Ares for Windows 7

LimeWire has gone and done what a lot of people expected – and probably a decent number feared – they would. They’re trying to do a Napster and change to a subscription (and presumably a legitimate) business model. We sincerely hope that they won’t “do a Napster” and almost immediate have to close down, but we dear the worst.

So why has the filesharing giant decided to go on this rather odd path? Why the sudden change in heart? Well, multimillion dollar lawsuits certainly don’t help their cause, nor do the many more that are threatened by the RIAA and its minions. To say LimeWire’s digital hand has been forced is understating the issue: they have absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly no choice in this particular matter.

The plan for this service seems complex. It is a cloud based service with several integrated features… whatever that means. It will combine the best aspects of iTunes and Spotify, apparently.

We may sound a little cynical about this whole thing, but this cynicism is tinged with a resounding sadness. LimeWire represented all that was good and exciting about filesharing. LimeWire WAS the wild west. To see it pandering to the whims of big business is a little sad. We really hope that they pull through.

But this yhis time it is the lesser known NMPA that is taking LimeWire all the way. The NMPA – National Music Publishers Association – is the younger sibling of the RIAA. Obviously it shares with its older brother a willingness to go after what it perceives to be perpetrators of copyright crimes against humanity. In this case, however, it looks just like the NMPA is piggy-backing on the (very) recent success of the RIAA in getting a judgement against LimeWire.

Kicking someone when they’re down? Definitely.

LimeWire will rise again. Of that there is no doubt. There is a good, strong precedence for it in the filesharing industry, too. Change name, adapt, move on. So many groups have done it, and for someone with LimeWire’s experience and contacts, it would be surprising if they didn’t. With resolutions in favor of filesharing services coming out in countries like Spain, there may even be a ’safe haven’ for these new companies.

As always, only time will tell what will happen. No doubt the battle between filesharing services and publishers will continue to the end of time: certainly we can’t see the filesharers giving up any time soon.

In another blow to the Spanish music industry, a court in Madrid dismissed a landmark filesharing case. Egeda, an audiovisual collection society, brought the case in conjunction with Columbia Tristar, against website cvcdgo.com. The site doesn’t host shared content on its website directly, but links to other sites that host torrents and files. Inevitably the sharing website does not have permission to post this shared content.

The court’s opposition to the case was mainly in respect of the p2p content was stored on multiple computers around the world. This lack of direct responsibility on behalf of cvcdgo.com was the deciding factor.

Also playing a role in the dismissal was the lack of financial interest that the site had in the torrents. This despite the fact that the site contains advertising to raise money.

US and UK courts are increasingly moving towards the view that sites linking to content that infringes copyright are themselves culpable, and this move in the opposite direction by the Spanish courts is interesting.

Everyone has different views on this subject, and it needs a global concord to be truly effective: UK and American filesharing companies could quickly move to Spain to get around any restrictions. Don’t expect filesharing to stop anytime soon.

The Digital Economy Bill has been passed as law in the UK, and it brings with it the famous “three strikes” rule for filesharers. Ofcom is working on proposals that would FORCE ISPs to keep records of people accused of illegal filesharing. If any one user is accused three times then they will be placed on a black list. Once a user is on this filesharing blacklist, interested parties can apply by court order to find their true identity. From there the obvious step is to take legal action against the filesharer.

The rule looks like it would be more efficient as a deterrent or scare tactic rather than as a legal ‘cure’: it doesn’t seem likely that publishing giants will want to bother themselves with the many lowly people that are likely to appear on this list (although, having said that, the lawyers involved really, really love to sue people). I guess it’s possible that the publishers will send letters asking for a quick out of court settlement of a fairly small sum of money. The majority of victims will likely pay up out of fear.

Is this is victory for filesharing? We don’t think so.