Limewire sued for $75 Trillion

[The Observer]

The music industry wants LimeWire to pay up to $75 trillion in damages after losing a copyright infringement claim. That's right . . . $75 trillion. Manhattan federal Judge Kimba Wood has labeled this request "absurd."

 

You're telling me. To put that number into perspective (I bet a lot of you didn't even know "trillion" was a real number), the U.S. GDP is around 14 trillion -- less than one fifth of what the music industry is requesting. Heck, the GDP of the entire world is between 59 and 62 trillion. That's right, the music industry wants LimeWire to pay more money than exists in the entire world.

 

Popular file-sharing service LimeWire was shut down last October, after Judge Wood found them liable for copyright infringement in May 2010.

 

According to Law.com, the RIAA and the 13 record companies that are suing LimeWire for copyright infringement have demanded damages ranging from $400 billion to $75 trillion, and have claimed that Section 504©(1) of the Copyright Act allow them to request damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable. In other words, the RIAA thinks it should be entitled to damages not only for the individual works, but for every time that work was infringed (i.e. downloaded by another user).

 

At the moment, about 11,000 songs have been identified as "infringed" material, and each song probably has probably been downloaded thousands of times. The RIAA thinks it should be compensated for each individual download.

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html

 

Really now.

[Pluckey]

The Music Industry is on more drugs than its performers.

[No_M0re]

Ha!

 

When will the industry realise they need to change media, people don't want to apy 10£ for 10 tracks.

 

I will continue to pirate everything until I can buy a song for 5p a pop in a format higher than 320.

[Pluckey]

Ha!

 

When will the industry realise they need to change media, people don't want to apy 10£ for 10 tracks.

 

I will continue to pirate everything until I can buy a song for 5p a pop in a format higher than 320.

 

 

 

So easy to pirate too.

 

Especially when you have the ability to download videos off of Youtube and convert them to Mp3.

 

Is the Music Industry going to sue Youtube next?

[Jaffy1]

I will continue to pirate everything until I can buy a song for 5p a pop in a format higher than 320.

 

Piracy still is illegal... Besides, the costs of making and providing the music is probably a lot higher than what you're willing to pay. As for YouTube, the owners of certain copyrighted music have had videos muted, or have advertisements appear next to videos with their content in them.

 

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

 

Legal downloading works for me.

[Furah]

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

It's not even theft.

[Jaffy1]

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

It's not even theft.

Tell that to copyright laws.

Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are.

[Furah]

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

It's not even theft.

Tell that to copyright laws.

Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are.

[doomy]

I for one completely agree, a $75 trillion fine seems completely reasonable.

[Jaffy1]

[hide=Furah said]

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

It's not even theft.

Tell that to copyright laws.

Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are.

[/hide]

 

Nice trolling. A random image would suggest you know you're wrong though.

This link right here might show you how copying without taking things away is theft too.

I even got the English version for you, but I'm guessing you have nothing to say that can discredit or counter what it says anyway. ;)

[Will H]

Oh god, now you've done it. You had to post that picture. The rest of this thread is inevitable.

 

I'll skip to the end and say that the music industry is a corrupt and shameless business to be in that is trying to get as much money as possible out of everyone instead of reforming itself so we no longer have to have these arguments. There, done. Or at least, I'm done, someone else can play the role and get into a piracy debate.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Still, although their claim is preposterously high in my opinion, that doesn't justify the "theft" of their material.

It's not even theft.

Tell that to copyright laws.

Your logic implies that things like plagiarism aren't theft either, yet they are.

Semantics.

 

I'm not sure how this changes the fact you've gained something without paying for it, something which is essential to protect through law in any consumerist society.

[No_M0re]

Piracy rules :thumbup:

 

Quite a lot of people actually like piracy - south park for example love it!

