Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

RIAA Sues LimeWire Over Piracy

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

August 4, 2006, 4:10 PM

The company behind the file sharing program LimeWire was sued by the RIAA in federal court Friday, which is accusing the New York-based Lime Group LLC of facilitating the trade of illegal music files between its users. The labels are seeking damages, including $150,000 per occurrence of an illegally traded file.

RIAA claims that LimeWire's business model allows it to profit from the piracy trade, and its failure to block copyright content is a sign that the company is actively encouraging its users to pirate music. "Defendants not only have known of the infringement, but have promoted and relied upon it to build their business," it said in the complaint.

LimeWire has declined to comment on the situation.

The recording industry's latest move comes just days after it settled with Kazaa for $115 million, and dropped all pending litigation. Filtering technologies will be introduced on the service that will make it impossible to share illicit files. However, it is unclear if users will respond to the new format.

After other P2P sites either closed their doors or went legal, LimeWire continued to profit from staying in its current form, the RIAA alleges. The service has been around since 2000, and has grown into one of the most popular peer-to-peer sharing services.

Limewire has had time to go legal - it was one of several P2P services to receive a letter last September threatening legal action if they did not either shut down, or transfer to a licensed business model. Most, including WinMX and BearShare, decided to exit the business.

"While other services have come productively to the table, LimeWire has sat back and continued to reap profits on the backs of the music community," the RIAA said in a statement.

Add a Comment (241 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By SirJames

edited Dec 26, 2007 - 4:31 AM

We would have gladly hosted Kazaa and would still offer to host LimeWire. Despite what the RIAA might claim, most artists will admit that they have made MORE money through the use of the Internet, by either advertising their latest albums for them for free or by making their name heard. Rather than rewarding the owners from sites such as Kazaa and Limewire, the RIAA choses to criminalise them. NOT because of the losses that the artists are incurring, but from what the RIAA is losing. Does anyone really care if a few old men that own the entire music cartel and already have billions to sit back on and enjoy, lose a little here and there while the artists do actually benefit from this? I dont think so.

If anyone wants offshore/ politically independent server hosting. The Republic of CyberBunker would be more than willing to provide that service.

Sir James.

Score: 0

By C.J.C

posted Jun 25, 2007 - 4:31 PM

I know this is an old thread but I just can't believe the extreme ignorance and arrogance on this subject. All Music has a copyright owner... you want to own that piece of work? you gotta pay for it. Period!!

There's no excusing yourself for the BS I've read here... "Oh.. if I can get it from the radio I can get it on the net for free too..." Hey! Nincompoop... when you record a crappy quality copy of a radio broadcast, you're getting something the proper recipients have already been paid for... as they should. It's just available for you to listen to for your enjoyment and of course as a promotional tool.

OWNING that product/material is a different animal all together. Like it is with any product available in the market. Why don't you buy a nice car and share it with your whole neighborhood for free? Oh... you won't do that because you're the rightful owner of that car...?

Hmm guess what, there's absolutely no difference when it comes to music. The owner of that copyright does not want you to (because it's illegal by the way) share his/her work with a million other fans of his/her music when it was paid for it maybe only once, and probably not even that.... Why? When you allow me to get your work for free the same way you do then fine, until then trust me, file sharing and this righteous stealing bulls*** is not going to fly. Mark my words. You're wrong and the RIAA is right and doing what they're supposed to.

If you're an advocate of this practice, you're stealing and that makes you a thief.

Score: 0

By cantray

edited Jul 12, 2007 - 3:30 AM

There are emerging solutions which do not involve lawsuits against fans.

If the RIAA were doing what is was supposed to be doing, it would seek solutions that capitalize on the market forces driving P2P file sharing and turn it into compensation for artists.

Putting millions of dollars into the pockets of lawyers and corporate accounts is not the answer. Litigation does not benefit artists. Artists are at the bottom of list.

Make no mistake, these legal actions are not for the artists. These are strong-arm tactics by a group of over-bloated thugs seeking a quick deposit in THEIR account. No market research expenses needed. No promotion costs. No printing expenses. And all the while a 'starving artists' banner flies high. It's rather disgusting.

No doubt, artists deserve to be compensated for their creative works. However, you won't find too many artists who condone seeing an underpaid, single mom take out a three thousand dollar settlement loan to pay for her 12-year-old daughter's obsession with gansta rap.

