LimeWire Sued For More Money Than Exists In The World

The RIAA has tried suing the defunct piracy network for $72 trillion - which is more than the $60 trillion that exists in the world today.

LimeWire Sued For More Money Than Exists In The World
0
It's no secret that LimeWire was once a hotbed of peer-to-peer music piracy, but the RIAA has now attempted to sue it for $72 trillion - more money than exists in the world today. LimeWire was shut down in October 2010, but litigation continues from music bodies around the world, including Merlin which represents independent labels. The RIAA told a court that it identified over 11,000 American songs that were being illegally shared, and that it should be compensated for every individual download of the tracks. However, its claim for $72 trillion is 20 percent higher than the combined wealth of the entire world, which is $60 trillion according to the NME. Don't run to your bank yet. The judge in the case dismissed the figure, and said the music industry is only entitled to sue LimeWire per song, rather than for every individual download. This could still be substantial sum of money. At the proposed figure of $150,000 per song, LimeWire could be forced to pay a $1.65 billion fine. Since the peak of peer-to-peer piracy, new streaming services including Spotify have stepped forward to offer a legal and convenient way to access music online. However, new services such as Tomahawk could usher a new era of "smart piracy" which can access music from Spotify, YouTube and other streaming services for free within one app. Have you moved on from music piracy? Do you still buy CDs, or have you moved on to Spotify or Tomahawk? Let us know in the comments.

232 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    metalfan986
    Pagan_Poetry wrote: Seriously who runs the RIAA, Dr. Evil?
    Laser beam sharks cost a lot of money.
    Minivirus2
    I buy CDs. I like the sound quality, the artwork/booklet and the physical object in my hands. It's not for everyone, but people should pay something for the music they listen to. If you're sitting at a computer, listening through YouTube, that's one thing. If you want to walk around with it/take it with you, that's another.
    onchannel.net
    buying cd`s and movie dvd`s can be very relaxing even if you pay a small amount of money for them. also, like minivirus2 said, the quality of the music from the bought cd or dvd can be compared with what you download from the internet.
    watch2x
    If you had to observant of your favorite flicks in good calibre, you had to look for the disk, to take shin-plasters as a remedy for it and only after that to enjoy watching, but at the moment you miss not so hard, because you can always watch movies online and you 'll get the uniform entertainment as viewing this as the cinema itself, but quest of this you inclination not lack to splurge spondulix, because you can do it absolutely free.
    iommi600
    My god, this is so ridiculous. Two guys said it so well in the previous article about piracy here on UG: "So, child molesters and rapists get a cheaper fine than people who download music for free." "That's because child molesters and rapists got no fatcat greedy mother****ers to support them." RIAA is a cancer.
    Biggilton
    Wait, if Limewire is being forced to pay per song, why does that college student have to pay more than half a million for an album?? Fuck the MAFIAA.
    flaphead325
    However, new services such as Tomahawk could usher a new era of "smart piracy" which can access music from Spotify, YouTube and other streaming services for free within one app.
    Thanks for the tip!
    Dynamight
    "We need more money." "Right, let's sue someone." *pulls up list* "Pick a letter." "Uhh... L" "Limewire it is." *rubs hands*
    Basti95
    Great. Musicians getting poorer and poorer while the dickheads get closer to inventing the bajillion.
    Oyface
    Minivirus2 wrote: I buy CDs. I like the sound quality, the artwork/booklet and the physical object in my hands. It's not for everyone, but people should pay something for the music they listen to. If you're sitting at a computer, listening through YouTube, that's one thing. If you want to walk around with it/take it with you, that's another.
    This pretty much sums up my opinions on this subject.
    WhoAMEye
    I'd think everyone needs to be careful what they say on here or these arseholes are going to try and sue you for liable. Probably to the tune of one hundred squillion-trillion-billion dollars...
    Steve-O~32
    Pagan_Poetry wrote: Seriously who runs the RIAA, Dr. Evil?
    HAHA...I want a gazzillion billion dollars
    Keepy
    Ok.. I buy CD music I know I like.. I.e. I've heard it. however, theres a lot of bands that I wouldnt even consider buying the album, just because its an unknown. if used 'correctly' try before you buy I have no problem with downloading torrents etc.. that band releases a new album and I'll buy it. in my opinion in this financial climate music sharing might be the best thing to keep the music industry afloat getting music into the ears of people who dont have the funds to buy it, and when they do have , the honest people will buy the music. theves will always steel, theres not much you can do about that.
    jrodgers
    The RIAA is the dumbest f***ing group of money grubbing idiots that exist in the world today. I don't know which is more asinine: 72 trillion dollars? or that they're going after Limewire, which was all the rage over TEN YEARS ago
    ProgFripp74
    I do not download any music unless it is unavailable in a physical format. The quality of a CD is far beyond any form of mp3, even those who claim lossless files are as good as CD quality, there is still compression. Also, the fact being able to hold a CD with artwork, notes from the band and the CD itself is something enjoyable. I do not agree with illegal downloads per say, but what are the RIAA going to do with the money the claim from all these people they're trying to sue? Keep it I'm guessing, they can't divide it up and give it to every band/artist so technically they're stealing from the music industry, yet they're not letting bands ne heard through these sites.
