Court shuts down LimeWire music-sharing service

[LDTate]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39857208

NEW YORK

[Haider]

Good news LDTate there should be stern punishment too

[ShyWriter]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39857208

NEW YORK

[Haider]

People are always going to want to get something for free and usually they find a way.

~Shy

...then end up at Malware Removal - HijackThis Logs area

[Ibrad]

After reading about Limewire it seems it would have been a nice way to share files if it was not used to share files that are against the law.

[Couposn]

All they were doing is basically providing links, does this mean Google is going to get taken to court as they link to pirated content?

[Ibrad]

Google is protected by one of the laws that allows them to stay as long as they take down links I think to to content reports to be against the law as far as I am aware.

[wildman424]

...then end up at Malware Removal - HijackThis Logs area

Yea that's true Haider most of them do but its not always the P2P software they'll using's fault most of them don't know what there doing in the first place hence its there fault (the user) that they contracted the computer clap , out of all the users using this type of software how many of them know the difference between a media file and a file that contains executable code. An Improperly configured P2P client is always a security risk, trading files with an unknown source is a security risk

look at it this way its like smoking four packs of cigarettes a day for forty years then turning around and suing the tobacco company when you get cancer when you knew thirty years ago that is was hazardous to your health

edit:just to clarify that I mean the user can't blame the software for the users misconduct,Limewire has or had little control over the content being shared

as for this copyright infringement thing this has been going on for years this is an excerpt from Limewire's End User License Agreement:

Illegal Materials

The Program, like all peer-to-peer ("P2P") programs, is capable of being used to share materials that the copyright owner has not authorized be shared. It is unlawful to use the Program to infringe the intellectual property rights of others, or to share, distribute or download others' protected, proprietary and/or confidential information without authorization, or to search for, send, share, distribute or download unlawful pornographic materials, including child pornography (collectively "Illegal Materials"). By using the Program you agree and represent that you will not use the Program to share, distribute or download Illegal Materials. For more information concerning copyrights and peer-to-peer

so using the software for copyright infringmen is clearly a violation of it EULA Thats not what it was built or intended for. security risk aside you really have to ask yourself whats their alternate motive here GREED ? these record company's are still making billions of dollars are they really that greedy that they have to put Limewire out so they can make all the mony for themselves. The existence of P2P software and users sharing music for free may have dropped there revenue a bit but it isn't hurting there checkbooks that much. As with anything when something is created for one purpose theres going to be someone come along and find ways of using it to there own devious needs

as the old saying goes "one bad apple spoils the whole

****

bunch"

This is my own personal opinion and in no way reflects the view of Malwarebytes Corp. it employees,affiliates,members or any other group or forum or any of there membership that I'm affiliated with

[Kenny94]

There goes avg antivirus marketing tool.....

[DarkSnakeKobra]

There goes avg antivirus marketing tool.....

Whoa whoo! Forgot about that blunder. Well, that was stupid of them anyways.

[exile360]

so using the software for copyright infringmen is clearly a violation of it EULA Thats not what it was built or intended for. security risk aside you really have to ask yourself whats their alternate motive here GREED ? these record company's are still making billions of dollars are they really that greedy that they have to put Limewire out so they can make all the mony for themselves. The existence of P2P software and users sharing music for free may have dropped there revenue a bit but it isn't hurting there checkbooks that much. As with anything when something is created for one purpose theres going to be someone come along and find ways of using it to there own devious needs

as the old saying goes "one bad apple spoils the whole

****

bunch"

Do you really think it's only greed? Look at it from the point of view of the artists, producers, distributors and yes, even the super rich record label execs: If you showed up to work tomorrow, worked all day long and at the end of the day your boss told you "Sorry wildman424, I know you worked real hard and everything, but you aren't getting paid for any of the work you did today, only for the work you did yesterday and maybe the work you're going to do tomorrow" would that be fair?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fair usage, but grabbing music, movies or any other copyrighted content over the internet without permission/proper licensing is theft, stealing, plain and simple. If it's worth stealing, it's worth paying for, if it isn't worth paying for then it's not worth stealing. If you're too broke to afford it, too bad. You wouldn't go to a car dealership and steal a car just because you can't afford to buy one would you? It may be only 1's and 0's but it really is the same thing. Theft is theft and the law is the law. [/rant]

[DarkSnakeKobra]

I should make a point that greed isn't always the case. Maybe a little bit, but mostly it's their property being stolen. Steeling a candy bar everyday adds up, but doesn't seem like much at first. One person starts doing it then another then you got thousands. When a signer isn't going on tour or creating music what pays the bills? The record companies. If they aren't shipping because limewire is handing them out for free they are going broke. Eventually that money they made from tours is going to end. Their bills are expensive as they need to pay for the concert and everything. Sure some is left over, but the majority comes from sales.

