Limewire Fraud Case

In 1999, Shawn Fanning and his little program called Napster created quite a stir in society. Napster's software allows music listeners to open pieces of their personal hard drives to everyone using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control what happens with

According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded between 2004 and 2009. Even with sites like iTunes and Rhapsody offering legal downloads, peer-to-peer file sharing still exists. Illegally downloading music has had a significant impact on the music industry resulting in a loss of profits and jobs, and changing how music is delivered to the masses. (Adkins, n.d.) Showing that even having the ethically correct option P2P sharing of illegal media is still thriving. The RIAA reports that music sales in the United States have dropped

Applying the June 2014 Supreme Court decision, the Federal Circuit found that Limelight did not control or direct the actions of its clients. Although a contract existed between Limelight and its clients, the contract did not require clients to perform certain steps that Limelight did not itself perform. Consequently, Limelight committed no direct infringement -- and therefore, there was no indirect infringement.

The parties finally reached a settlement of 105 million dollars distributed to the various companies respectively. While the record companies asked for the maximum penalty of 1.4 billion dollars, they hoped that the huge victory would show other piracy sites and services that what they’re doing is not a game. Illegal downloads hurt the people who have put in the hard work, day in and day out. The RIAA’s chairman, Mitch Bainwol said it best, “As the court heard during the last two weeks, Limewire wreaked enormous damage on the music community, helping contribute to thousands of lost jobs and few opportunities for aspiring artists.”

The battle of the Recording Industry Association of America (R.I.I.A.) vs. LimeWire had as its goal to settle an issue over music piracy. LimeWire was a free peer-to-peer file-sharing network which shared both authorized song and unauthorized songs. The legal campaign of RIAA v. The People started on September 8, 2003, and lasted for five years (1).

LimeWire, as many know, was a free peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program. In August of 2006, LimeWire found themselves in some major legal trouble when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) demanded LimeWire be ceased for good. In the suit, the RIAA accused LimeWire of operating a web service ““devoted essentially” to piracy by allowing users to upload and download songs without permission.” (“Major Record Labels Settle Suit with LimeWire”).

In the case of Metallica v Napster (2000), Metallica filed suit against Napster for infringing upon their ownership of their unique music. “The suit claims that Napster ‘devised and distributed software whose sole purpose is to permit Napster to profit by abetting and encouraging’ piracy” (Doan, 2000). The music was original and copyrighted by Metallica. The Napster song downloads were being done without their consent or royalties paid.

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that peer to peer file sharing is copyright infringement. Millions of people illegally copied and shared copyrighted music, films, and software over the internet that directly infringed MGM’s copyright. Copyright violations were knowingly caused by the defendant by promoting the

This case was quickly followed by another well-know copyright infringement through free software situation. As John Zelezny’s text, Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media, notes, “two companies, Grokster and StreamCast Networks, distributed free software that allowed users to share digital files through peer-to-peer networks where personal computers communicated directly with each other and not through a central service” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 360).

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

The government’s position in the media piracy issue is more complicated. Governments must try to appease the industries but also face the conflict of consumer interests (Harmon 2003). This involves

Ever since 18-year-old Shawn Fanning created Napster in his Northeastern University dorm room in 1999, downloading and sharing music online has become one of the most popular things to do on the Internet today. But why wouldn't it? Getting all your favorite songs from all your favorite artists for free, who wouldn't want to start sharing music? The answer to that question are the people who feel that stealing from the music industry is not morally right, because that is exactly what every person who shares music is doing. People who download music think it's something they can get away with but now it might be payback time to a lot of those people.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.