# Why is LimeWire still around? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 21, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541 "2006-07-21T21:32:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/41 "2006-07-24T21:45:42Z")
[QUOTE=Cardinal] Oh, they ARE breaking the law. I teach high school, and all those iPods are full of illegal copies. I genuinely suspect that there is maybe only one iPod on campus that does not have an illegal copy on it. Apple got pointed complaints from the recording industry when they ran ads saying “Rip. Mix. Burn.” [/QUOTE] I think she was talking about ripping the CDs you’ve bought and putting the files on your own iPod. That is legal. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/42 "2006-07-24T21:47:11Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] I think she was talking about ripping the CDs you’ve bought and putting the files on your own iPod. That is legal. [/QUOTE] As always, depending on your locality. In England, it’s not been legal, although the BPI have (at long last) officially stated that they don’t have a problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2006, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/43 "2006-08-05T01:00:41Z")
> **[2006 World Cup scandal inquiry to cost 3.5 mn euros - Breitbart](https://www.breitbart.com/news/2006-world-cup-scandal-inquiry-to-cost-3-5-mn-euros/)** > > Berlin (AFP) – The German FA’s (DFB) inquiry into the 2006 World Cup scandal is set to cost around 3.5 million euros ($3.83m), interim “Music Industry Sues LimeWire” ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/44 "2006-08-05T01:08:23Z")
I was just about to post that. Here’s [Slashdot’s discussion](http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/04/2245230). From the article… > [@](#): > > 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. […] The RIAA said LimeWire’s operators did not show sufficient interest in developing a licensed business model or agree to shut down. Failing to block access, when the network model doesn’t even make such a block possible, and declining to change their whole operation around to suit the RIAA, is what they’re trying to paint as **actively** facilitating? There may have been a solid case against Grokster, but I don’t think this one will go anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/45 "2006-08-05T01:31:42Z")
[QUOTE=Mr2001] There may have been a solid case against Grokster, but I don’t think this one will go anywhere. [/QUOTE] What was different about Grokster? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2006, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541/46 "2006-08-05T01:44:29Z")
Well, I must say I’m not familiar enough with LimeWire’s marketing to know how it compares to Grokster’s. But [these quotes from the Grokster decision](http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/key_quotes.php) give a sense of what is required for the distribution of P2P software to be illegal, and the quotes in the LimeWire article don’t seem to indicate anything that would rise to that level. For example: > [@](#): > > mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves. The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful purpose. > [@](#): > > StreamCast’s internal documents made constant reference to Napster, it initially distributed its Morpheus software through an OpenNap program compatible with Napster, it advertised its OpenNap program to Napster users, and its Morpheus software functions as Napster did except that it could be used to distribute more kinds of files, including copyrighted movies and software programs. Grokster’s name is apparently derived from Napster, it too initially offered an OpenNap program, its softwareís function is likewise comparable to Napsterís, and it attempted to divert queries for Napster onto its own Web site. Grokster and StreamCastís efforts to supply services to former Napster users, deprived of a mechanism to copy and distribute what were overwhelmingly infringing files, indicate a principal, if not exclusive, intent on the part of each to bring about infringement. > [@](#): > > Of course, in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-limewire-still-around/365541.md?page=2)