    BradTheBluefish
    I will say this, I am 19. I am a poor college student. I don't have money to buy albums upon albums. Albums used to be $20. They have gotten cheaper, and I am glad for it, but still, at this point in my life I can't afford it. So like many other, I look for an alternative. Once I a get a 9 to 5, full-time job, then I will start buying albums. But right now, GrooveShark and YouTube are just what I need.
    catastrofx617
    I download music, not gonna lie. If I do buy a CD it's either from a local band who I know is ending up with a good chunk of the money or occasionally if it's just a release I'm really looking forward to. I would much rather spend my money on a t-shirt or a concert ticket than on a CD, both personal preference and because the band ends up getting more from merch and ticket sales than album sales generally.
    rocklee1431
    metalfan986 wrote: Pagan_Poetry wrote: Seriously who runs the RIAA, Dr. Evil? Laser beam sharks cost a lot of money.
    Don't be ridiculous, they're just regular sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin heads
    edgeyyz
    I really wish the RIAA would just jump off a cliff and take Axl and Courtney Love with them.
    AcdcTXfan
    Did the RIAA ever consider that they have enough money to maintain a good lifestyle and the people downloading songs might not be as well off as this rich corperation? Welcome to America where we have to bitch about everything that doesn't our way.
    Ryan_Good1
    This is just hilarious. What is wrong with these people? Why even propose that figure? Why did it get past their meeting on what they should sue for? So they calculated a figure of $72 trillion and thought, meh, might as well ask. Idiots.
    vppark2
    rocklee1431 wrote: metalfan986 wrote: Pagan_Poetry wrote: Seriously who runs the RIAA, Dr. Evil? Laser beam sharks cost a lot of money. Don't be ridiculous, they're just regular sharks with laser beams attached to their frickin heads
    Sharpedo, use Hyper Beam!
    kennedys1
    Steve-O~32 wrote: Pagan_Poetry wrote: Seriously who runs the RIAA, Dr. Evil? HAHA...I want a gazzillion billion dollars
    You forget LimeWire! We're in a volcanooo. Surrounded by liquid hot magMA!
    wembly
    Minivirus2 wrote: wembly wrote: zalant wrote: I get tired of people claiming that the economy is to blame for all of this lack of desire to purchase music anymore. That's a total cop-out. It's purely the ease and convenience of getting something for nothing -- that's it! When people still pay around $10 to go to the movies, pay $100-$200 (or more) for festival tickets that they (sometimes) have to travel to (costs money, too), spend $4+ a day on coffee, $5+ a day on smokes, who-knows-how-much on drinking in clubs/bars (not to mention the cover charge, where applicable), getting tattoos (spendy), I just cannot believe anyone complaining about not having enough funds to purchase CDs. I know people will start in here, "but I'm poor and I never bought CDs to begin with!" Well, you're not who I'm talking about here. It's the people who have plenty of disposable income who simply decided to stop supporting musicians and bands, justifying it by claiming, "well, I'll go to their show (buy tickets) and get a T-shirt." Sorry, but you could fill up all the arenas you could ever travel to and sell a shirt/hat/poster to everyone there, and you'll still never replace the money that record/CD sales used to bring in. Just so you know, bands wont make much money off CD sales. I work in the industry, so i know. The most money a band will make is from touring and playing live. @ Zalant - Thank you for saying what needs to be said about the vast majority of DLers. @ Wembly - You "work in the industry" and condone the illegal downloading of artisits work? Nah, you're basically saying that receiving nothing is better than receiving a little. I don't believe you for a second. Well, maybe you're a custodian.
    I'm not condoning anything you moron, I'm just stating facts. If you want my actual views on it then I would be happy to discuss it with you, but don't twist my words to have a different meaning.
    Ch4ppie
    "Downloading the audio from Youtube would indeed be illegal." Everything you look at on the internet needs to be downloaded somewhere. It's in a cache, a temp file, etc. If you keep that file...that's illegal? But it wasn't illegal for you to watch it in the first place? In any event, the anti piracy stuff that goes on punishes the consumers more then pirates. It doesn't matter what alternative you offer, pirates will steal it. This is how things like SOPA and PIPA come about, and everyone pays for it. Despite the fact that being able to rip your CD's and transfer them to different devices (in part, made possible by pirates) helped usher in the digital age of mp3s, ipods, itunes, and legitimate music downloading.
    jackdude500
    i agree that many artists dont get the money deserve for the songs they produce but the RIAA is just greedy plus most the money would go to record labels rather than the artists themselves so this is ridiculous
    Jambo165
    Why doesn't anywhere implement a free-listen system where you can listen through an album once or twice legally (of course - the pirates can still record over it if they're really cheap) and then if you like it or want to keep listening to it, you have the option to buy it. The preview system on iTunes isn't as good as it could be.
    shredder3386
    jman25 wrote: Lars is at it again...
