LimeWire Legal Situation: LimeWire File Sharing Shut Down Permanently
Six months after being found guilty of massive scale copyright infringement by a federal judge, LimeWire has been ordered to discontinue its file-sharing operations.
The Manhattan District Judge Kimba Wood ordered the shutdown of the website, which effectively prohibits searching, downloading, uploading or file trading of their software, and blocks unauthorized music file-sharing.
In 2006, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit against LimeWire. Four years after, the said judge found LimeWire guilty of charges and its founder, Mark Gorton, liable of inducing users into violating copyright laws. The judge indicates that irreparable damages have been caused by the company due to massive illegal distribution. Total estimated damages are still not known, but RIAA has won the battle against piracy for this round.
LimeWire Shutdown Notice
Since their shutdown, the website is inaccessible except for the notice posted indicating the court order and that “Downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is illegal”.
On the other hand, LimeWire is hopeful that their parent company is unaffected by the injunction, and that the order is only applicable to LimeWire.
In order to continue the LimeWire community going, there have been multiple LimeWire forks. In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a legal copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software. Free and open source software is that which, by definition, may be forked from the original development team without prior permission without violating any copyright law.
List of LimeWire Forks
- LimeWire Pirate Edition (now known as WireShare)
- FrostWire
- LionShare
- Credence
LimeWire Pirate Edition
On November 10th 2010, a secret group of developers called the “Secret Dev Team”, led by Meta Pirate, sought to keep the service running by releasing the “LimeWire Pirate Edition”, a program that some say is better than LimeWire. It appeared on several torrent websites. This software allowed the installation of this free LimeWire version without any toolbars (including the previously bundled Ask.com toolbar), advertising, and any dependencies on the LimeWire LLC server system. They also unlocked the features that were previously only found in LimeWire PRO.
There was a rumor that a LimeWire development team member developed LimeWire Pirate Edition. To quell these rumors, LimeWire LLC released this statement: “[LimeWire is] not behind these efforts. LimeWire does not authorize them. LimeWire is complying with the Court’s October 26, 2010 injunction.”
LimeWire Pirate Edition is now hosted on the open source hosting website SourceForge, however, the name is now changed to WireShare due to concerns over the LimeWire trademark. WireShare can be downloaded for the Microsoft Windows, Apple OSX (Mac), and Linux platforms.
News Corp Plans to Block Google From Wall Street Journal
Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp, recently landed on headlines when he said in an online interview that News Corp is planning to block Google from crawling into its web sites.
The interview, conducted by David Speer of major network Sky News Australia, discussed a wide range of topics, from the debate between free and paid to an evaluation of the performance of President Barack Obama. In the interview, Mr. Murdoch expressed disagreement over free access to information that should have been paid for in other sites.
Murdoch said, “I think we’ve been asleep.” He added, “It costs us a lot of money to put together good newspapers and good content. They’re very happy to pay for it when they buy a newspaper, and I think when they read it elsewhere they’re going to have to pay. Not huge sums. You’d be surprised how much can be done, how cheaply, into the average home.”
Other News Corp. executive have similarly declared against this form of “kleptomania” and “parasitism,” and have lobbied to prevent Google from showing their content in its many properties. In a nutshell, Mr. Murdoch has accused search engines of stealing their content. News Corp., however, has been silent about Murdoch’s views.
In the interview, Mr. Speers argued that search sites are claiming to help news outlets by directing the searchers to the site when they click on the search results. This, he said, makes the scheme symbiotic.
But Mr. Murdoch countered that the searchers are not immediately converted into loyal readers. “We’d rather have fewer people coming to our Web site by paying,” he added.
Mr. Speers raised another argument advanced by Google, which said Internet sites are free to choose whether or not they want to be appear in search engines. “You could simply refuse to be on it, so that when someone does to a search, your Web sites don’t come up. Why haven’t you done that?”
To which, Mr. Murdoch replied that he thinks News Corp. will explore that possibility. “We do it already, with The Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it’s not right to the ceiling. You can get the first paragraph of any story, but if you’re not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com, you get a paragraph of any story, but if you’re not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com, you get a paragraph and a subscription form.” At the moment, content in WSJ are organized by search engines and are feature for free in Google results. When searchers click on the link, they are directed to the article, and then directed to the pay wall after accessing a few articles.
