LimeWire faces new copyright suit - $150,000 for each song that was willfully infringed

[The Straight Story]

LimeWire faces new copyright suit

A group of music publishers on Wednesday filed a copyright complaint in federal court against LimeWire's parent company and founder Mark Gorton, according to documents obtained by CNET.

Eight members of the National Music Publishers' Association, including the publishing arms of the four largest recording companies, were named as plaintiffs in the suit. They accuse Lime Group, parent of software maker Lime Wire, and Gorton with "copyright infringement on a massive scale."

The suit comes as LimeWire, the nation's largest file-sharing service, is trying to convince U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood not to shut down the service. The Recording Industry Association of America last month won a major legal victory against Lime Wire when Wood granted it summary judgment and found Lime Wire and Gorton liable for copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement.

Representatives from Lime Wire were not immediately available for comment.

The music publishers have asked the court to order LimeWire to cease committing copyright violations and have asked for $150,000 in damages for each song that was willfully infringed and $30,000 for any other kinds of infringement.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20007943-261.html

[Canuckistanian]

1. When is the RIAA going to get it?

Until there's an equitable agreement on digital media, these kind of semi-legal organizations are going to pop up everywhere. They can't sue them all.

Artists want to be paid. Recording companies want to be able to take financial risks on the next Susan Boyle. And people ARE willing to pay for QUALITY recordings.

So come on guys, get your shit together.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

2. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD with one good song and a bunch of crap.

There will always be a segment out there that will steal music, not matter how it's offered.

But the rise in file sharing and MP3s was aided greatly by the rise in musicians phoning in their songs, as well as the endless "remasters"...how many times do you have to buy Jimi Hendrix's songs or Led Zeppelin's songs or Crosby Stills & Nash's songs before you no longer have to pay?

When CDs first took off, record companies were creating CDs from vinyl LPs to meet the demand. Then they discovered the second or third generation master tapes, so the first "remaster" arrived. Then subsequent "remasters" came with "bonus tracks" to seduce consumers into buying the album a third, fourth, fifth time.

I'm sure Jimi Hendrix was a great guy...by all indications, he was...but in 2010, fuck his estate, and fuck Page & Plant, and fuck CSNY, and fuck every musician who double-triple-quadruple dipped their catalog.

RIAA loves to piss and moan about the artists and their right to earn a living. As a "consumer" who's taken the bait one too many times, it's time for the musicians...and their record companies...to step up or STFU.

When "remasters" became a trend, some people suggested a "rebate" of sorts to people who had already purchased a first or second generation CD of that music. The idea went nowhere. Maybe it's time to revisit it.

[Canuckistanian]

4. I was thinking about new artists

You hear something new and exciting on the radio or TV and decide to seek it out. You have two routes - either pay for an expensive CD, or pick up the MP3 on iTunes (with the attached DRM).

I say, make it easier than that. A free and clear MP3 package or mini-CD's that have a 2 or 3 tracks at a cheap price. Have outlets EVERYWHERE, like at convenience stores or Walmarts. That way, you really get the full impact of a band without the high price of a whole CD.

It's the equivalent of the old "45 single" idea. A sampler at a VERY cheap price, no strings and EASY to download or purchase.

[Toucano]

5. They sold 8.3 million copies of Susan Boyle's album.

Sales records have been broken by Sade, U2 and Britney Spears in recent years.

In the era of file sharing, Usher, Eminem and Nora Jones have all released works that exceeded 20 million units (each)

The ability of people to share that content doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying recordings or attending movies.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Exactly my point

Not everyone is technically savvy enough or willing to break rules.

They simply want something cheaper and easier to obtain.

[depakid]

3. A SLAPP suit that they'll lose

and I hope they get walloped with sanctions for filing it.

[Radical Activist]

6. Biting the hand that feeds them.

Syndicated radio has destroyed most stations especially outside of major urban areas. How else do they think people are going to hear about new artists before buying the full album?

[Toucano]

7. Stephen Foster died penniless.

He composed the most popular songs of the 19-century, but publishers robbed him blind.

To make matters worse, some people didn't buy the sheet music for "Beautiful Dreamer" because they could play it by ear.

Did the people who played "Beautiful Dreamer" on the piano in their living room without paying for the sheet music commit a crime?


The money is now and always has been in the PUBLIC PERFORMANCE where you can control who has physical access to your work.

Every other manner of distributing copyrighted material is going to be subject to theft of some sort. That's part of the risk and cost of distribution. It always has been that way - long before the internet.

If someone makes me a mix tape and puts it in my hand or sends me an email with a mp3 attached, the recording industry is not going to be able to stop it. They're just making a stink for nothing.

They need to shift their business model to regard the recordings as promotional material for the live show.