Love to go on, but if the argument is that there is no difference between sharing a car and stealing a song, I must excuse myself.

I have a Porsche to download.

Score: 0

By Nikkie

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 9:18 PM

Before downloading,i was taping things off of the radio.I taped music videos and movies.

No limewire? Get frostwire etc etc.

Score: 0

By UberPrioritizer

edited Oct 9, 2006 - 8:38 PM

ok,wow.....alot to talk about.....lets make it short and sweet.....wait,no forget the sweet part.I think lmewire is pretty cool but anyway the riaa is calling it "illegal" but would you confront 2.5 million happy users in the face and say "this is illegal?"problably not.next point.The riaa are overreacting like idiots to earn some spare cash.I mean 115 million??thats alot of money and i think it hurt someones pocket pretty bad,but not their own.150,000$ a song?yeah right,some of these artists suck so much they cant make 150,000.i mean,have you seen the picture of the girl singing on their site?it looks like shes screaming into the mic like someone on pills or something.anyway,the riaa is making a big commotion about a small thing and overexagerating to the brink.(think of dig dug.eventually it going to blow up in their face.)Well the RIAA sucks and I just wanted you to know that the RIAA Record companies have been fleecing the artists who are any good for years, and have been living off the talentless artists who they can mould into what ever they like with slick advertising and manipulation of the music charts.No established artist who is worth their salt is getting forced into bankruptsy by p2p, and were it not for outlets such as podcasting, p2p and the like, new artists who didn't fit into the mould of the record company big cats, would have a very hard time getting noticed by the public.limewire is, in any case, firmly dedicated to the ideals of Creative Commons and the sharing of all manner of files which are nothing to do with the RIAA, about whom I'm tempted to say more, but with a possible court case looming, perhaps now is not the time to start slinging wild remarks about:p

Score: 0

By AcacianBlood

posted Sep 28, 2006 - 12:51 PM

Repost: All the bickering about morals and ethics... Think about it. If all of the p2p networks were shutdown TODAY, there would be 20 more TOMORROW. Perhaps there would be somthing new and even more advanced to put in its place. Something EVEN WORSE for people to argue about! The world revolves around conflict. No matter how many people get sued, you cant change humanity.
So b**** back and forth all day long! And do it TOMORROW! AND THREE WEEKS FROM NOW! I have no coment as far as wether its right or wrong. Everyone will think what they want to think. Another one of those things that make every single human an individual. Like it or not, theres nothing any of you can do.

Score: 0

By carlsoncory

edited Aug 28, 2006 - 11:03 PM

Don't steal music, buy from me:
www.burnlounge.com/loftmusic
Or get invovled and buy from yourself and you make money!!!!

Score: 0

By Darian Knight

edited Aug 26, 2006 - 4:20 AM

I stumbled across a new song that more or less sums it up: Don't Steal This Song by Weird Al. In it he demonizes the public for stealing music on file sharing sites, but in the end of the song he notes that solid gold Humvees and Diamond studded pools aren't cheap, so please buy the music and don't steal. I don't buy the pity party the RIAA or MPAA gives to the public. They act like these artists are starving because we're copying the music. Real people have to worry about putting food in their mouths and paying the mortgage on their first house (if they are lucky). Music and Motion picture artists are worried about their personal jet and the vacation in Cancun this summer with the kids. Cry me a river. The RIAA and MPAA are worried about P2P systems today, but unfortunately the great coders of Sourceforge banded together to create a Brightnet system - which will demolish any claim to illegal filesharing on the planet. Sucks to be the RIAA and MPAA. A dollar a song my butt... in other words you're paying *exactly* the same amount as if you were buying a CD? Part of the reason P2P has sprung up is in outrage at the cost of a CD with mostly worthless music and a few good songs. And now people are actually advocating paying $1 a song to download. I can't wait for the OFF network to go online, it't going to decimate the RIAA and MPAA's claims.

Score: 0

By rosariolopez2007

edited Aug 23, 2006 - 4:54 AM

Using limewire is illegal unless the artist is some how getting money even if it was a dollar a song. Come on just go to itunes and buy music. Its a lot better and its legal. Do you really want virus because you want that song right now.

