by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
copyright, limewire

limewire, riaa

Judge Orders Limewire To Shut Down; Limewire Pretends It Can Still Exist

from the yeah,-ok dept

This is hardly a surprise, given the earlier ruling, but the judge in the Limewire case has now ruled in favor of the RIAA that Limewire needs to shut down "the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality." Basically, all of the functionality. Amusingly, Limewire is pretending it can still function without any... er... functions:
An important point of clarification, LimeWire is not “shutting down”, in specific regarding our software, we are compelled to use our best efforts cease support and distribution of the file-sharing software, along with increased filtering. And, that is what we are doing.
Of course, we've seen similar file sharing apps make similar claims when the judge's hammer came down, and they all went away. Of course, it's not like this actually means anything, other than the fact that people who want to file share have already moved on to other apps and services (mostly overseas) that are even less likely and less willing to work with the recording industry, and which will be that much harder to shut down. One by one, the RIAA has killed off the few firms that actually had an interest in trying to work with the industry, so everyone has gone to the groups that want nothing to do with the RIAA in any format.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Karl (profile), 27 Oct 2010 @ 2:12pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    The lack of scarcity is because illegal piracy has disrupted the supply.

    The lack of scarcity is because digital music files are non-rivalrous and non-excludable.

    "Disrupted the supply?" More records are being produced now than ever before. The "supply" is doing just fine.

    Why do you defend the illegal ripping off of artists?

    I don't defend the legal ripping off of artists, either. That's why I don't like traditional label deals.

    As far as "ripping off" artists: It's not like every time someone downloads a song, that artist's bank account balance decreases. The only thing possibly lost was a sale - and that's not necessarily true, e.g. when people buy the album later, or when they buy other albums by the artist because of it. Or when piracy is used by fans to expose other people to the artist, resulting in a larger fan base (potential market) - like mix tapes did.

    Seeing as pirates buy more music than non-pirates - a fact you consistently ignore - these are all real possibilities.

    But even if you do believe it "rips off" artists, then what? All the legislation you're bragging about won't result in additional sales. Even if it doesn't shrink the market by making fans lose interest in music (or, like three-strikes laws, prevent fans from buying digital music), then people still won't buy, for reasons I gave and you ignored.

    Why are you against artists making money? Because that's obviously what you want, you're just too cowardly to admit it. Right?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.