Judge Dismisses LimeWire's Charges Of Antitrust Violations Against RIAA
from the more-evidence-please dept
After being sued by the RIAA, file sharing app provider LimeWire fought back. Beyond claiming that it didn't violate copyright laws (by not "inducing" infringement), the company also countersued, claiming that the RIAA had violated antitrust laws in trying to illegally compete with LimeWire and other file sharing systems. This claim always seemed like a stretch, and apparently a judge agreed, dismissing the antitrust claims, noting that LimeWire failed to provide enough evidence to back up the claim. While it would have been nice to see the RIAA run into trouble on this point, it's true that LimeWire's evidence wasn't particularly strong, so this shouldn't come as a surprise or even be seen as much of a setback. It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
A pity the judges can't make such quick and correct decisions when it's the RIAA filing the lawsuit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Shame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
LimeWire should refile
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Speaking f antitrust violations...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Speaking f antitrust violations...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Beating a dead horse....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It was about money....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA/MPAA
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Beating a dead horse....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: comment #9
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: comment #9
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Beating a dead horse....
If I rob a bank, should Ford be sued because I drove away in a Town Car? Or would Smith & Wesson be the more appropriate target? Or perhaps North Face, who made my ski mask...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: comment #9
Not really. From the Supreme Court:
"Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"but yes file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong."
Sure, distributing copyrighted material is illegal (in the united states), but downloading a copy of a song I already own fair use rights isn't.
For the RIAA to claim that all those downloads are illegal is just not in evidence. A 60 gig ipod would cost $50K to fill up, do you think all those college students have that much spare income?
Might as well sue apple as well as limewire, based on your opinion.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Beating a dead horse....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: comment #9
You sure could have fooled me. You sound just like one of their tools.
That statement is so broad as to be untrue. Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works is illegal and I don't think many people would argue that. But your statement would mean that sharing Linux (which is copyrighted) is illegal and that is not true.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: comment #9
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
so is this case law now?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment