Recording Industry vs The People: Lime Wire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

Monday, September 25, 2006

Lime Wire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations

In Arista v. Lime Wire, in Manhattan federal court, Lime Wire has filed its answer and interposed counterclaims against the RIAA for antitrust violations, consumer fraud, and other misconduct. Lime Wire alleged that the RIAA's

goal was simple: to destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers. (Counterclaim, paragraph 26, page 18).
....
This case is but one part of a much larger modern conspiracy to destroy all innovation that content owners cannot control and that disrupts their historical business models.(Counterclaim, paragraph 28, page 18).

Lime Wire has demanded a trial by jury.

Answer and Counterclaim of Lime Wire defendants*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary and discussion:

English language:
Slashdot
Digg
TechDirt
p2pnet.net
Slyck
cdfreaks.com
Digital Music Weblogs
Digital Music News
Good Morning Silicon Valley
Flexbeta
Broadband Reports
Axiom Sun
Tinfoil
Boycott-RIAA.com
gnutella.com
New York Times.com (Must be registered to read article)
Stay Tuned
chillingeffects.org
Torrent Freak

Other languages:
PCM
Scoopeo
Thorion
Forum Italia
testticker.de
gulli.com
Radio Al Aire

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

8 comments:

DreadWingKnight said...: Here's hoping LimeWire wins. It'll be enough of a kick in the teeth for these anti-p2p groups to make them think twice.; September 25, 2006 at 8:58:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: It's about time. I can't believe the music industry even trys to think they're not getting their share. They have gotten their share already by selling 8 tracks, Lps, cassettes, and then Cd's. Alot of them from the same album, just different form. It's kinda like what nintendo and playstation do, except the people just figured out a way around this scam.; February 20, 2007 at 2:05:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: Did win this suit?

I saw some info on other legal issues about; March 29, 2007 at 12:09:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...: [URL="http://www.popularnew.com"]http://www.popularnew.com[/URL] download lime wire full free @ popularnew.com !; April 1, 2007 at 4:26:00 AM EDT
Mark said...: After all this court talk... Should we feel safe using Limewire or not ? I dont know much about the laws and have used Limewire in the past and would like to continue.
Should we feel like someone is going to come knocking on our door for using it ?
Thank You. ( Oregon ); May 19, 2007 at 12:31:00 PM EDT
Unknown said...: about time someone pushed back; July 12, 2007 at 10:22:00 PM EDT
gator35016 said...: Drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop new drugs. They are then given exclusive rights to produce and sell the new drug and thereby profit from from their work for about 17 years. After that the developer loses exclusive rights; the drug can be copied as a generic drug; the price drops significantly and the public benefits.
Authors often spend years in research and rewrite before publishing a book. They are given a well deserved period to profit from their labors. Eventually their rights end and their work is declared public domain. We benefit from such law because we can download millions of pages of all sorts of written material from the world's libraries.
Why has our law allowed primarily a promoter to profit in perpetuity from another's work that they could not create. They never yield anything of value to the public domain. Rather they bilk the public year after year with exorbitant, ever increasing fees and attack the public to intimidate and keep us subservient making sure the public interest assumes no recognition.

The answer is political power. Millions of campaign dollars buy the vote of our elected reps in both major parties to support RIAA.

As long as we can't get angry enough to let our reps know how we feel--just a phone call or e-mail away--then things probably will not change.

Limewire has done the right thing in counter suing RIAA and Limewire's demand for a jury trial is likely RIAA's most feared trial component. Let the public hear the augments and let the public speak in their own interest. RIAA has played the vicious 800 pound gorilla long enough. Get rid of the mobsters in silk suits and let the music play.; August 19, 2007 at 11:09:00 PM EDT
Cancel said...: Im happy to see that others feel the way i do its about time a company took a stand. It makes me sad to see how low people go these days to strip money off each other. If your going to sue P2P network companies you might has well sue the entire country. Everyone breaks the copyright laws at some point from your highest government officials right down to your common american citizen. Ive seen teachers that have to do so just so their students will have the needed material to get a decent education. The RIAA has no right to single out P2P companies. You guys are right the entertainment industry does get its fair share of money for sales and then some. Everyone makes a copy of their favorite CD or cassete to send to their friends and family P2P networks just make this easier. Its no different than copying a CD and sending it, its just over a computer the RIAA has just used the computer factor to sue people nothing more. I'd be willing to bet most everyone associated with the RIAA shares musis etc. themselves. I have talked to some people that are afraid to even use copied media period. Even if they have paid for it from these P2P services because they think the Police will show up at their front door.; September 19, 2007 at 8:56:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove