Record labels ask judge for ruling against Lime Wire

Updated at 3:00 p.m. PDT with comment from Lime Wire.

Thirteen record labels have asked a judge to issue a decision in a 2-year-old case against peer-to-peer software company Lime Wire for allegedly inducing copyright violations of music files.

The motion for summary judgment was filed Friday with the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. The record labels, including Warner Bros. Records, Sony Records, and Virgin Records, are asking the judge for a decision because they claim Lime Wire has "promoted infringement," and has taken no steps to prevent illegal file trading, among other complaints.

The record companies originally filed their suit against Lime Wire in August 4, 2006, alleging "inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and with respect to pre-1972 recordings, common law copyright infringement and state law unfair competition." They also allege personal acts of copyright infringement by Mark Gorton, the owner of Lime Wire, and CTO Greg Bildson.

Lime Wire, which has filed a similar motion for summary judgment in the case, argues that it is not liable for "vicarious" or contributory copyright infringement because of the Sony-Betamax safe harbor. That safe harbor roughly states that makers of technology used for a variety of purposes are not liable for its creation and distribution so long as the products are "merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses," according to its filing.

The record label's filing states that a statistical study of Lime Wire showed that nearly 99 percent of download requests on its P2P software are for infringing music files. Because billions of files are shared every day, the "probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering," according to the document.

Because of the obvious parallels of previous cases against P2P file-sharing companies, the legal document refers heavily to those cases, including a 2005 Supreme Court decision against Grokster.

"As the Supreme Court observed in the context of the very similar Grokster litigation, '[w]hen a widely shared service ... is used to commit infringement, it may be impossible to enforce rights in the protected work effectively against all direct infringers, the only practical alternative being to go against the distributor of the copying device for secondary liability...'" according to the legal filing.

It continues: "Given the vast number of infringements that occur every day using LimeWire and the lack of a genuine issue as to any material fact, the argument for imposing secondary liability on this summary judgment motion is as powerful as it was in Grokster."

Lime Wire's CEO George Searle said in a statement that the recording industry's lawsuits aren't helping the music consumer, nor artists, songwriters, and publishers.

"Litigation isn't a good digital business model," said Searle, whose company's software has been downloaded more than 150 million times. "We're confident in our position and in the eventual outcome of this lawsuit, and we look forward to the day we can work together with the entire music industry to help expand its reach and deliver more to the consumer."

Based in New York, Lime Wire was founded in 2000. This spring, the company launched a music store for songs of independent artists.

[cohaver]

Recording Companies Need to just Build a System Like Lime wire add a 5 to 15 Second Advertisement to each song or Companies like Limewire just need to Ad Advertisements to there service and share the Revenue with each other.

[cohaver]

Recording Companies Need to just Build a System Like Lime wire add a 5 to 15 Second Advertisement to each song or Companies like Limewire just need to Ad Advertisements to there service and share the Revenue with each other.

[open-mind]

While we're at it...

How about a judgement against food companies for promoting obesity?

How about a judgement against car companies for promoting speeding?

How about a judgement against beer companies for promoting DUI?

How about a judgement against Al Gore (inventor of the internet) for promoting internet porn?

OK, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch. ;-)

[hermantf]

While I agree that record companies need to accept that digital files are here to stay, it is still not right for anyone to steal music, and it is a fact that people steal music via Lime Wire. Therefore, it should, at the very least, be shut down and, at the most, they should pay damages.

[Burnsie001]

And while we are at it, lets have a judgement against the computer hardware manufacturers and the network card manufacturers and the Microsoft for supplying the operating systems and the network software stack, as well as all the underlying functionality that applications like Lime Wire rely on. We should also have a judgement against all the companies providing media player software.

Then we can go after the rest of the free download industry. Lets target drivers of cable laying machines, because people use the internet to shift content illegally and they couldn't do that if no one laid the cables and optic fibre it runs on.

Opps sorry, M$ is too hard to sue since they are so big, lets pick on just the application providers since thay don't have the deep pockets to protect themselves.