Score: 0

By Spratster364

posted Aug 14, 2006 - 12:01 AM

This is something i dont get...
If limewire is piracy why doesnt the spyware stuff see that and block it or somthing?

Score: 0

By Spratster364

edited Aug 13, 2006 - 8:02 PM

Limewire should either shut down or make its music cost some money. Its wrong to steal so why would u want to steal music. Its no differen than stealing a car or a dvd or a handbag.

Score: 0

By CyrusV

edited Aug 11, 2006 - 1:55 AM

The RIAA pulling crap like this really makes me lose faith in the free market. But i guess as long as theres copyright laws to exploit, the RIAA and MPAA will be right there to exploit them.

Score: 0

By moscow01

posted Aug 9, 2006 - 6:30 AM

I think part of this about perception - it is wrong to steal but it's not black and white there are so many grey areas in between. The legal definition of the word steal is - "to take with the intention of permanently depriving" so to prove stealing in a court of law you have to prove not only the theft but the intent. Now with copied music you could argue there is not even permanent depriving of the artist but only the music business of revenue. Also, you need show that they lost revenue as a result ie if I couldn't copy it would I have bought it? In most cases the answer is no but in some cases the answer is yes in which case there is intent. I think most people confronted by an actual artist who said "hey mate, you stole my song and you owe me some money" would put their hands up and say " fair cop - how much do I owe you" but when the RIAA says it people say "sod off - you must have me confused with someone that gives a toss" We just don't like being milked like worker ants by anonymous business leeches.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 10, 2006 - 9:11 AM

It's sad that there are so-called adults out there that feel if you don't share their view, you lack morals and that everything is black and white. The simple fact of the matter is you can tell from their posts that they've already fallen into blindly following whatever law is passed. Their used to be laws that forbade the use of lipstick, so who ever put it on anyone is immoral. Bright. These people have very little faith in the human race, are bitter about their current lives and feel since they have bend over and take it everyone else should. I actually feel bad for them but I have other things to take care of. The real criminals I've seen use Limewire to copy an album and try and sell it. Whatever. I'm done. You can't reach people who are that preachy, bitter and cynical. You already defined the legal definition of stealing and they're retort is, you're young. Which of course you must be if you don't agree with them. Notice in many of the posts when you answer with a comeback to a remark they read you either see, Grow UP, you're a child or well you're still stealing. Don't waste precious energy arguing with these people. Someone that bitter and cynical over life as to just accept whatever they're told they must is to be pitied.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Aug 10, 2006 - 10:02 AM

It is clear that you have decided that what you want is more important than the rights of another and the law. I am certain that if you earned a living in the record industry you would feel differently. You do not have a divine right to anything that belongs to someone else... period. Your ad hominem argument does not prove your case, it only shows that your twisted logic is running dry. The use of lipstick does not infringe upon the rights or property of another person... no comparison. Like I said a few days ago, stop trying to justify your actions and just do it.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Aug 9, 2006 - 11:53 AM

As I read your post I find myself hoping like hell that you are younger than eighteen. The thought of anyone older than eighteen actually believing that crap is a damn shame.

In this case we are talking about copyright infringement not "stealing"... in either case your attempts to justify illegal file sharing through perception of laws, the perceived value of intellectual property or intent to deprive are baseless. You are not being milked... if you can't afford the music then live without it.

Score: 0

By MNSwede

edited Aug 11, 2006 - 1:00 PM

Usually, I would agree with your opinion that people in the entertainment industry need to have a safeguard against illegal piracy. They deserve to "get paid" for their work, just as anyone else. However, given the technical advances that have been made since the 1970's which enable people to re-record pre-recorded tapes, copy and re-burn CD's and DVD's, I fail to see the logic of restricting people from sharing their music over the Internet. This kind of activity will continue as long as there is entertainment to enjoy. The simple fact that the Internet has opened up the opportunities that existed long before, is irrelevant.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 9, 2006 - 8:49 AM

Stealing = taking that which does not belong to you.

You didn't buy the song, it doesn't belong to you. You stole it.

See how simple that is?

It's not a question of perception. It's entitled brats searching for any excuse for their complete inability to reason.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:17 PM

You still haven't answered, who does it hurt? If they're not selling it, who not getting their money?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 2:18 PM

Who does it hurt?

