ID:277047
 Aug 7 2006, 1:48 pm
|
|
Apparently this is old news(posted Friday on Gtv.com), but last night I read about Liemwire getting sued by BMG, Warner, Universal, and EMI over the illegal music downloads. According to this article, they want $150,000 per song downloaded....Anybody can tell that that is ALOT of money..0_0
| |
|
Aug 7 2006, 4:58 pm
|
|
EGUY
 |
pwned. :D
|
Owell, theres always torrents. No one can stop bit torrent!
| |
I doubt anything's gonna happen.
| |
Airjoe wrote:
I doubt anything's gonna happen. Well I see that already got Kazaa too but settled for lesser money and legalized it. But if anything does happen, Limewire is screwed..XD | |
It depends on how they are set up. You can't sue file sharing programs unless you store the files on their own server, I believe.
| |
Even if LimeWire goes down, that doesn't stop the Gnutella network -- and FrostWire will still be around for those who don't want to learn a whole new interface, still want to use their LimeWire skins, etc. So basically, it doesn't matter if the RIAA shuts LimeWire down. The Gnutella network is fully distributed accross its clients -- it's like an idea rather than a concrete thing, and even a monster like the RIAA/MPAA can't bring down an idea.
Hip hip hurrah for free and open flow of information. | |
Mecha Destroyer JD wrote:
According to this article, they want $150,000 per song downloaded That's ridiculous. Even assuming that everyone who pirated a song would have bought it if Limewire wasn't available (which is plainly a false assumption), when was the last time you bought a CD for $150,000+? | |
PirateHead wrote:
So basically, it doesn't matter if the RIAA shuts LimeWire down. I think the LimeWire guys might care a bit. ;-) | |
PirateHead wrote:
The Gnutella network is fully distributed accross its clients -- it's like an idea rather than a concrete thing, and even a monster like the RIAA/MPAA can't bring down an idea. Sounds like Skynet all over agian to me :/ | |
The guy who gives access to military technology, sentience, and nuclear launches to the Gnutella network is one wacked out dude. But yeah, it's distributed like that all over so that it's not reliant on one program, as FastTrack is reliant on Kazaa, etc.
| |
Crispy wrote:
Even assuming that everyone who pirated a song would have bought it if Limewire wasn't available (which is plainly a false assumption), when was the last time you bought a CD for $150,000+? That's going on the assumption that free, open access to music somehow 'hurts' artists. Last time I checked one of the biggest problems for new bands/artists were exposure; reliant on a one-in-a-lifetime chance with a record label. If anything, groups like the RIAA should be paying Limewire $150,000 per song downloaded. | |
The article is certainly worded to sound like they want $150,000 for every time each file is downloaded, I think what they mean is $150,000 for each song file on the network... Not per download, but just for each illegal file...
Which makes a bit more sense (one song downloaded by 10,000 people would equal $150,000 of CD sales lost, by their twisted logic, anyways) I can't believe that they'd actually be trying for $150,000 for every single download instance... Can you imagine the total of THAT bill? One song file alone would total more money than the net worths of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates combined once you multiply total downloads by that price tag...lol According to an article I just found, download.com reports over 61,000,000 total LW downloads... Let's say that only half of those downloads are still being actively used... 30,500,000... Now, let's say that there's a song out there that only 10% of the active users have downloaded (reasonable, and possibly even an underestimation of some files) 3,050,000 downloads for this file... Multiply that by the $150,000 price tag: $457,500,000,000! Heck, let's drop the percentage down to just 1% of users, and you've still got $45,750,000,000! Just for one song! Plus, with a decentralized network, there's no way to even count each download... So, my guess is that they mean to find out the number of illegal song files available, and multiply that by $150,000 (still an ungodly amount of money...lol) Regardless of all of this insanity, though, we've got to again raise the "gun manufacturer" defense... Is a gun maker responsible for every murder committed with their product? So then, why should LimeWire be responsible for the crimes of its users? LimeWire even puts up a flimsy CYA sort of "You must agree that you won't use LimeWire to Simply providing a tool that can be used for illegal means, and not taking any action to prevent those illegal uses (which is just about as impossible for LimeWire as it is for the gun makers), does not place any blame on the makers of the tool... Especially since the tool has many legal uses (though I bet you'd be hard pressed to find many users who only use it for legal file downloading...lol) | |
Elation wrote:
Last time I checked one of the biggest problems for new bands/artists were exposure; reliant on a one-in-a-lifetime chance with a record label. It doesn't really count as exposure when you have to know the song to find them. It's very rare that a band will get any worthwhile exposure through P2P file-sharing. Most of the time it just ends up killing them because people either have all their tracks or are over them by the time they get an album out. The only time online exposure really pays off is with more localized networks. The types that let you post gig announcements, tracks, small websites, etc for bands in your city or state. Even then most of the bands that get heard are too green and people write them off as mediocore before they've hit their prime. | |
True, true, that would make much more sense. If that's the case then the article is written very badly though. Quote:
$150,000 for each instance in which a copyright song was distributed without permission Not "$150,000 for each copyright song distributed without permission", but "$150,000 for each instance in which a copyright song was distributed without permission". Surely the most likely meaning of "each instance" is "each downloaded copy". However, your take definitely makes more sense, and I suspect you're right. | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
Which makes a bit more sense (one song downloaded by 10,000 people would equal $150,000 of CD sales lost, by their twisted logic, anyways) Their twisted logic is funny. A 52x CD drive is the equivalent of 52 CD burners(to them), so they multiply their random numbers to sue for by 52. | |
I agree. If I, for instance, ceated an axe, and sold it to a friend, who wants to cut some trees or something. Then the one who bought it kills someone with the axe, and the family of that killed guy holds me responsible for his death. It lacks logic. The one who killed/downloaded(or shares) illegal songs is the responsible one. Period.
O-matic | |
I have to agree with you but I believe their reasoning behind it is "encouraging copyright infringement" even thouhg Limewire has you sign that little agreement(XD). I really think that the fact that the RIAA(?) know they can't get every individual person who downloaded something, they're going after the people who made the program instead..0_0
| |