LimeWire Sued for $75 Trillion

[Cut Chem!st]

Uhhhhhhhhhh..trying to solve the US debt?

LimeWire, the company behind the free peer-to-peer file sharing program of the same name, is being sued for $75 trillion, reports Law.com.

Citing Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act, a team of thirteen record companies claim that Lime Wire?s file-sharing program made the company liable for the numerous alleged copyright infringements committed by users. The maximum award per infringement is $150,000, which the record companies seek to multiply by the 10,000 estimated infringements.

But U.S. Federal District Court Judge Kimba Wood noted LimeWire?s massive number of users, which the company said number more than 50 million per month, make the record companies? interpretation untenable.

?If Plaintiffs were able to pursue a statutory damage theory predicated on the number of direct infringers per work, Defendants? damages could reach into the trillions,? wrote Wood, calling the requests ?absurd.?

Instead, Wood argued that record companies should receive one damage award per work, rather than one award per infringing party.

LimeWire?s defense attorney Joseph Bao applauded the Wood?s conclusion, which comes months after LimeWire was forced to shutter the service. Prior to the close, LimeWire attached hundreds of thousands of new downloads each day, the company said.

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/126145/20110323/limewire-sued-75-million.htm#ixzz1HU6Q8Qs8

 

[bleblablueble]

lol gl with that America

 

[Prisoner416]

America isn't suing, the record companies are. Also, the Judge in this case called the request absurd.

 

[SingularPoint]

One Damage per work?

Now I understand LW has let millions of people download overpriced and mediocre music

But 75 Trillion?
Damn, you could buy a hell of a lot of buffalo wings.

 

[Sexy Beast]

Well, Limewire started in 2000 and ran till late 2010 so it's essentially a decade of copyright infringement. What astounds me though is not the figure that Limewire is getting sued for, but how long it took the RIAA to take Limewire down. Even worse, the number of ways to pirate music today is astronomical which makes the suit itself look pointless in comparison.

 

[Mr1ntel]

I still fail to see why bother suing these guys when they're just a tiny little ant in a humongous ant farm of p2p, pirates etc but whatever I guess you gotta start somewhere? Just like the recent PS3 lawsuit against the guys that released the jailbreak for the ps3. They got sued but right before they got owned they released the source code online hence rendering the lawsuit useless... hope you guys see what i mean.

 

[Cacophonus]

Until they fix charging 20-25$ fora CD with maybe 1 good song on it, they will not fix pirating. Perhaps they should redefine their business model, redefine the use of DRM, and then they'd solve pirating by themselves, instead of ridiculous lawsuits that'd never go through- heck, I doubt any judge will award 75trillion to anyone for anything, even in the US.

 

[c-whit?]

Until they fix charging 20-25$ fora CD with maybe 1 good song on it, they will not fix pirating. Perhaps they should redefine their business model, redefine the use of DRM, and then they'd solve pirating by themselves, instead of ridiculous lawsuits that'd never go through- heck, I doubt any judge will award 75trillion to anyone for anything, even in the US.

they've already solved that issue. record companies now allow you to buy a single song or multiple songs without buying the entire album. Have you ever heard of itunes?

 

[Blue Stealth]

I hate when record companies blame websites and third-party companies for their horrid business models. makes me sick.

-Blue

 

[Ducttape]

I hate when record companies blame websites and third-party companies for their horrid business models. makes me sick.

-Blue

Agreed.

'We're not making money? Let's blame everyone but ourselves.'

I know piracy does have an effect on sales, but isn't it possible that, if the means of pirating music were eradicated, the people who pirated music are the same ones who would not buy the music? I've always doubted the real effect of piracy on the music/games/movie industry. I sometimes wonder if the companies aren't purposely inflating the piracy numbers for some kind of tax deduction?

 

[Sexy Beast]

they've already solved that issue. record companies now allow you to buy a single song or multiple songs without buying the entire album. Have you ever heard of itunes?

Agreed, and also to Cacophonus' post:

The DRM issue was solved years ago. Amazon's digital downloads has been DRM free since it launched in 2007 and Apple dropped DRM in 2009. Also I've never payed $20-$25 on a CD in my life.

 

[Tension]

Buying music from iTunes is lame. The only time I ever do that is when bands exclusively release stuff on there. Aside from that, nothing beats having the physical copy in your hands.

 

[Sgt. McAwesome]

Buying music from iTunes is lame. The only time I ever do that is when bands exclusively release stuff on there. Aside from that, nothing beats having the physical copy in your hands.

Which 9/10 times you put on iTunes anyway, leaving the CD to rot in its own dust. =)


This whole lawsuit thing isn't going to magically stop people from downloading music. Just look at the anime fandom and how many sites let you download songs.

 

[AnotherAsian]

taking down pirates....one step at a time

though, I find their efforts a little too late and absurd

 

[GlobalRoyal]

That sucks for Limewire.

 

[gibso]

That is why I love mixtapes, same quality but free. I may buy Rolling Paper's just to support Wiz Khalifa.

 

[xosniper]

I need to start using the word "absurd" more.

 

[Rukus.]

HA! Good luck with that, the suit has no weight to it because the official original reason was for peer to peer file sharing. Which is perfectly legal as long as the files shared hold no copyrights. Its like shutting down a school because drug abuse, statutory rape, and assault happen every day there.

 

[Austin]

HA! Good luck with that, the suit has no weight to it because the official original reason was for peer to peer file sharing. Which is perfectly legal as long as the files shared hold no copyrights. Its like shutting down a school because drug abuse, statutory rape, and assault happen every day there.

The shared files do hold copyrights.

 

[Rukus.]

The shared files do hold copyrights.

Yes, but the legality and copyright information of the files shared is the responsibility and liability of the user that downloads and uploads them. Not the proprietor of the program used to do so.