Limewire

[PrinceofLight2000]

has felt the iron hammer of justice, and heard its thunderous peal.

U.S. court shuts down LimeWire music-sharing service | Reuters

I'm not sure how constitutional the ruling is, but if it's held up, torrent software could be next. I'm quite shocked.

[RachelleDrew]

How is it "shut down"? I am using it right at this very second...downloading some Chopin as I type this..

[RachelleDrew]

EDIT.

It just stopped my download and told me that what I was doing was illegal. Weaksauce. I spoke too soon.

[PrinceofLight2000]

How is it "shut down"? I am using it right at this very second...downloading some Chopin as I type this..

Stealing is bad.... tsk tsk...

[HoosierGuy]

I don't see how they can ever shut down file sharing. Law suites against little old innocent grandmothers downloading music never looks good and brings much bad press upon the big music company.

[RachelleDrew]

Stealing is bad.... tsk tsk...

Yup, it's bad alright.

Anyway, I kinda saw this coming. I guess I will just have to use torrents instead...

[Mahone]

has felt the iron hammer of justice, and heard its thunderous peal.

U.S. court shuts down LimeWire music-sharing service | Reuters

I'm not sure how constitutional the ruling is, but if it's held up, torrent software could be next. I'm quite shocked.

LOL! I guess that means that once again, the lawyers with no technical understanding of these matters think they have got a landmark ruling, when they don't seem to realise that limewire runs on a P2P based network (i.e. there are NO central servers to shut down). I believe limewire uses it's own company operated servers to make the initial connection to other clients (which is how they have shut the limewire client down), but the network behind it (of which there any many clients using other than limewire) will continue to operate as per normal. Everyone who used limewire will simply download another client, or use another method of filesharing such a bittorrent.

How much did these lawyers cost? Either way, their "victory" won't have made the slightest bit of difference.

[pam]

Some of the internet companies are now shutting off service to those that are file sharing. Qwest is one of them, and Comcast is starting to send out notices that they will begin to do this.

How do I know this? I got one from Comcast (I have used limewire quite often) and a friend of mine at work has Qwest and discovered their internet shut down.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Yup, it's bad alright.

Anyway, I kinda saw this coming. I guess I will just have to use torrents instead...

Then why do you do it?

Some of the internet companies are now shutting off service to those that are file sharing. Qwest is one of them, and Comcast is starting to send out notices that they will begin to do this.

How do I know this? I got one from Comcast (I have used limewire quite often) and a friend of mine at work has Qwest and discovered their internet shut down.

Good.

LOL! I guess that means that once again, the lawyers with no technical understanding of these matters think they have got a landmark ruling, when they don't seem to realise that limewire runs on a P2P based network (i.e. there are NO central servers to shut down). I believe limewire uses it's own company operated servers to make the initial connection to other clients (which is how they have shut the limewire client down), but the network behind it (of which there any many clients using other than limewire) will continue to operate as per normal. Everyone who used limewire will simply download another client, or use another method of filesharing such a bittorrent.

How much did these lawyers cost? Either way, their "victory" won't have made the slightest bit of difference.

If they continue knocking down software like this, it will. This ruling has opened the door for that.

Wood's decision to shut the LimeWire service followed a unanimous 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against file-sharing service Grokster Ltd.

In that ruling, the court said companies could be sued for copyright infringement if they distributed services designed to be used for that purpose, even if the devices could also be used lawfully.

Edited October 27, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Mahone]

If they continue knocking down software like this, it will. This ruling has opened the door for that.

There are very few countries that are really that bothered about piracy, the USA and the Uk among them. There are an awful lot of countries that really don't care that much. If the USA knocks off all the companies and organisations they can from in the USA, two things will likely happen:

1. People will simply move their operations and servers abroad, but provide the same service to the same people who use it

2. People will utilise networks that can't be shut down, like bittorrent. You can shut down the individual sites that host the tiny torrent files, but as soon as you shut down one, another 100 will pop up, most hosted abroad.

As for ISPs trying to intecept traffic and send out legal letters to their customers, the response to that from the filesharing community was to make their traffic encrypted, and use non-standard bittorrent ports to prevent it being blocked, so it's impossible to prove what it is. Not everyone does this, but a lot of people do now.

Every time the government sets up something to put a halt to this, the people doing it just create another workaround. With the internet in it's current form, this is simply a battle the government cannot win.

I'm not saying I agree with filesharing, just that the government are going completely the wrong way about trying to stop it.

[PrinceofLight2000]

There are very few countries that are really that bothered about piracy, the USA and the Uk among them. There are an awful lot of countries that really don't care that much. If the USA knocks off all the companies and organisations they can from in the USA, two things will likely happen:

1. People will simply move their operations and servers abroad, but provide the same service to the same people who use it

2. People will utilise networks that can't be shut down, like bittorrent. You can shut down the individual sites that host the tiny torrent files, but as soon as you shut down one, another 100 will pop up, most hosted abroad.

