Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

From the New York Times:

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that LimeWire, the popular file-sharing service, was liable for copyright infringement, the latest in a growing list of decisions against services that allow users to easily distribute music and videos around the Internet at no cost.

Judge Kimba M. Wood of United States District Court in Manhattan said in summary judgments that LimeWire and its creator, Mark Gorton, had committed copyright infringement, engaged in unfair competition and induced others to commit copyright infringement.

The suit had been brought by a coalition of the nation’s largest record companies in 2006. A hearing is scheduled for June 1 to discuss outstanding issues in the case, including damages.

The precedents are being established in dealing with file-sharing organizations. Also significant:

Professor Zittrain said that the ruling did not appear to consider the technology itself as illegal, only the promoting and encouraging of illegal uses of that technology, which is consistent with the precedent established by the Supreme Court’s Grokster opinion.

[Tamara]

I've always been amazed at the blind eye turned to Limewire and similar sites.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Tamara

I've always been amazed at the blind eye turned to Limewire and similar sites.

The article suggests the courts were just slow to get 'round to them, but I suspect a third party finally decided to intervene with some legal basis and a bit of "incentive" to pursue them.

[mr ploppy]

Also of interest:

http://torrentfreak.com/usenet-commu...enames-100513/

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Also of interest:

http://torrentfreak.com/usenet-commu...enames-100513/

That one could have ramifications here, as members post non-specific but "helpful" information leading others to DRM-unlocking software.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That one could have ramifications here, as members post non-specific but "helpful" information leading others to DRM-unlocking software.

This one will probably be overturned, and I really doubt it would pass muster in the US.

The LimeWire decision speaks to advertising, and I am sure some guidelines can be established where LimeWire will be in compliance with the letter of the law.

But the bottom line is, there are larger issues of freedom, which can easily be trampled upon by those zealous to defend outmoded business models.

[Jadon]

People here say that it's possible to remove DRM from a given format, and a simple web search will no doubt show how. That's a bit less specific than FTD saying that post number such-and-such represents episode whatever of show X. Not that the ruling seems significant. Yes, I suppose it's barely possible for MAFIAA groups to go country by country and outlaw indexing sites. But there are a lot of indexing sites, and a lot of countries. Net effect is nil. Short of DRM internationally mandated at chip level as in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End, there's really nothing that can be done to stop digital copyright infringement.

[GA Russell]

Kimba Wood makes the news again, after a long absence!

[kevinp]

Creators of the internet are also liable for all the kiddie porn available. Gun makers are liable for all the murders committed with guns. Etc, etc. What's the difference and where does it end?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kevinp

Creators of the internet are also liable for all the kiddie porn available. Gun makers are liable for all the murders committed with guns. Etc, etc. What's the difference and where does it end?

I think the difference is in whether the gun makers advocate and encourage the murders or the internet creators do the same with kiddy porn.

As mentioned earlier, the ruling does not seem to indicate that the limewire service itself is illegal, only that the creator seemed to actively encourage using the service to infringe copyright.

I really don't understand why the creators of things like limewire and TPB actively encourage and advocate infringing copyright. The public are smart enough to work it out for themselves if that is what they want to do with the technology so why intentionally paint a target on yourself?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by kevinp

Creators of the internet are also liable for all the kiddie porn available. Gun makers are liable for all the murders committed with guns. Etc, etc. What's the difference and where does it end?

And google are liable because they provide torrent results in searches; internet providers are liable because they sell high speed high download data plans; Microsoft is liable because it provides a software platform which allows people to install torrent and file ripping software; my parents are liable because they didn't teach me the value of buying something you want and not to steal it.

You're right, the list could go on and on and on. I don't feel that it is plausible to suggest limewire be held accountable for providing the platform. If they advertised the fact that you could download illegal and copyright breached material, fine, but just providing a technology....nup I don't agree with it. Just my 2 cents anyway, I got to go and seek copyright infringement upon Xerox, they created the photocopier and someone made a copy of my work.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Kimba Wood makes the news again, after a long absence!

ahahah my exact thought, as well!

[kennyc]

Thanks for that Steve.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I think the difference is in whether the gun makers advocate and encourage the murders or the internet creators do the same with kiddy porn.

As mentioned earlier, the ruling does not seem to indicate that the limewire service itself is illegal, only that the creator seemed to actively encourage using the service to infringe copyright.

I really don't understand why the creators of things like limewire and TPB actively encourage and advocate infringing copyright. The public are smart enough to work it out for themselves if that is what they want to do with the technology so why intentionally paint a target on yourself?

Cheers,
PKFFW

Agreed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I think the difference is in whether the gun makers advocate and encourage the murders

Just out of interest, what do gun makers market their goods as being for? Shooting clay targets, something like that?