 

Also it's not theft, it might be in some copyright laws but its not. If I hadn't pirated the music I own I wouldn't have bought it either because I don't have the money and would never be willing to spend more than 10£ a month on music. Therefore I didn't even theoretcally steal anything or such because I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't. It's actually made me find out about more bands and exposed a lot of more alternative groups to a broader audience. After more people hearing about them, mainly from pirating, they get gigs at festivals etc which is good money and eventually can gig for themselves.

 

The 'costs' in creating music are pretty damn slim fi you make good music as well. Sure studio time is fairly expensive, but we're not talking hundreds of thousands, we're talking a hundred pounds maybe an hour. My mates a studio engineer (gunna namedrop, he assis engineered the cure last week), he works for hardly any money but does it because he loves it. You could make a highly feasible album for easily under 10grand. The people that can't are bands that don't write their own songs, use a lot of expensive technology to improve the singing/ other stoof. BAsically completely manufactured bands. Decent producers can easilly produce (I mean create, like dubstep producers) a decent song with sweet mastering in under 2 days.

 

So basically after all that, I'd say if you do it right it costs £5k to write a song, including writing it. Oh wait that means you'd need to sell 100k to break even.. Well I dunno, I'd be willing to be that most people who listen to music on youtube would hapilly pay 5p for a song and a lot of underground stuff still has easily over 100k views.

 

Long and short their not gunna be rockstars, but people shouldn't be making music for that.

 

And screw music companies and advertising, they can crash and burn.

[Jaffy1]

Piracy rules :thumbup:

 

Quite a lot of people actually like piracy - south park for example love it!

Doesn't make it right.

Because Cartman hates hippies we can just shoot all the new age hippies too then?

South Park hates hippies, so it must be right to hate them?

 

Also it's not theft, it might be in some copyright laws but its not.

Yes it is theft. I don't understand what you're trying to say with that second bit. Copyright laws aren't laws?

Why isn't it theft? Does that mean you believe plagiarism isn't theft either?

 

If I hadn't pirated the music I own I wouldn't have bought it either because I don't have the money and would never be willing to spend more than 10£ a month on music. Therefore I didn't even theoretcally steal anything or such because I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't.

So if I steal some nice expensive clothes from a store and decide they are comfy and I like the brand, then buy some clothes of the same brand in the same store, I didn't "theoretically" steal? =D>

 

 

It's actually made me find out about more bands and exposed a lot of more alternative groups to a broader audience. After more people hearing about them, mainly from pirating, they get gigs at festivals etc which is good money and eventually can gig for themselves.

You don't need to pirate music to become aware of what's out there. Before piracy bands got gigs just fine, and to claim they are in any way dependant on them is just rediculous.

 

 

So basically after all that, I'd say if you do it right it costs £5k to write a song, including writing it.

I would asume you don't mean solely writing it, but also getting it out there? In that case, proof?

If it really was so cheap, including advertising and the publishing of CD's, why do so many bands lack the money and ability to do so without a label?

[NewBee]

LOL at copyright infringement being equated with theft.

 

They aren't even heard in the same court in many countries of the world. In most countries, copyright infringement is a civil matter and theft is a criminal matter, and the two are not equivalent.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them.

 

They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult.

 

The difference between plagiarism and music piracy is simple: Plagiarism gets you kicked out of uni with no chance of earning a degree thereafter. Music piracy might get you a slap on the wrist from your ISP.

[Napalm]

The music industry's face after saying that.

 

 

 

That is just ridiculous. Limewire isn't directly responsible for what their users decide to share.

[No_M0re]

Piracy rules :thumbup:

 

Quite a lot of people actually like piracy - south park for example love it!

Doesn't make it right.

 

Also it's not theft, it might be in some copyright laws but its not.

Yes it is theft. I don't understand what you're trying to say with that second bit. Copyright laws aren't laws?

Why isn't it theft?

 

If I hadn't pirated the music I own I wouldn't have bought it either because I don't have the money and would never be willing to spend more than 10£ a month on music. Therefore I didn't even theoretcally steal anything or such because I wouldn't have bought it if I hadn't.