As for ISPs trying to intecept traffic and send out legal letters to their customers, the response to that from the filesharing community was to make their traffic encrypted, and use non-standard bittorrent ports to prevent it being blocked, so it's impossible to prove what it is. Not everyone does this, but a lot of people do now.

Every time the government sets up something to put a halt to this, the people doing it just create another workaround. With the internet in it's current form, this is simply a battle the government cannot win.

I'm not saying I agree with filesharing, just that the government are going completely the wrong way about trying to stop it.

The software needs to be able to connect for it to work. The court can order that to be stopped, that's what happened with Limewire.

There will always be workarounds. But if we can halt the places where most filesharing is occurring, we can effectively stop most of the flow.

[Mahone]

The software needs to be able to connect for it to work. The court can order that to be stopped, that's what happened with Limewire.

That's because limewire were hosted in the USA (silly place to be if they wanted their business to continue in its current form), and actually needed that initial connection to official servers, not all software works this way.

There will always be workarounds. But if we can halt the places where most filesharing is occurring, we can effectively stop most of the flow.

Most sources of filesharing (like torrent files) are now outside of the USA's legal control, as they are not located in the USA.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Most sources of filesharing (like torrent files) are now outside of the USA's legal control, as they are not located in the USA.

Don't international trade agreements prohibit torrenting?

[Mahone]

Don't international trade agreements prohibit torrenting?

Can you offer specific details on this? I'm not aware of anything specific. If there is, it's clearly not having the desired effect (and I woldn't expect it to, due to the complications aforementioned on the technology side of things).

Limewire has been around for 10 years, and has been based in the USA the entire time, and it's taken them most of that time to get them shut down. If it takes that long to get an official company to take its servers offline when it's based solely in the USA, can you imagine how long it would take to do the same to an international organisation?

[PrinceofLight2000]

Can you offer specific details on this? I'm not aware of anything specific. If there is, it's clearly not having the desired effect (and I woldn't expect it to, due to the complications aforementioned on the technology side of things).

Limewire has been around for 10 years, and has been based in the USA the entire time, and it's taken them most of that time to get them shut down. If it takes that long to get an official company to take its servers offline when it's based solely in the USA, can you imagine how long it would take to do the same to an international organisation?

Hmm, apparently it's just in the works as of right now.

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rather surprising, seeing as how the technology has been around forever. Nobody has any foresight. That's how this snowball got rolling.

[TL10]

Something tells me that millions of people won't be singing this song anymore.

Honestly, I'm glad that Limewire is shut down. Hopefully the limers will get their songs legitimatly from now on.

[Dravin]

I'm not saying I agree with filesharing, just that the government are going completely the wrong way about trying to stop it.

Do you have a more effective way in mind? Or is it just that the current angle of attack is all but futile? If the former I'd like to hear what you have in mind, if the latter well, I'm not the most tech savvy and one of the first things that popped into my mind was bit-torrent and the like. Shutting down one service, or even a protocol won't end piracy any more than electronic tags ended shoplifting.

[Just_A_Guy]

LOL! I guess that means that once again, the lawyers with no technical understanding of these matters think they have got a landmark ruling, when they don't seem to realise that limewire runs on a P2P based network (i.e. there are NO central servers to shut down). I believe limewire uses it's own company operated servers to make the initial connection to other clients (which is how they have shut the limewire client down), but the network behind it (of which there any many clients using other than limewire) will continue to operate as per normal. Everyone who used limewire will simply download another client, or use another method of filesharing such a bittorrent.

How much did these lawyers cost? Either way, their "victory" won't have made the slightest bit of difference.

What? You impugn my noble profession?

You, sir, are a bounder and a cad; and you will be receiving a Summons shortly.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

In all seriousness--I had a professor who clerked on the Supreme Court in 2003; and she said that one reason for the dearth of good computer case-law is that the Court members don't understand how it works and aren't that inclined to learn; therefore, (at least back then) they tended to deny certiorari to any such cases that come their way.

I can see the need for anti-piracy laws generally; but it's hard for me to get too worked up over those poor martyrs at the RIAA when you see what percentage of a CD's price goes back to the recording labels--it's hard for me to see why whatever they do justifies their receiving almost twice the proceeds-per-CD that the actual artist gets.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

certiorari

Lay person translation please?

You, sir, are a bounder and a cad; and you will be receiving a Summons shortly.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Dravin

[PrinceofLight2000]

I can see the need for anti-piracy laws generally; but it's hard for me to get too worked up over those poor martyrs at the RIAA when you see what percentage of a CD's price goes back to the recording labels--it's hard for me to see why whatever they do justifies their receiving almost twice the proceeds-per-CD that the actual artist gets.

Labels cover all kinds of expenses for artists, depending on the contract. Traveling, promotion, booking, producing, recording, distributing.. the list goes on.

Edited October 28, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Just_A_Guy]

Lay person translation please?

Sorry--if SCOTUS "grants certiorari", it means they decide to hear the case. If they "deny certiorari", it means they don't want to hear the case.