If I steal a car from a car dealership, who does it hurt?

If I steal a loaf of bread from a store, who does it hurt?

Does it make any difference that digital downloadsd of CD's are easier to make?

My question to you:

How do you morally justify taking that which does not belong to you. I don't care about price or availability. It's not yours, how do you justify taking it?

If not hurting someone is the only rule by which you measure morality...

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 2:36 PM

If I steal a car from a car dealership, who does it hurt?
If I steal a loaf of bread from a store, who does it hurt?

I have to say, I am a little disappointed in you. Most of your posts are intelligent, and I look forward to reading them; but you had to know those were some of the worst analogies you could choose before you clicked "Post".

Does it make any difference that digital downloads of CD's are easier to make?
Yes, it does. While I am not for rampant copyright infringement, it is easy to see there is indeed a big difference. Theft of a car, a loaf of bread, or any other physical item results in the original owner being unable to sell the physical item. Copying a song does not prevent the sale of that song to the next customer.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 3:09 PM

In the context the post was made, it makes perfect sense.

DSL's argument was: It doesn't hurt anyone.

Well, neither does stealing a car from a dealership. They have 100's of 'em.

Neither does taking a loaf of bread from a store. Hell, they throw more away than I eat in a year.

My point is simply that scale does not, and should not morally justify *anything*.

Wrong is wrong, man. ;)

As for copying a song not hurting the author, well, that depends on how you look at it. ;) (And claiming you'd have never purchased it anyway is a cop-out)

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 3:50 PM

Wrong is wrong
Except when it is soooo right. :P

I wonder if "piracy" would be reduced or increased if they allowed people to return CDs they were unsatisified with?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:25 PM

I'm guessing increase. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I have zero faith in the human race. They'd buy it, rip it, and return it.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:53 PM

I'm guessing increase...
Yeah, you are probably right. I don't give us much credit either. But it could decrease...never underestimate the laziness that could prevent the returns.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:58 PM

Laziness...

...the success of Mail-In Rebates. ;)

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 1:27 PM

It's not incumbent upon anyone here to expalin and/or defend the US Copyright Laws in such a manner as to meet with your acceptance or approval.

It is, on the other hand, incumbent upon you (along with all of us) to obey the law. The Copyright Laws are not applicable at your convenience; and your question about the so-called "victimless crime" is irrelevant.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:42 PM

Question: If I illegally download a song that is out of print because the music company decided that, who is being hurt? They're not even selling it anymore. So who's suffering. Nonexistent sales? What?

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:21 PM

The key word in your question is *ILLEGALLY* which indicates that you are *BREAKING THE LAW*.

You continue to equivocate between a line (drawn by you) which separates those illegal acts which are "acceptable" and those which are not.

People use the very same distinction forother crimes, as in: "We were both drinking and she said liked it, so what's the harm ?" OR "She was 89 years old and was going to die soon anyway, so I didn't see the harm in using some of her money."

Or, even better..."That song has been out of print and circulation for so long who will care if I use it in my movie and make lots of money ?"

Eventually, someone will commt a crime where *you* will be the victim and then "So what's your problem?" will somehow just not make it...do ya think?

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:43 PM

I already stated earlier I have been the victim of stealing several times and other far worse acts. If they get caught all I would want is for them to pay what I paid for it. It's an item and though it's being stolen cost me, I'm not going to make an even bigger issue of it. I wouldn't want them to go to jail or anything, just pay for it.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:37 PM

Yes, in the eyes of the law I am committing a crime, but I'm not going to feel immoral over a song. Yes I am a criminal. But it's not that big a deal. I'm not selling it, I'm not using it for anything other than personally listening to it and when they sell the song again, I'll buy it, so again no one is being harmed. Illegally downloading a song is not on par with rape or murder. I shouldn't have to point out why. That should be clear.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:23 PM

The fact that you insist on repeatedly attempting to justify your actions is a joke. You are copying a song and using it for it's intended purpose without paying for it, it is a big deal. You made a point to mention that you are not selling the songs... the issue here is Limewire and they are making a profit from facilitating your actions. It is nice to see that you do realize that it is wrong.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:19 PM

Cuz it's wrong? Because whether it's more or less wrong doesn't really enter into it?

