maybe China can offer more competative rates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You talk like it's one man one vote, or like voting registration and counting weren't been cheated in the last two presidential elections.
I turned 18 in September of 2000, and I have only had ability to vote in the last two presidential elections. Both times it has been obvious to even a lot of non-tin-hat-wearing Americans that forces outside of America's voting power control, to some extent, the outcome of the election.
It's easy to place the blaim squarly and singly on the shoulders of the public, decla
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA wants you to pay for that single, not download it for free. And while I agree that it may suck that
Re:For those lawyers out there (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They sell you a disc of media with the understanding that you can listen to it. You have the choice to NOT shell out $15 to them to get the listening rights to the music contained on the disc and thus protect your personal property. If you want to be able to copy and distribute the music, you are free to negotiate wit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
but as for this:
I'm flabbergasted that someone who claims to be a pussy liberal
The terms "pussy" and "liberal" do not belong in the same sentence.
As this applies to me.. think about the fact that I said what I thought needed to be said even though it will probably put me on some kind of paranoid watch list.
As this applies to
Re:Comments praising Limewire sicken me. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's more like Zerox could not get a publishers lisence to sell books, so they distributed a Photocopy machine instead that had non-infringing use as well as the ability to copy pages in a copyrighted book without a filter. Don't confuse Limewire with the end user's application of the produc
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Watch closely; Lime Wire has them dead to rights (Score:5, Informative)
Parent