So if I steal some nice expensive clothes from a store and decide they are comfy and I like the brand, then buy some clothes of the same brand in the same store, I didn't "theoretically" steal? =D>

 

 

It's actually made me find out about more bands and exposed a lot of more alternative groups to a broader audience. After more people hearing about them, mainly from pirating, they get gigs at festivals etc which is good money and eventually can gig for themselves.

You don't need to pirate music to become aware of what's out there. Before piracy bands got gigs just fine, and to claim they are in any way dependant on them is just rediculous.

 

 

So basically after all that, I'd say if you do it right it costs £5k to write a song, including writing it.

I would asume you don't mean solely writing it, but also getting it out there? In that case, proof?

If it really was so cheap, including advertising and the publishing of CD's, why do so many bands lack the money and ability to do so without a label?

 

Because they suck? And corporations run the whole thing. You should be able to send a tape to the raaadio and get it played if they like it. But it's really not like that :(

 

No about the clothes man that's some really weird thing to compare it to. The artists lose nothing by my pirating except arguably the chance of me buying it. Since I would never have bought more than 1 album a month (in face before I knew about piracy I copied off mates, averaged 1 album a year bought), I'm taking no profits away from them. Please tell me how that's wrong, I would like to hear. But I'm almost 100% that I'm right.

 

Yeah before piracy some bands got on all right, but there's so many out there. There still not doing amazingly, but should they need to? They chose the lifestyle, they might have been wrong about what it was but hey.

 

I don;t mean getting it out ther, good music gets itself out there aswell. For example ..

That was put on youtube like 1 week ago. I'm pretty into UK hip hop and I've never heard of him.

 

In this day and age decent music goes viral via youtube, pirating, myspace wahtever.

 

You don't need advertising money.

[Jaffy1]

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them.

 

They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult.

You're right, but that's okay. ;)

It's giving me some amusement while I work on my thesis, and I don't mind playing with trolls at times. Must say I appreciate your wording though. :D

 

 

At above post.

 

Tl;dr version:

 

Proof pl0x?

Only saying "I am right" proves you're not, and if you need to know why it is theft, please refer to this post.

 

"They suck" is not an argument. --> if it were: "You suck, therefore I am right. End of discussion" ? ;)

 

Yes, taking something without paying for it is stealing. Claiming you would have leeched off of other people doesn't mean you're not stealing. It only means you would have been stealing another way.

[Da_Latios]

I laughed out loud at the title.

[No_M0re]

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them.

 

They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult.

 

The difference between plagiarism and music piracy is simple: Plagiarism gets you kicked out of uni with no chance of earning a degree thereafter. Music piracy might get you a slap on the wrist from your ISP.

 

No no no.

 

Like I said my mate actually works in the music industry and another in a band. They don't care. I don't care. I still give around 600-800pounds to bands by going to gigs/festivals. As well as the dumb ammount of moeny I spend seeing DJs.

 

You might want to believe whatever you want, end of the day I've never owned more than 30 albums. That's THREE HUNDRED pounds. WTF?? For 30 albums. No. I simply can't afford that, I listen to at least 20 - 30 albums a lot in one month. That means if I buy it I can;t eat. As it is the music industry is outdated. They need to change and the sooner they realise the better.

 

Also yeah I couldn't give a crap if crappy singers that can't give a good live performance and lose millions on this. They suck, they throw out the same junk all the time.

 

Don't call me a "music lover" like that. Without knowing you I'm still fairly sure in saying I probably love it more than you. I literally listen to music or paly it all the time, every fri and sat I go clubbing. Everytime any decent DJ/Bands on somewhere near I'll go in the week.

 

Bottom line is, I wouldn't have listened to half the bands I do, therefore nor would my friends, therefore we'd have less reason to go to a festival if they were playing, therefoooore they lose money. Simples.

 

I give more to artists by pirating than I would if I didn't.