Did no-one teach you that taking something not belonging to you, that have no permission to take, is wrong?

Did you miss that little life-lesson?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:44 PM

I think the real issue here is whether a mental construct (such as: a pattern of bits, sequence of sounds, or series of symbols, arrangement of colors) can and/or should be owned.

What if the uncompressed encoding of a current top 10 song happened to also be the same bit sequence of an encoding of War and Peace in a proprietary format? How many parties could get in on that lawsuit? The RIAA, the book's publisher and author, and the software company owning that format.

I know it is a far-fetched possibility, almost exclusively existing in the imagination; but we are talking about intellectual property.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:04 PM

What if the uncompressed encoding of a current top 10 song happened to also be the same bit sequence of an encoding of War and Peace in a proprietary format?

Possible, but I could write 'language interpreter' that would take the digital encode of any song and turn it into anything else.

I'd imagine that is such a thing occurred, intent and use would play a big part in hashing out the details.

That same uncrompressed recording would have to be viewed in a seperate program than what it was originally intended for, that's for sure. ;)

Inellectual Property and copyright exists to *foster* creativity and innovation.

Yeah, I know. Hard to believe, right?

It's intent is clear. Unfortunately, it's been twisted by RIAA and other organizations and used to defeat the very purpose for which it was concieved.

This does not, however, make taking that which does not belong to you right. :)

DarkSideLady is easy, man. You actually think before you speak. That makes it harder. You bas****. ;)

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:55 PM

You actually think before you speak. That makes it harder. You bas****. ;)
Yup, I am an immoral bas****. I have grown beyond the concepts of "good and evil" and "right and wrong"; and see things how they truly are. Muwhahhaha

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 4:00 PM

lmao..

Grazer=Lawnmower Man.

*grin*

Perhaps the pre-digital one?

*ducks*

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 4:24 PM

Perhaps the pre-digital one?
Nope, 1's and 0's are not enough for me. I need 2's dammit! Give me 2's!

But seriously...sort of....
By the pre-digital version, I assume you mean prior to any treatments. Well, we know that can't be the case because he was innocent; I have attained nowhere near that level of separation from good and evil.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 4:36 PM

Wow.

I thought I was the only one who actually watched that movie. ;)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:59 PM

WEll, you're just one more person who won't be buying if they *do* re-release it.

And you're also incapable, apparently, of any form of self control, respect for others property, rights, or work.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:16 PM

If you refer back to previous comments of mine, if I like, I find it, they sell it, I'll buy it. That way you are lining the pockets of the artist you like (albeit maybe not a lot), and maybe the music company will start putting there stuff out on the market more often.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:17 PM

..and if they don't sell it, you find it and download it anyway.

Somehow, you feel you're entitled to it, even if the author does not want to distribute it.

That's neat. I wish I could play 6-year old for a while.

Score: 0

By AcacianBlood

edited Sep 28, 2006 - 12:25 PM

All of this arguing is rediculous. You could stop every P2P network RIGHT NOW... Tomorrow there will be 10 more or perhaps somthing better. People should come to realize that. Complaints and lawsuits will not change human nature.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:27 PM

"I wish I could play 6-year old for a while."

Your retort is very insightful. :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:21 PM

Get's the point across.

Let me phrase it differently in case you missed it:

You have the moral understanding of right and wrong that the average 7 year old has surpassed.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:12 PM

Suing Limewire will not fix the problem. They need to find a way to charge a reasonable price for people to share legally and find those hard to get songs. I lot of the sites that went legal I bought to try out and they do not have the majority of those hard to get songs. Popular ones are easy to find and should be bought through the legal channels. For the ignorant SilentMaster and PC_Tool who want to get pissy over songs and lump everyone in as criminals who lack ethics and morals just because a song, get a brain. Limewire deserves to be in court and will probably lose but nothing will change until a middle ground is reached. Dumb preachers!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:02 PM

Suing Limewire will not fix the problem.

Limewire deserves to be in court and will probably lose

Contradicting yourself in the same rant.

That's rich.

