AfterDawn: Tech news

Judge demands evidence of actual music industry damages in LimeWire case

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 20 Dec 2010 11:14 User comments (11)

Judge demands evidence of actual music industry damages in LimeWire case With the RIAA asking for $1 billion in copyright infringement damages from Lime Group LLC, providers of the LimeWire gnutella P2P client, a federal judge has ordered both parties to produce detailed analysis on the financial impact of songs shared using the LimeWire P2P client.
In October the RIAA was granted a permanent injunction against LimeWire, requiring Lime Group to stop distributing and supporting the software.

RIAA lawyers had argued that proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels, but the judge apparently felt the defendants' right to mount a defense trumped the labels' convenience.

In a handwritten note in the margins of a memo to both parties, U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman noted that LimeWire is entitled to enough discovery to mount a defense against RIAA claims about the financial impact of file sharing.

Each party must select 80 songs and 20 albums to be used as a representative sample for determining damages, with a third set of 80 songs and 20 albums selected at random. It's not quite clear exactly what information the labels will be required to disclose or how either side will calculate damages.

On one hand the damage award is somewhat academic now, considering Lime Group is unlikely to be around long enough to pay it. Although they announced plans to continue operating their (legal) online music store, LimeWire Store, that service will actually be shutting down at the end of this year.

On the other hand, any amount of transparency in the numbers thrown around by the labels potentially makes it easier to convince more judges to require the same in future cases, particularly those against individuals who are only accused of infringement on a much smaller scale.

Previous Next  

11 user comments

120.12.2010 11:38


RIAA lawyers had argued that proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels, but the judge apparently felt the defendants' right to mount a defense trumped the labels' convenience. 


I love that part! It goes to show that the RIAA can claim they loss so much money but they know damn well that they can not back it up!

It's also funny how they can jump on people and sue them, etc. but when a judge wants documents and proof of actual losses, they don't want to do the work!

Oh and I love the part of: "proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels"

Hmmm... Funny how they (The RIAA) don't think about how much of a burden it is/was to all the people they sued and wanted a minimal of what was it? $25,000 for even one song?

220.12.2010 12:37

What a joke! Glad this judge has a clue though! Far as I'm concerned you shouldn't get a dime you can't prove you lost...EVER!


Just my $0.02,

dEwMe

320.12.2010 13:35

Actual proof? lol-RIAA!

420.12.2010 13:38

Soooooooooooooooooo The Riaa doesn't want to provide any "damages" do they! Its all their, Black and White, Clear as Crystal! They provide phony damages,force judges to either side with them or drops the case cuz they know they are trying to be Dictators! Yes I said Dictators cuz they are at this point.

520.12.2010 14:51

they should sue who sharing not limewire

620.12.2010 15:34

Quote:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
Thats a brilliant idea! its a shame no one else thought of that.

720.12.2010 17:14

Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!

Who's side are you on?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Dec 2010 @ 17:15

820.12.2010 18:58

Originally posted by axlman:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!

Who's side are you on?

by the law its piracy.there is only one side.if we pirate material,we know the risks and penalties,and so should not be surprised when the axe falls.it seems some on this site regard pirates as heroes.get a grip.

920.12.2010 19:43

Originally posted by axlman:

RIAA lawyers had argued that proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels, but the judge apparently felt the defendants' right to mount a defense trumped the labels' convenience. 


I love that part! It goes to show that the RIAA can claim they loss so much money but they know damn well that they can not back it up!

It's also funny how they can jump on people and sue them, etc. but when a judge wants documents and proof of actual losses, they don't want to do the work!

Oh and I love the part of: "proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels"

Hmmm... Funny how they (The RIAA) don't think about how much of a burden it is/was to all the people they sued and wanted a minimal of what was it? $25,000 for even one song?
I know right. Heaven forbid they have to give detailed proof on the actual impact to the recording industry and artists. I think the RIAA spends more money on trying to sue people than putting it into creating quality music/artists and delivering it a reasonable price. Studies and surveys have shown that many people who download illegal would have never spent the money in the first place on the material or might be more inclined to buy it if it was delivered at a resonable price without the heavy restrictions placed by the RIAA and the content deliverers like iTunes and others. I guess that is why artists like Trent Reznor have moved to giving their music away for free.

Maybe if they wouldn't sign every half assed person that calls themself a musician or singer because they can get someone else to write a song for them so they can sing it through a voice filter then maybe there would be more quality music out there.

"Have you tried turning it off and on again?" ~ Roy Trenneman

http://www.facebook.com/BlueLightningTechnicalServices

1023.12.2010 1:15

Originally posted by aldan:
Originally posted by axlman:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!

Who's side are you on?

by the law its piracy.there is only one side.if we pirate material,we know the risks and penalties,and so should not be surprised when the axe falls.it seems some on this site regard pirates as heroes.get a grip.
I agree there. We take a risk everytime we do download a song or anything else. The law is what it is. BUT and this is a BIG BUT. What does the law actually say. That is the true question.

1127.12.2010 9:37

The judge should have said if it's too much of a burned then why are you suing this company and then say maybe this case should be thrown out or just throw it out anyway because it's too much of a burned for the people who started the case.

The RIAA just don't want to do the work because you have to work out the cost of a song they would sell for real then work out the amount of times it was shared and then depecate that amount as the song will have a lower valve over the years as fans move on etc.

You'll find very few songs are worth much more than a $100,000 dollars really and that should show up.

The RIAA will pick every poplar song they can to try and boost it up to 1 billion but I don't think it'd even get to that.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive