Rappers Sue CNET over LimeWire Distribution



+ Add a Comment


see the perfect irony to all this?


companies like cbs backed the ant piracy laws

and they decided that people were to be charged per violation

ok  lets see...



10 downloads per person minimum

5000.00 per violation





First and foremost using LIMEWIRE or anything based on the Gnuttella network is stupid anyway, virus, fake / mislabeled files etc, it is crap these days. Torrents or FTP are much better choices.


Even so, Cnet is simply distributing or linking for download LIMEWIRE lclient software, that is not illegal, it is a peice of freely available software that CAN actually be used for legal purposes, what people actually DO with it may be questionable but these so called "Rappers" have no case at all.



I've seen this story in a few places, and it always mentions these mysterious "rappers", but never mentions just who they are. I mean, the term is even kind of outdated in mainstream use... it sounds like something my Grandma would say when describing a bunch of blinged out guys she saw on TV. Most modern musicians have a realistic look at filesharing, knowing it can hurt them or help them. Hell, many RECORD LABELS (obviously not the big ones) even see it that way. They want to distance themselves from this kind of thing because they know how much people hate it. These "rappers" just sound like people trying to make money off of legal action against piracy, not  actually interested in trying to stop it... we've seen this before, and it's a whole other ball of wax.

Why is it that if I hear a song on the radio, it's free, if I listen to it on YouTube, it's free, if I steal the CD from a store, that's a minor crime, but if I get it off Limewire, I can get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Okay, technically I know all the minor differences here, but my point is that doing a very similar thing should not have such wide ranging consequences. It just doesn't make sense. But these companies own our leaders.



Let's face it... There's always going to be piracy, and for a number of reasons: some people steal music and software because they can't afford to pay for it (windows, office, etc) some people because it's easy and they are lazy (the original napster, etc) some because they are jerks or want to feel tough and like they are "sticking it to someone" (a lot of gamers) And some who simply have no other access to it (people who live outside the developed west) and so on... BUT, you can effectively fight ~most~ of these in two ways, lower your prices, and don't piss off your customers. Just look at Apple's Itunes store or Valve's steam as two examples of how to do distrobution in the 21st century the right way.

then look at MPAA, RIAA, and Apple's App Store and their bought and paid for lawmakers on how to do it wrong; and wonder why services like limewire and jail breaking not only exist, but THRIVE as part of both the quasi-legal grey market and the outright outlaw areas of the internet.

Mega-conglomo-corporations need to learn you'll never stamp out ALL piracy, and instead take the simplest steps to dealing with the casual pirates, instead of errecting a gestapo force of lawyers and siccing them on anyone and everyone who MIGHT so much as look cross eyed at them.

but I suppose it's easier to defend the broken system you have invested billions in than it is to come up with a new system.


oh, and incidentally, I have yet to see a comment on here talking about public doman material traded on services like limewire. there's a lot of older music whichis either completely in the public doman (most classical music) or is legally considered "abandoned" even though it is copyrighted by some corporation's catalogue (a lot of music from the fifties and sixties especially). that's a legal and legitmate use of any file sharing network.



Can't we just say we are "sampling"? Rappers. LOL



Sueing CNET is a little ridiculous. I think it's more of a scare tactic, more than anything else.



Rappers ehh? You mean the ones on the video's flashing all that money, showering their bentley's with truck load's of $100 bills? The one's with multi million dollar mansions'? Those rappers?




I have a seperate computer JUST for seeding rap "music". Rapper's dont make music, so in my opinion they don't deserve a dime. I'll pirate rap "music" as much as I can just so people won't have to pay for that garbage.



I like you. <3



It's a simple scare tactic. If a big site like CNET doesn't host any P2P software then no one will have the software, so sue CNET and they'll stop hosting it.

Sure they might even scare CNET enough to take down any software used for P2P, though I really doubt it'll happen, and by extension scare any other big hosting sites. Will it stop piracy? Of course not.