According to Mr. Murdoch, News Corp. is a supporter of the fair-use doctrine. Under the fair-use doctrine, users may use copyrighted materials provided that the use is fair. Search results are traditionally covered by the definition of “fair use” but this remains to be decided upon by the courts.
Mr. Murdoch’s statements have drawn different reactions. Some have said they do not believe that News Corp. would give up the search traffic to restrict its contents. Others believe that News Corp. could do it if they want to. Techdirt even commented that taking out News Corp’s sites from Google search is a major step, which is “one right off the side of a big cliff.”
Entrepreneur Mark Cuban has expressed support for Mr. Murdoch’s remarks. According to Mr. Cuban, social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter could reinstate the potential decrease in Google search traffic to News Corp.’s websites, as these do not prohibit the sharing of content.
As of press time, Google has not commented to directly address the remarks of Mr. Murdoch. The internet giant however stated that it believes its search engine and news pages are benefiting news organizations by directing web traffic to their own sites. It added that news organizations are allowed to take out their content from Google properties.
The Many Faces of iPad: Fujitsu & STMicro Take on Apple
Apple is in danger of being made subject of a lawsuit by Japan’s Fujitsu and European chipmaker STMicroelectronics, in the wake of Apple’s adoption of the name “iPad” for its latest tablet PC eye candy. “iPad” has been a registered trademark by STMicro since 2000 for its semiconductor technology. For Fujitsu’s part, it is claiming that it created a palmtop computer of the same name, launched internally for use by its shop assistants beginning 2002. At present, Fujitsu has a pending application for the use of the trademark.
There are other companies that hold rights to use “iPad” as a trademark for products under certain categories, including Siemens for engines and motors, and Coconut Grove Pads for padded bras. These trademark infringement issues bring us back to 2007, when Apple introduced the iPhone to the public. This caused Cisco—registered owner of the name—to go to the courts. The matter was later settled when the contenders agreed to own the name jointly, for undisclosed terms.
Asked what STMicro intends to do, its representative said they were studying their options. Fujitsu’s official statement said: “[The company] is aware of Apple’s iPad announcement and the possible infringement on our trademark . . . We are currently discussing our options with our trademark counsel and have no further comment at this time.”
Trademark disputes – especially those that involve brand giants like Apple and Fujitsu or Cisco – are usually not enough to hinder the infringing company from launching the product, or to compel it to rebrand. However, if Apple loses its bid for “iPad” and Fujitsu is allowed to continue its application, or if Apple fails to justify that the two products are not confusingly similar, it will have no recourse but to buy the rights from Fujitsu.
The iPad Comparisons
Fujitsu’s iPad is a gadget that has a 3.5-inch screen, powered by an Intel processor, uses a Microsoft OS, and is Wi-fi and Bluetooth-enabled. Its purpose is to connect shop assistants and managers to sales and stock data. STMicro’s iPad, on the other hand, is less similar. “iPad” is an acronym for “integrated passive and active devices,” referring to the technology that used to manufacture semiconductors. But here’s the caveat: STMicro’s products are used in cars, washing machines, smartphones and mobile phones, among other gadgets. The implication: STMicro’s iPad technology could someday be applied to handheld devices like Apple’s iPad.
Fujitsu’s prior application in the US is dated March 2003. It was suspended after the US Patent and Trademark Office found a prior filing by Mag-Tek for keypads used to enter personal identification numbers. The application was subsequently declared abandoned, but was revived by Fujitsu in June 2009. A month later, Apple sent its proxy to the patent and trademark office of Trinidad & Tobago to register “iPad” and secure a priority date that it can claim when it applies for registration in other parts of the world. In the last quarter of 2009, Apple requested the US PTO for more time to oppose Fujitsu’s application. February 28 is the deadline for Apple to decide if it will contest Fujitsu’s application or not.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Fujitsu’s trademark lawyer, Hanify & King’s Edward Pennington said: “They probably need to talk to us and we haven’t had any direct communications with Apple,” and went on to describe Apple’s position as “awkward”.