[dnball]

The obvious problem with your argument is that many files shared thru p2p are NOT protected by copyright, including files containing sound recordings intentionally placed in the public domain by the artists -- and many other public domain works. In addition, copyrighted works can lawfully be reproduced w/o the owner's permission so long as the reproduction is a fair use of the work. Shuttting down p2p providers to "protect" those who own some copyrighted works is like shutting down all nightclubs because they're sometimes visited by underage drinkers.

[icolbowca]

Music is just one of those things that you can't reasonably contol illicit duplication of. Especially not in this internet age. It was difficult prior to as well. Many of us are guilty of recording cassettes or songs from the radio, so that we wouldn't have to purchase the actual thing.

It would be in the best interest of music companies to find an alternative way to earn profits. Advertising is one such way, and there are so many creative ways to make that money.

[AICAP Group]

Record losses are theoretical claptrap, smoke. People who download free music would never buy that music. It is a false argument, a perverse wishful thinking that they are actually loosing any money at all. Like other posters above suggested, they need to get a clue and change their business model. File sharing absolutely cannot be stopped. I get most of my music from a russian music blog. Countries all over the world are sharing music and it is just getting started. It is pointless to argue right or wrong because it is never going to stop, never.

[unknown unknown]

The Grokster decision also said there had to be affirmative steps to promote infringement. It's still not clear whether failure to filter can be seen as an affirmative step. In Grokster they discovered emails etc that showed the companies activity tried to encourage piracy in order to draw more people to the service. Since Grokster and Morpheus were both ad drive it meant more money.

Even if the labels win it will be a pyrrhic victory, cause Limewire's client is open source with several derivatives readily available, Frostwire for example. Not to mention Gnutella network it's self is open. They're going to be hard pressed to stop it, we saw how well attempts to get DeCSS off the net proved. Beside contrary to what they say, these suits aren't about helping artists, they're about the record labels bottom lines. Artist are forced to make their money on merch and touring (which the labels are now taking a cut of with 360 contracts).

[hermantf]

I don?t know, friends. I don?t agree with most of what?s here.

First of all, the whole ?the record companies have to change? argument is getting pretty thin. I mean, when in the history of music has it ever been easier to pay for music? You don?t have to leave the house. You can preview any song to see if it?s worth it. It?s cheaper than ever. Practically every song that?s ever been recorded is just $.99 and a click away. Sounds to me like they pretty much have changed. Yet people are still stealing music.

Second, while I despise the major record companies and I think that they are getting what they deserve, not every artist is signed to a major label. In fact, most artists are doing it themselves just trying to make a living. Remember that music is really about the artists who create it. They deserve to be paid for what they do, and if people are stealing their art, they can?t get paid.

Bottom line is that if you enjoy music, stop being a bum and pay for it. Just because you can get it for free does not make it right, no matter how you justify it in your own mind. Paying for it is the right thing to do period.

[unknown unknown]

"It?s cheaper than ever. Practically every song that?s ever been recorded is just $.99 and a click away. Sounds to me like they pretty much have changed. Yet people are still stealing music."

It's not every song in fact it's far from it. Labels have massive back catalogs that are just collecting dust, or the rights are in question.

"it is a fact that people steal music via Lime Wire. Therefore, it should, at the very least, be shut down and, at the most, they should pay damages."

They worst they can do is shutdown the company, Limewire and it's derivatives will continue to function without Limewire corporate.

[griffty1982]

Its not right to download Music Illigally, but maybe some artists profit from giving their music away for free. Single sales are down. Album sales arn't affected to much and live music, concerts make double they did a decade ago. Many artists have taken this onboard and given there album away for a very low price or for free. Radio Head, Prince, Mcfly being the most recent. I heard Mcfly had a new album I would not have bought it. However a copy was given away in a daily newspaper, millions of people now have there album, a large amount of them probably wouldn't have paid for it, now they might like mcfly and plan to see them in concert. My point is that these groups are using the music as an advertisement to gain a bigger fan base and make money on the concerts. if people have to pay for cds maybe they wont buy them and concert sales will fall. i think either way, the music industry loses out on profits.
My question is If theres no money to be made from giving away an album for free, then why are these bands choosing to do it that way?