Like others have said music publishers have to come to terms with the fact they're no longer the gatekeepers, charging us enormous amounts to sample their wares. Should music be free? Of course not. But the music industry model is changing. Hopefully to one where the artist/s makes the lion's share of the profits, instead of the pittance most artists currently make.

With the new inexpensive high tech "home" or "prosumer" recording equipment that artists can buy maybe one day the music it's self will be free to download and it'll be the concerts, merchandise, optional CD's (if you want high quality versions) that an artist makes their money on.

I'll be honest I have on occasion downloaded songs. I still buy CD's though because if I really like a group I like to rip high quality files. I'm sure I've purchased at least 20-30 CD's because I downloaded and then really liked what I heard. If I never downloaded, never would of bought.



...rappers are still determined to find new ways of looking ridiculous, I see.



Ignoring vast copyright infringment happening on your equipment should land you in hot watter. If I know my friend borrows my car to steal something and I keep letting him borrow it I should and would expect to be arrested for accessory to theaft. However if I sell a car that helps in theft, but is also fun to drive around, you must prove I sold it knowing they were going to missuese the car. Not that they might. Should CNET have cut Limewire from Downloads.com, yeah they should have. Should they get sued? Maybe, but they should win.



Cnet is not responsible beacuse they didn't share copyright files.  It only shared the tools to do it.  It is like saying you can't sell plant lamps because you could grow drugs with them.



Classic case of everyone trying to kill the messenger. Sad.



Well then, I'm sure those rappers wouldn't mind serving some federal jail time for all their instructi^H^H^Hlyrics on how to commit violence.



Once the RIAA started trying to peg that music piracy cost the US 70,000 jobs, I stopped really caring what they have to say.

But is CNet guilty?  No.  I first heard about Limewire on a CNN news article years ago--just because a site reviews the software does not mean they endorse it, or endorse misuse of that product.  I read up on what politicians say even though I honestly believe the world would be better off without them.  Reading, reviewing, even making available to others to review for themselves does not, and cannot constitute a crime.

MaximumPC cannot be held liable for piracy simply because someone built a PC based on staff recommendations, and then used it to pirate games, music, movies, etc.  The real problem with the music industry is that it is unable to find a real direction and product for itself.  I can listen to music for free on the radio, I hear it/see it in commercials on TV.  All for free.  The music industry has been leading people to believe for decades that they can get the music for free, you had to pay for the album art.  The music industry needs a product, not a sales gimmick--and certainly not more lawyers to try and preseve an absurd business model that is no longer relevant.



Billy Shakespear was right, first we must kill all the lawyers



Wow, this is just crazy.



If they are going to use this logic to sue cnet, then by extending that logic, they should also sue themselves.  Because they have created the content that was then pirated, are they not contributing to piracy?



CNET hosts tons of software, but they are not actively distributing songs over a P2P file sharing network. P2P in and of itself does not need to mean piracy, and CNET has no control over what goes on with the user base. And CNET cannot be responsible for hosting content in its forums that it did not create. It is absurd to think that even with hiring moderators, a large site like CNET will be able to catch all the how to's for infringing copyrights. And even at that, an tutorial on how to use P2P software does not mean it is teaching someone to illegally download music. 


As for limewire, screw them. Their entire service was dedicated to profiting off the distribution of illegal music, games, and other illicit material. There was clearly no attempt to stop piracy and if anything, they actively promoted it.



"As for limewire, screw them. Their entire service was dedicated to profiting off the distribution of illegal music, games, and other illicit material. There was clearly no attempt to stop piracy and if anything, they actively promoted it."

Um, no.
Limewire was a tool only.  They may have made little to no effort to stop piracy, but they did not advocate it and they certainly didn't promote it.  If the creators of Limewire are guilty of copyright infringement, then gun manufacturers are guilty of murder.





You nailed it!  Or alcohol purveyors are guilty of... well, you know.




This is getting out of hand. P2P software is just a tool, and CNET is just a service.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.