So, downloading copyrighted files (songs, videos, etc.) is illegal. Napster and other file-swapping programs were dead center of the crosshairs of the legal battle. As a result, they either went under or went pay-per-download.
So why is it LimeWire, a file-swapping program that does not require any payment–and thus, one can still illegally download using their software–continues to exist? Shouldn’t it, and anything else like it, have scads of lawsuits on its ass?
Why are Rizlas still on sale?
Why are cars still allowed? You can commit crimes while driving a car, after all.
Downloading copyrighted files is not illegal. There are plenty of copyrighted files where the copyright holder has given permission for electronic distribution.
Okay–so there is a lack of imprecision in the language of my question. Fine. I accept that. But the meaning should not be so easily lost to nitpicking.
Napster, and others, were sued more or less because large numbers of people were using the program to illegally download copyrighted music (and videos) WITHOUT the a-okay from the Music People In Charge who want their money. Now if you want the latest Kelly Clarkson you have to pay, for example, $.99 per download on similar music download sites. (Well, you don’t HAVE to, I suppose the argument could be made.)
So why is it people can still go to LimeWire and download songs/videos/other-stuff-that-should-be-paid-for for free? Because they want to? Because they can? Okay, sure.
If that’s the case, then why did “they” bother going after Napster, et al to begin with? It is just a program, after all; what users did with it was up to them. If that’s the rationale behind LimeWire being unchanged–then why ever bother with the other programs to begin with? To send a statement?
The old, illegal Napster used central servers to maintain lists of connected systems and the files they provided. LimeWire does not keep a central directory, I believe.
AFAIK, the big difference is that Napster relied on central servers to put client computers in contact with one another. Limewire, and other such software, purely works on the computers it’s installed on, and on the internet itself, and so the provider of the software is not directly connected to any subsequent copyright infringement.
It also makes them much harder to attack. Even if the RIAA managed to shut down the company providing the software, everyone who already had it could continue to swap files over it amongst themselves. And they’d also set up mirror sites where new folks could obtain the software, and write new clients for it. So much though the music industry might want to eliminate it, they really can’t, short of suing each and every person who uses it.
IANAL, and I don’t have a complete answer for you, but since the professor for one of my classes just discussed the Napster case yesterday, I feel like I’d be tempting fate not to at least chime in with what I know.
One important thing to understand is that the Direct Copyright Infringement (capitalized by me for no good reason) in the Napster case was done by the uploaders. You by downloading a song are not interfering with a copyright, but to make a copy of, and distribute, a song without the owner’s permission is copyright infringement. So the person who turned the CD into an mp3, and/or the person who distributed it to you, is infringing. A Napster, of course, isn’t copying or distributing anything.
What did they get Napster for? For contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. These are definied under copyright law, and I’m not too familiar with the definitions, but what Napster was doing fit the bill.
What’s different with LimeWire? I don’t know. But it’s possible the creators/owners of LimeWire avoid liability by not taking actions which would fit the definition of contributory or vicarious copyright infringement. (On preview, Walloon may have the answer). If I had a guess (and this is truly a WAG) I’d say the LimeWire creators carefully went over the Napster case and Copyright law to figure out how they could provide a similar service as Napster without exposing themselves to liability.
However, this means that the uploader of songs is still committing Direct Copyright Infringement (assuming there’s no permission by the copyright holder, etc). So something “illegal” is still being done, but the recourse for the “MPIC who want their money” is to go after the uploaders. And if the internet is a series of tubes, it shouldn’t be hard to just follow the right tube to the infringer and bust 'em.
Again, this isn’t legal advice. Please consult an attorney before copying a musician’s song and distributing it world-wide.
–KidScruffy
my real question is why does Limewire always crash my computer.
I was just about to say, Limewire is such a shoddy program it’s not worth the trouble of attacking it anyway. Soulseek is much more reliable.
To chime in on this:
One reason why they bothered going after Napster was that it was a phenomenon that was getting enormous cultural ‘buzz’ and was easily being used by lots more people than its competitors at its heyday. Even if they knew that by defeating the dragon, they’d create a hydra that would be harder to kill, the RIAA probably figured that they’d get a morale victory by killing the dragon - lots of people wouldn’t make the jump to other file sharing programs, or would be afraid of defying them… and if they didn’t kill Napster it would just keep getting more popular.
Also, as has been pointed out, they had legal methods of attack against Napster that didn’t apply to some of the others, basically, Napster didn’t have enough deniability the way it had been built. They wrote it to keep too much information centralized about what files were being shared and copied, so that information could be subpoena-ed and used against them. Limewire might not have such records, so RIAA has to get creative even to prove that it’s being used for mass infringement, never mind get any kind of meaningful legal relief from infringement.
And, thirdly, there was at least widespread speculation that napster was thinking of turning into a pay service, which meant that it would become a direct competitor to the RIAA, instead of just a troublesome thorn in their side.
Hope this is worth at least two cents. 
To clarify what others said, you can’t shut down LimeWire or any of the other similar competitors out there. It has already been released and there are millions of copies out there. The brilliance of digital copies of software is that they can regenerate an infinite number of copies starting from only one. Combine that with the fact that such software only channels existing Internet functions and I hope you can see the problem. There aren’t any servers to shut down or people to attack. The software just matches up the haves with the have nots. Sentence the original writers to death and the same problem still exists. You would do better by “shutting down” all the cockroach colonies in the world. It is impossible to shut down internet sharing sites because they are part of the internet itself.
<mod>
Let’s keep this to the OP’s question (hi Ruffian!) and not turn it into a “which file-sharing program is best” discussion.
If that happens we’ll be forced to close the thread.
</mod>
Limewire’s not the only one. There are lots of other, lesser-known filesharing programs out there that are mostly only heard of in geekier circles. The reason why they aren’t more popular is because many require the user to have a certain amount of shared files available (Often 60G or more-that’s just in shared files).
LimeWire is just a client for the Gnutella protocol, so credit for its decentralized design goes to Nullsoft (better known for creating Winamp), not the LimeWire developers.
Since a P2P client is just a tool for sharing files, and such sharing may be either legal or illegal depending on the specific file, its creators are only acting illegally if they specifically encourage infringement (see MGM v. Grokster). The mere fact that it may be used for infringement, or even that it mostly is used for infringement, is not enough to make it illegal.
I think the real question here is – and let’s face it, Limewire is used to illegally copy many many files – why is it that the developers of a program designed to help break copyright laws… ask you to pay for their program?
“Hey, forget paying that musician, give us your money instead!”
Rhetorical, I know. But still amusing.
:rolleyes:
Because nowhere on their website or their user’s manual do they advocate violating copyright. LimeWire is a file sharing client; how you use it is up to you. And the basic LimeWire software is free; you can pay extra for faster servers, tech support and updates.
It is one of the arrogances of the Dope. People enjoy making you feel like they are grading your thesis, rather than addressing your question. Answering your question in a way that makes you look stupid for asking it makes them feel really smart! Just like in high school! :rolleyes:
Right, and 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of 2.
The OP’s opening statement was false and misleading. The fact that many copyrighted files can be legally downloaded is an important part of determining whether a program like LimeWire has substantial non-infringing uses.