 

Oh and once again, I've actually chatted to fairly famous bands/ my friend produces them and kows about the "buissness" side and my friends in a soon to probably succesful band. They don't care.

[No_M0re]

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them.

 

They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult.

You're right, but that's okay. ;)

It's giving me some amusement while I work on my thesis, and I don't mind playing with trolls at times. Must say I appreciate your wording though. :D

 

 

At above post.

 

Tl;dr version:

 

Proof pl0x?

Only saying "I am right" proves you're not, and if you need to know why it is theft, please refer to this post.

 

"They suck" is not an argument. --> if it were: "You suck, therefore I am right. End of discussion" ? ;)

 

Yes, taking something without paying for it is stealing. That so hard to comprehend? xD

 

Whatever man I could forever.

 

It's not stealing in any way shape or form.

 

Just because certain laws made up by random people say so doesn't make it so.

 

Tell me this, did they lsoe any money because of it? did they lose anything becasue of it?

 

Intelectual property means nothing to me and most people, it's too abstract. If you look at in in real terms I have never stolen from an artist, because they lost nothing because of it.

 

Oops, sorry for double post :ohnoes:

 

Don't worry about TL;Dr. I'll read everything you say :thumbup:

[RpgGamer]

I feel like this is really old news. Like...I read it months ago. And the fact that Limewire doesn't even exist anymore kind of suggests that this whole thread is a moot point. Bottom line? Music industry is trying to take over the world by putting it in an economic stranglehold using faulty lawyer tactics.

 

I refuse to have the stereotypical "discussion" that this thread theme ALWAYS results in.

[Jaffy1]

[hide=Quotes avoiding spam]

Don't bother wasting energy Jaffy. Bottom line is: they're not willing to pay for music if they can get away with not paying for it. This has nothing to do with morals, or whether something is technically theft or not. If these usually self-described "music lovers" want to drown in their own hypocrisy by stealing money that rightfully belongs to the bands who make the music, and the record companies who invest in those bands, then let them.

 

They probably won't change their ways until a stick comes along to threaten them, no matter how much you tear their arguments apart, but the unpoliced nature of the Internet makes this somewhat difficult.

You're right, but that's okay. ;)

It's giving me some amusement while I work on my thesis, and I don't mind playing with trolls at times. Must say I appreciate your wording though. :D

 

 

At above post.

 

Tl;dr version:

 

Proof pl0x?

Only saying "I am right" proves you're not, and if you need to know why it is theft, please refer to this post.

 

"They suck" is not an argument. --> if it were: "You suck, therefore I am right. End of discussion" ? ;)

 

Yes, taking something without paying for it is stealing. That so hard to comprehend? xD

[/hide]

Whatever man I could forever.

 

It's not stealing in any way shape or form.

 

Just because certain laws made up by random people say so doesn't make it so.

 

Tell me this, did they lsoe any money because of it? did they lose anything becasue of it?

 

Intelectual property means nothing to me and most people, it's too abstract. If you look at in in real terms I have never stolen from an artist, because they lost nothing because of it.

 

Oops, sorry for double post :ohnoes:

 

Don't worry about TL;Dr. I'll read everything you say :thumbup:

I'm not a man, thank you.

Again, this is the third time I'm asking you to back up your flawed statements with any proof. You can claim that you and other (non-intellectual?) people don't care about "intellectual property", but a thief wouldn't care that he stole someone else's money either, would they? You have stolen from artists, and they did lose because of it. Why do you think CD and DVD sales went down since the piracy business started blooming?

 

 

Now I have shown you actual proof that according to law, copying other people's material ís stealing. You have claimed many things which I believe to be utter non-sense. If you fail to provide proof there is no reason to take anything you say seriously as such.

[Napalm]

Plagiarizing and copying music in this context don't mean the same, Jaffy. Plagiairism laws exist so people don't make a profit or claim ownership of other people's ideas. With piracy, none of these apply.