Upset when I call you a criminal for downloading music illegally? Get used to it. It's called reality. There are these things called lawes. If you beak them, that makes you a criminal. boo-hoo.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:10 PM

That's not a contradiction if you think logically. Limewire is making money off of something that is illegal so they deserve to be in court. But will it stop people from illegally downloading? No. Does that now make sense to you? Breaking the law and being immoral are two separate things. One is defined by lawmakers and the other should be defined by each individual. I don't care if you call me a criminal. In the eyes of the law, I am one. But I'm not exactly immoral or without ethics over a silly song.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:16 PM

Breaking the law and being immoral are two separate things.

Except in the case where the law is just and right.

Morals are not defined by individuals.

For instance: Killing is wrong. Always has been, always will be, you're opinion be damned.

There's no such thing as individual morals. Morals are not subject to social conditions, political situations, or your own petty desires.

But I'm not exactly immoral or without ethics over a silly song.

Yes. You are.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:23 PM

In this case the law being just and right is a matter of opinion. As you see there are people on here who don't agree with that particular law. Killing on par with downloading a song? Didn't we cover this before. As far as killing being 100% wrong there are some who could debate that as well, such as when you're life is threatened. A child was murdered and you killed that person. Are they wrong? Some say yes, some say no. It still boils down to individual morals. Just because someone doesn't share your view on something as minor as a song doesn't make them evil incarnate either. It's just a silly song as you guys have pointed out so what's the big deal. If you don't want to illegally download, that's your choice. I can't decide that for you.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:17 PM

lmao

How do you justify stealing, then? How is it moral to download something that doesn't belong to you?

How do you justify making a mockery of someone elses rights and hard work?

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 1:11 PM

Hmm....

Score: 0

By maniakmx3

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 9:49 AM

I love limewire, I hear a good song on the radio from an artist releasing a new CD, I download that song I heard, download several others from the same artist, if I like them I go and buy the cd. If I don't I discard of the mp3s.

It's funny because most of everyone I know does this exact same thing, most of the time there's only that 1 good song on the CD and the radio stations play it out so there's no purpose in buying that 1 song or the entire album. This must be why record companies and the RIAA are pissed. haha

TALENTLESS ARTIST ARE THE REASON FOR THE DROP IN RECORD SALES!!!!!!!!!

ooo lets start a TV show and make a STAR!!! but....when their album is released it sucks, they were only good singing other peoples songs that were good. All artists do now adays just remake other artists music and just "change it up" .....yeah THe only music worth buying is Techno/Trance. They're the only ORIGINAL musicians. They create music, not take credit for someone elses music..

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:28 PM

I like techno. I have a few cds of that. Also asian music is really good. The soundtrack for that movie Take Care Of My Cat is amazing. You might want to check it out, maniakmx3. Good instrumentals.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:20 PM

Very true. I'm not gonna spend $20 for a couple of good songs. If companies are no longer concerned with the quality the music put out, they'll suffer. When I find songs from an artist I like and there all on the same album, I'll buy it. Utada Hikaru has some great music, all the songs on her album are great so I ordered it. Testing before you buy. Nothing wrong with that. It's the people who will illegally download a whole album and never bother to buy it are in the wrong. Most stores I search around my way don't carry what I'm looking for, so I download and, if I like, I buy. I'm not gonna waste money supporting an artist who's only concern was putting out one good song. It's a waste of my money. I like getting my money's worth. Over some stupid songs, people want to label others immoral. How stupid can you get? Pathetic.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:03 PM

Apparently stupid enough to steal and still think themselves morally and ethically just.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:13 PM

As stupid as thinking morals and laws go hand in hand. Hmm, then you could be right.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 1:17 PM

Stealing is moral?

Really?

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 2:56 PM

Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving child...when there is no other way for you to feed them? (Admittedly, food is a necessity whereas music and entertainment are normally not considered such; but the conversation does seem to be steering towards moral absolutes.)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:57 PM

Yes.

But then, I'd also be pretty damn sure some other wrongs were done, either by society or by the parents themselves.

Heh... But it would *also* be wrong not to feed that family and their starving children. ;)

Good one. Not really relevant to RIAA though. *grin*

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 5:20 PM

Yes.

But then, I'd also be pretty damn sure some other wrongs were done, either by society or by the parents themselves.

So, if a child getting the food they need is a "right" (as in "good", not entitlement),and stealing to feed that child is wrong, and society forcing the parent/guardian to resort to that is wrong; then....

wrong + wrong = right :P

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 9, 2006 - 8:45 AM

Heh...Come on... Even at the young age of 6 my parents had taught me the ever useful mathematical formula:

wrong+wrong!=right.

