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)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 5:00am

    "It's just a case where LimeWire reached too far in its lawsuit and a judge quickly saw that."

    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 ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anon, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 5:37am

    Shame

    It would have been nice to see LimeWire win here, but maybe they will come back stronger with a decent case and evidence to prove it next time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Max Powers, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 6:26am

    LimeWire should refile

    I hope they refile and get it right this time. Maybe they were in a hurry for some reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Reverend Davidius, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 7:27am

    Speaking f antitrust violations...

    What about the big oil companies?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 7:41am

    Re: Speaking f antitrust violations...

    Earth is screwed. The oil companies will stay as they are until the bitter end. I hope my future offspring have fun with what we left for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Lyinggod, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 7:51am

    Beating a dead horse....

    Lets face it, Limewire and its "peers" are in the same boat. RIAA, while being big bullies, is in the right. It is their stuff thats being stolen and Limewire, torrent software, etc, is the vehicle for it. If you want to fight against them, then do it by dealing with the musicans that sell direct online. As long as the RIAA is perceiving that they can recover income once their songs not are being stolen any more, they will continue to pursue those that steal. If you buy the songs directly, the RIAA doesnt get the money, and the little guy wins. As long as stealing continues, whether by the individual and/or through processes similar to limewire then those caught, just like stealing "real" items, are getting what they deserve.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Susheel Daswani, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 8:30am

    It was about money....

    LimeWire's antitrust claims were pretty bogus on their face. This was just a litigation tactic to get the RIAA to spend the money (Cravath is very expensive) to get the claim dismissed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 8:38am

    RIAA/MPAA

    the RIAA and MPAA should pay 99.5% of there income from lawsuits to charity, and the other .5% to their bodyguards

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Chad, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 9:09am

    Re: Beating a dead horse....

    What kind of idiot are you? You cannot steal virtual goods you can infringe on the copyright but unless you steal a CD or other physical medium you are not stealing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Justin, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 9:23am

    Re: comment #9

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Justin, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 9:28am

    Re: comment #9

    Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing. I'm against the record labels and the entire industry needs to change the way they are doing things, but yes file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong. The only thing is I believe the RIAA's and MPAA's tactics in the matter is more wrong. The prices of CD's and mp3's are insanely high and the artist only gets a small fraction of the profit from each unit sold. The record labels are greedy bastards and they just want to keep making billions of dollars and won't accept the fact that times are changing and they should change their game plan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    4-80-sicks, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 9:35am

    Re: Beating a dead horse....

    It is their stuff thats being stolen and Limewire, torrent software, etc, is the vehicle for it.

    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 ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike (profile), Dec 4th, 2007 @ 9:57am

    Re: Re: comment #9

    Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing.

    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 ]

  14.  
    identicon
    memorabilia, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 10:44am

    @#11
    "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 ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 12:39pm

    Re: Beating a dead horse....

    As long as the RIAA is perceiving that they can recover income once their songs not are being stolen any more, they will continue to pursue those that steal. If you buy the songs directly, the RIAA doesnt get the money, and the little guy wins. As long as stealing continues, whether by the individual and/or through processes similar to limewire then those caught, just like stealing "real" items, are getting what they deserve.
    Copyright infringement isn't stealing. Saying that it is is lying. Congratulations on earning your nickname, Lyinggod.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 1:04pm

    Re: Re: comment #9

    Chad, last time I checked when a person takes something, anything, be it information, computer files, or whatever, that is being sold for money and they don't pay for it, yeah that is called stealing.
    Then you need to check elsewhere because you're getting bogus information. Copying isn't taking and it isn't stealing.
    I'm against the record labels...
    You sure could have fooled me. You sound just like one of their tools.
    ... file sharing copyrighted material is illegal and wrong.
    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 ]

  17.  
    identicon
    buckykat, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 4:41pm

    Re: Re: comment #9

    um, nobody's reselling pirated stuff. (at least not limewire, TPB, etc.) if we paid for it, it wouldn't be called 'piracy', now would it? free pirated songs are free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Digitalist, Dec 4th, 2007 @ 8:44pm

    so is this case law now?

    If this is a closed case then it's case law... Demonoid could really use this information in it's current fight for survival with the CRIAA... the canadian version of the RIAA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This