[mountaintree16]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fair usage, but grabbing music, movies or any other copyrighted content over the internet without permission/proper licensing is theft, stealing, plain and simple. If it's worth stealing, it's worth paying for, if it isn't worth paying for then it's not worth stealing. If you're too broke to afford it, too bad. You wouldn't go to a car dealership and steal a car just because you can't afford to buy one would you? It may be only 1's and 0's but it really is the same thing. Theft is theft and the law is the law. [/rant]

I couldn't agree with you more, Exile

[wildman424]

you have a good point Exile thanks for the input,I really wasn't looking at it from there view point there upset there losing money, I understand that...I just think that you should be able to share your music if you want without such a fuss as long as your not making any money off of it. before the internet and Limewire I don't remember there being such a fuss when people made dubs of their cassette tapes and gave it to a friend

example: were hanging out listening to some tunes and I play something you really like and you say "hey man make me a copy of that song" and I made a quick dub for you and didn't charge a dime is that fair usage or piracy ??

I know there is a fine line & this is a touche subject

[mountaintree16]

Well here is my input (& opinion) on that, Wildman.

Personally I would not go ahead and copy an entire album/CD for someone I know. I don't think that's right for two reasons; 1) the artists rights, that is not fair to them and 2) I paid for it, why would I give away a copy?

Now if you are making a small mix CD for someone you know as a gift or to use at a party that has some songs from different albums, and as long as you aren't selling that CD(s), I think that that would be okay.

(If not, someone please enlighten me )

[ShyWriter]

The legalities border on the absurd.. Did you know, as an example:

If you sing HAPPY BIRTHDAY at a birthday party for a group of family and friends of friends or for a thousand non-friends, YOU owe the holder of the copyright, Warner Music Group, a "royalty fee"..

In 1935, "Happy Birthday to You" was copyrighted as a work for hire by Preston Ware Orem for the Summy Company, the publisher of "Good Morning to All". A new company, Birch Tree Group Limited, was formed to protect and enforce the song's copyright. In 1998,[10] the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" and its assets were sold to The Time-Warner Corporation. In March 2004, Warner Music Group was sold to a group of investors led by Edgar Bronfman Jr. The company continues to insist that one cannot sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties:

in 2008, Warner collected about $5000 per day ($2 million per year) in royalties for the song

. This includes use in film, television, radio, anywhere open to the public, or

even among a group where a substantial number of those in attendance are not family or friends of whoever is performing the song

.

Source partially paraphrased: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

~Shy

[DarkSnakeKobra]

That is just stupid. So if I sing happy birthday at a restaurant for my uncle George(doesn't exist)I owe them money? Completely unfair.

[mountaintree16]

I think it means that if you are singing it and making money by singing it, then you apparently owe royalties for singing the Happy Birthday song.

For example, if you hired an entertainer for the birthday party and he or she sings Happy Birthday, he or she is earning money, therefore is singing it for profit & owes a royalty.

[ShyWriter]

I think it means that if you are singing it and making money by singing it, then you apparently owe royalties for singing the Happy Birthday song.

For example, if you hired an entertainer for the birthday party and he or she sings Happy Birthday, he or she is earning money, therefore is singing it for profit & owes a royalty.

There's also the "fair use" part of music royalties.. Have you ever heard Letterman or Today show or similar start to play a familiar song or music and then make a "cutting" gesture after 10 seconds or so and make the comment, "Stop.. no more or we'll have to pay for the use of it?"

This partially explains it but I don't have the time to spend tonight for the EXACT wording.

4.2.3 Music, Lyrics, and Music Video

Up to 10%, but in no event more than 30 seconds, of the music and lyrics from an individual musical work (or in the aggregate of extracts from an individual work), whether the musical work is embodied in copies, or audio or audiovisual works, may be reproduced or otherwise incorporated as a part of a multimedia project created under Section 2. Any alterations to a musical work shall not change the basic melody or the fundamental character of the work.

~Shy

[DarkSnakeKobra]

@mt

I see. But still that is wrong.

[mountaintree16]

Yeah, I agree its pretty ridiculous to me. It's a classic. I mean the first like 30 years or so I understand but like 75 years later? Ehhh

[exile360]

Well, the court's decision in that particular case may be incorrect as such a mainstay of birthdays is singing that particular song and I personally would have thought it was public domain, but if someone else wrote it, they do get their royalties.

Regarding dubs for friends, though not legal, the scale of such is entirely different from sharing on the web. P2P vs making a copy for a friend is the same as making 10,000 copies and giving them away for free vs making a copy for a friend. The volume is why it's such a big deal. Remember, with filesharing services like LimeWire, FrostWire etc etc you can't control who or how many download the items you're sharing.

[mountaintree16]

I wasn't sure if it was legal or not, taking a song or two from a few albums and making a mix for a friend. Thanks for letting us know, Exile.

I haven't even done so; I was thinking about making making a couple mixes for a friend in the future but I haven't done that yet.

All I've done in terms of making CD's is burning a copy of albums that I already have so I can play the copy in my car (and not risk damaging the copy should anything happen like really bumpy terrain or something) and making mixes for myself to listen to in my car or home stereo.

[exile360]

All I've done in terms of making CD's is burning a copy of albums that I already have so I can play the copy in my car (and not risk damaging the copy should anything happen like really bumpy terrain or something) and making mixes for myself to listen to in my car or home stereo.

That's perfectly legal as making such backup copies exclusively for your own personal use is covered in Fair Usage rights . That's the same as ripping your music to your computer from the CD's you've purchased in order to copy the songs onto your MP3 player for you to listen to .

[mountaintree16]

Thanks Exile

Yep, they are just for my personal use.