Sheesh... ;)

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Aug 9, 2006 - 2:11 PM

I did say I was an immoral bast***...wait that is not quite right, I do know my father, and he's a great guy :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 9, 2006 - 2:10 PM

Well okay, then. Good enough for me.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 9:52 AM

Try going to their website, genius.

Try using any of the music sites that allow you to try before you buy.

Try to think before acting.

There are many ways to legally listen to music before you buy it. Limewire is not one of them.

Your justification sucks because there are countless *legal* ways to accomplish the same thing. Apparently you just couldn't be bothered to find them, or even consider the possibility.

Score: 0

By RPDP

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 8:44 AM

Come on RIAA, keep going...
They now sue all the P2P services, what next?
Will they ask us to shutdown the entire Internet, if they can't stop even after that !LOL!.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 8:56 PM

Quoting DarkSkyLady:

"If I can't find the song I want, I'm going to get it by whatever means necessary. Call me a thief because I want a freakin song!!! Give me a break. I'm not going to miss out on quality music because the big record companies, along with the radio stations don't feel that song is good enough to put out."

In other words: "If I can't get what I want legally, I'll be sure to take it any way possible. And that's OK since *I'm* the one who decides which activities are morally acceptable and which aren't."

Oh grow the f**k up !

BOO HOO...The song I want is out of print and I can't find it anywhere...Waaaahhh...

That's life. Sometimes things don't go your way and you can't get what you want and people have a right to protect their business interests...be it the recording or pornography industry.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:24 PM

How many children on here are going to say grow up. Maturity doesn't factor into it. If I can't find a song, I'm not going to go out of my mind over it, but if I can find it, I'll get it. I'm not going to feel bad or immoral just because I downloaded one song from an artist instead of buying their whole sucky album. Which is why they should've kept selling singles. Then you know exactly what song you're getting. Can't find that anywhere anymore. Wah!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 2:22 PM

You take that which does not belong to you.

You take that you have not been given permission by the owner to possess.

Maturity doesn't factor into it?

My 8 yr-old son knows better than that.

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 9:40 PM

LOL

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 8:29 PM

PC, you have anymore pearls of wisdom for us morally bankrupt folks? We're all ears.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 10:23 AM

get a job maybe?
how about respect other peoples property?
how about come back when you are 18?
you know like in 6 years?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 9:48 AM

2 words.

Grow

Up.

That about covers it.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 8:13 PM

The flow of free information on the internet has much more pressing issues that should be addressed before you start barking about songs. There's websites that promote racism and genocide but because that doesn't hurt anyone's pockets people like PC_rat's, (nice one Sexbarril), MORALS and ETHICS, probably aren't smarting like they should. Money isn't being taken away, just minds poisoned so I guess that's okay. Which show you how backwards the US is. Where the dollar is favored above all else, including human life. Oh, but I forgot, I lack MORALS.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 10:27 AM

so because you cant have a song for free thats putting the dollar above human rights? your not going to ****ing die because you cant have a song, so shut the hell up and produce your own music. maybe then you would respect copyright laws.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 9:49 AM

lmao..

Because one wrong is, in your view, more wrong than another, we should ignore the lesser?

Beautiful.

Murder is worse than rape, let's get rid of all murders before we do *anything* about rape, then, K?

Brilliant.

Nice try on hijaking the topic, BTW. We're not *talking* about racism, if we were, I'd be just as against it.

Good troll. I especially love the "Information wants to be free" nod in your first sentance.

So, your morals and ethics only stop you from being a genocidal racist, eh? I'd work on those then, if I were you.

BTW; It's PC_Tool. PC_Rat is the MS-basher.

Score: 0

By DarkSkyLady

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 12:04 PM

If you want to blindly follow whatever law is passed because THE MAN says so, you go ahead and be the child that can't think for yourself. All those "GROW UP" comments are really mature. I commend you on your choice of phrase. I remember hearing those remarks in high school from little boys. If I don't agree with you then I don't agree. You want to say someone lacks morals over a freaking song and wah-wah over it, have fun. The people who preach morals and ethics are usually the ones lacking it the most. You think just because you can type and form full sentences that makes you a grownup. Congrats!! In the meantime, stop acting like an almighty know it all. You want to follow a law just because it's a law that's your problem. Me, I'll take necessary steps with other to help change it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Aug 8, 2006 - 1:11 PM

You're an idiot.

