LimeWire, one of the last commercial P2P holdouts in the RIAA’s ongoing war against file sharing networks, has answered the RIAA’s complaint and counterclaimed against the RIAA on a number of grounds. The counterclaim itself is interesting for a number of reasons. For one thing, it clearly describes what LimeWire believes is the reason for the recording industry’s feverish pursuit of applications, which enable their users to trade files regardless of their status under copyright law.
The counterclaim states that the recording industry had a business model based primarily on the manufacture and distribution of physical media, such as CDs. This goes a long way to explain why the recording industry has not only fought against file sharing, but also against CD-Rs, iPods, time shifting satellite radio products, and anything else that might mess with that business model.
The counterclaim also highlights the difference between a true P2P application like LimeWire and services such as first-to-fall Napster and others that use a centralized server to facilitate searching and communication between users. This could be the single most important distinction in these "inducement to infringement" cases that the RIAA has brought against P2P applications. In the first instance, with applications like Napster, where there is a centralized server, there is every opportunity for the hosting company to learn of its patrons infringing uses, and further, to stop infringement.
In a true P2P environment, where there is no centralized server, and as such, limited involvement or oversight of the originating company, this element of knowledge as to exactly what their users are sharing is gone. This is why the RIAA is suing primarily on “inducement to infringement” grounds (i.e. “psssst, hey, kid, check this out… if you push this red button, you can get the latest Usher for free. While you’re doing that, can I interest you in some Cialis?”).
Here’s where it gets interesting: LimeWire states the impetus for the Industry’s push to shut down P2P services as, "[T]o destroy any online music distribution service they did not own or control, or force such services to do business with them on exclusive and/or other anticompetitive terms so as to limit and ultimately control the distribution and pricing of digital music, all to the detriment of consumers." (See Arista Records, et al. v. LimeWire, Deft’s Answer and Counterclaims, p. 18.)
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - clan garriock
actually various groups such as the sierra club, earthfirst, aclu, greenpeace, etc prevail in lawsuits all the time where they cannot show actual harm was caused them or may be caused. Yet even when they can not prove prevailing interest, courts still grant them standing.