[Dr T]

I heard to too many people getting a virus from sites like that. I never used it or them.

[Mahone]

Do you have a more effective way in mind? Or is it just that the current angle of attack is all but futile? If the former I'd like to hear what you have in mind, if the latter well, I'm not the most tech savvy and one of the first things that popped into my mind was bit-torrent and the like.

Both really.

Piracy is not so popular just because you get something for free that you'd normally get for a cost. Yes it's a big factor, but not the only one. Piracy, in many many cases, actually gives you something better than what you'd get in a shop (online or high street).

Let me give an example: you buy a bog standard DVD from a random high street store. What do you usually get with this DVD? Copy protection (using whatever method) - you can't make copies of your DVDs, even for your own backup purposes. Annoying adverts that are often impossible to skip prior to watching the movie. If the DVD gets scratched, well, you're stuck really. You need to buy a new one (if they still sell it that is). Have you ever tried to purchase a -really- old song/movie , but can't find it in the shops anywhere? Chances are you'll find it on a file sharing site within minutes. Bought a DVD from the UK and tried to play it on an American DVD player, or vice versa? Good luck with that, most likely not going to work.

What do you get if you break copyright law and download it for free? Adverts removed, a DRM free digital copy that you are free to copy as much as you like for backup and generally do as you wish with, no technical restrictions in place. A massive limitless library of media to download, from anywhere in the world.

The adverts that give piracy the appearance of a badly made recording made by a tape based camera in a cinema are extremely outdated. Nowadays, you can often get a better product by downloading it via any firesharing method.

Programs like spotify (in the UK) provide a free and legal online streaming alternative to filesharing for bog standard music. It provides the music for free, and gives money back to the artists through the occasional advert, and premium features that need to be paid for (very much like google's business model). But an alternative needs to be provided for those that want quality music and movie products, not ones that are completely locked down with technical restrictions. That's just encouraging piracy, not stopping it.

I heard to too many people getting a virus from sites like that. I never used it or them.

That's because they don't watch what they are downloading. If they download a file called Evanescence.mp3.exe, then they are going to get infected. Also, MP3s tend to be bigger than 40kb in size (unlike a lot of viruses that can be found on limewire).

Edited October 28, 2010 by Mahone

[Blackmarch]

Both really.

Piracy is not so popular just because you get something for free that you'd normally get for a cost. Yes it's a big factor, but not the only one. Piracy, in many many cases, actually gives you something better than what you'd get in a shop (online or high street).

well free and easy are very huge factors, the next factor I would vote is availability issues-the "I want to see this now" factor. generally quality, lack of ads, or the ability to skip parts take a back seat to those influences.

Let me give an example: you buy a bog standard DVD from a random high street store. What do you usually get with this DVD? Copy protection (using whatever method) - you can't make copies of your DVDs, even for your own backup purposes. Annoying adverts that are often impossible to skip prior to watching the movie. If the DVD gets scratched, well, you're stuck really. You need to buy a new one (if they still sell it that is). Have you ever tried to purchase a -really- old song/movie , but can't find it in the shops anywhere? Chances are you'll find it on a file sharing site within minutes. Bought a DVD from the UK and tried to play it on an American DVD player, or vice versa? Good luck with that, most likely not going to work.

What do you get if you break copyright law and download it for free? Adverts removed, a DRM free digital copy that you are free to copy as much as you like for backup and generally do as you wish with, no technical restrictions in place. A massive limitless library of media to download, from anywhere in the world.

sometimes, sometimes it's porn with that name on it, It can be the real deal altho usually with asian subtitles, and sometimes its the real deal with malware embedded in it. with peer to peer filesharing, you ultimately don't know what you're getting .

The adverts that give piracy the appearance of a badly made recording made by a tape based camera in a cinema are extremely outdated. Nowadays, you can often get a better product by downloading it via any firesharing method.

actually the majority of piracy is someone buying or getting their hands ona good or high quality DVD and have the equipment and or software to bypass the the copy protection , and then ripping it. File sharing that ripped copy makes the problem worse.

Programs like spotify (in the UK) provide a free and legal online streaming alternative to filesharing for bog standard music. It provides the music for free, and gives money back to the artists through the occasional advert, and premium features that need to be paid for (very much like google's business model). But an alternative needs to be provided for those that want quality music and movie products, not ones that are completely locked down with technical restrictions. That's just encouraging piracy, not stopping it.

I prefer the itunes model- it's a little more secure. things like spotify are great as long as they have the means to pay for each copy thats downloaded, or if they have made arrangements with the copyright holders... but relying on advert income is a bit of a gamble (altho good if you can do it right).

That's because they don't watch what they are downloading. If they download a file called Evanescence.mp3.exe, then they are going to get infected. Also, MP3s tend to be bigger than 40kb in size (unlike a lot of viruses that can be found on limewire).

most of the time but not always. I"ve had malware embedded inside files with other extensions other than .exe