Copyright isn't THE MAN. It protects artists and authors.

You're just too ignorant to realize it. It's so much easier for you and your ilk to claim oppression and call yourselves 'freedom fighters, sticking it to THE MAN' than to actually take responsibility for your actions and consider the consequences and how those actions affect others.

I'll follow the law because it is *right*. You don't follow it because it's *too much trouble*, or *denys you a song*.

Pirating is *not* going to change it the way you want it to. Priating will only serve to give RIAA and the industry *MORE* ammunition in their efforts to *completely* lock down *all* forms of media.

You're an idiot. You exist only for yourself, thinking of no-one else. You can't see 1 minute aheead of your actions. You take nothing into consideration but your own gratification. You are the lowest common denominator.

You have the moral understanding of a 6 year-old.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Copyright isn't THE MAN. It protects artists and authors.
I would say it was intended to protect artists and authors.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 3:09 PM

Yeah, I usually put that in there. Good catch.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 3:58 PM

i wonder if rjip dies or something, he has not posted here....

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 9:43 AM

BN banned him. Back when he was going off on their stories, much like the RAT is doing.

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. ;)

Score: 0

By Sexbarril

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 4:03 PM

I wonder if PC_rat will complain this post is not on topic.

Latz, SB

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 10:28 AM

so not even a usefull idea there? just gonna go all-out troll right from the start this time eh?

Score: 0

By Sexbarril

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 3:42 PM

Limewire will win this one.

The client / network associtation is different from its predecessors.

With no way to control the network, they can only hope people use the client lwithin the confines of the law.

Victory RIAA because of money.

Latz, SB

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 5:46 PM

LimeWire is not 100% P2P.

Because you still gotta download this client software, and login to a list of pre-compiled servers, and we can call these central servers.

You can't really just install the software, and log onto nowhere.

So, there will always be a media of some kind to broadcast the list. And promotion of the client software. :P

Score: 0

By Black-Wolf

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 1:30 PM

LimeWire is just like an ebay, is a middle man.

But eBay does not really protect the law in many circumstances.

So it's a controversial issue whether or not LimeWire and similar services are really legal or not.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 8, 2006 - 9:41 AM

A hell of a lot less than 90% of eBay's users are legit.

Think you'll get the same stats from limewire?

Not bloody likely.

Good luck with that.

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 12:11 PM

all I can say... OMG

I think for the first time in a long time, I am simply stunned by that stupidity.

~dnc

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 11:56 AM

damn, time to download like bandits...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 12:06 PM

GCoder wants to be one of the next batch of 715 sued by the RIAA....

Score: 0

By bugmenot

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 10:35 AM

$150,000 per occurrence? and the RIAA claims that Limewire are the crooked ones? I hope Limewire goes to court and doesn't give in to their bullying because I strongly believe that Limewire could win the case.

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 10:54 AM

Even if they can win, it will cost Limewire this much in legal fee. Remember, RIAA is an army of lawyers, they can drag the lawsuit until your dead.

Score: 0

By davewalden

edited Aug 7, 2006 - 10:17 AM

altern8energy...

another post from a walking waste of human flesh.... be gone looser

Nice job modirators.... wake up!!!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 9:27 AM

Post your racist BS elsewhere.

Seriously, where *are* the mods?

Score: 0

By moscow01

posted Aug 7, 2006 - 7:18 AM

I think the main problem is that business and laws can't keep up with changing technology. Widespread global Internet access means that people are not necessarily bound by the laws of a particular country (ie USA) and therefore while it may be illegal in one place, it may not be illegal in another. The fact that Limewire can be used legally (for any purpose) in any country means there is a justified reason for it's existence. To handcuff a software distributor so that they must vet potential clientele on their geographical location and their proposed use of their software is as rediculous as US internet companies that won't offer a service outside the US. What the RIAA is trying to do is kill the messenger and not addressing the real issue which is how you protect intellectual property in a world with high speed Internet. You can argue that RIAA is legally r