    Bad news. That Delorean you bought is not, in fact, a time machine. You aren't in the year 2000 like you planned. You are in 2012, so that joke is STILL old and irrelevant. Better luck next time, I would try for a refund if I were you.
    wembly
    zalant wrote: I get tired of people claiming that the economy is to blame for all of this lack of desire to purchase music anymore. That's a total cop-out. It's purely the ease and convenience of getting something for nothing -- that's it! When people still pay around $10 to go to the movies, pay $100-$200 (or more) for festival tickets that they (sometimes) have to travel to (costs money, too), spend $4+ a day on coffee, $5+ a day on smokes, who-knows-how-much on drinking in clubs/bars (not to mention the cover charge, where applicable), getting tattoos (spendy), I just cannot believe anyone complaining about not having enough funds to purchase CDs. I know people will start in here, "but I'm poor and I never bought CDs to begin with!" Well, you're not who I'm talking about here. It's the people who have plenty of disposable income who simply decided to stop supporting musicians and bands, justifying it by claiming, "well, I'll go to their show (buy tickets) and get a T-shirt." Sorry, but you could fill up all the arenas you could ever travel to and sell a shirt/hat/poster to everyone there, and you'll still never replace the money that record/CD sales used to bring in.
    Just so you know, bands wont make much money off CD sales. I work in the industry, so i know. The most money a band will make is from touring and playing live.
    C0FF1NCAS3
    I don't feel that downloading music is morally wrong, particularly if you still end up supporting the artists monetarily. Obviously its unlikely you end up supporting every artist if you use this downloading to sample music because you would end up judging some artists unworthy of support. The exposure music sharing affords to artists is rather valuable, I'm not saying the loses are wiped out by that but its not as though its a zero sum game. Regardless, this is a genie in a bottle situation: Once its out, its never going back in so we may as well shut up about it. Music piracy isn't new. In the 50s the Soviet youth were replicating jazz records on spent x-ray plates and selling them to one another. Aside from that how does suing Limewire achieve anything? Peer to peer sharing in and of itself isn't wrong, nor are the owners of limewire for having set up the site. Even if the sharing of copy-written material is those that shared are the criminals, not the site owners. If you're going to charge the owners then you can get them on negligence I guess but such demands would be shot down in court.
    FitzInc
    Oh, it's kinda easy, now some money should be printed to reach 72 trillion something something, then all the money in the world will be transfered somehow to LimeWire, RIAA will claim this money and voila! They control all the money in the world! What a simple and clever plan!
    EspTro
    so raise your hand if your going to stop downloading music for free. ..... ..... go ahead, im waiting..... ... ... yea, i thought so
    Pukka-VCU
    mschup27 wrote: I also tide myself over by swapping CD's, or just flat out borrowing them from friends. My point is, their is a way around downloading music if you really put enough effort into it.
    Sounds like peer-to-peer sharing to me...
    Mr E Meat
    bands make less than $2 (a little more if it's an indie label) off an album sale, the industry makes the rest. If you really like bands, pirate lots of music and buy shirts and go to shows. That money actually goes to the bands.
    henboyrules
    I personally enjoy listening to vinyl and buying cd's. I think pirating music is completely and utterly unethical. If you're doing that, you're basically saying that stealing is fine. It's sad that this is such a big craze. What gives you the right to mess with somebody's well being by getting their product for free instead of giving them what is theirs!
    zxxAACxxz
    I download to see if it is worth buying. I am not spending an upwards of 20 dollars for a half assed album.
    Steve-O~32
    edgeyyz wrote: I really wish the RIAA would just jump off a cliff and take Axl and Courtney Love with them.
    truth
    Hamburger89
    Minivirus2 wrote: I buy CDs. I like the sound quality, the artwork/booklet and the physical object in my hands. It's not for everyone, but people should pay something for the music they listen to. If you're sitting at a computer, listening through YouTube, that's one thing. If you want to walk around with it/take it with you, that's another.
    Something yeah. I pay for concert tickets, merchandise and I collect vinyl. However I can't listen to half the music I want if I had to pay for it. Besides downloading earns them money too. Example, if I never downloaded "The dark side of the moon" I wouldn't have been to a Roger Waters concert, woudln't have buyed two t-shirts and wouldn't own 5 vinyl records. Sums up to about 150 euros I spent on pink floyd, all thanks to illegal downloading.