Lime Wire Sues RIAA for Antitrust Violations
Once again the RIAA has sued yet another internet service provider for copyright infringement. This time however, the little guy fights back. In response for a series of copyright infringement suits, Lime Wire - an internet file sharing service - counterclaimed with antitrust allegations, asserting that the RIAA is using it's rights to destroy all online music distribution services that they do not own or control, and forcing companies to do business on anticompetitive terms.
I think that this is a creative counterclaim, but ultimately it will prove to be a loser.
For one thing, Lime Wire is not a legitimate online music distribution service. In many court decisions, court have held that peer to peer file sharing is flatly copyright infringement. We don't know exactly how much Lime Wire purposefully ignored the fact that they contributed to copyright infringement, or how much they marketed themselves as the next Napster. But let's call a spade a spade - Lime Wire is not in the business of selling digital music. Therefore, they really can't complain that the RIAA may be using unfair trade practices with services like iTunes.
Another issue is the fact that copyrights and really all IP rights are innately about a monopoly of rights. It's never enough to claim that the holder of rights is trying to get as much as the market will allow for its licensing contracts. Rather, you really need to show outright abuse of the legal framework. Here, the RIAA is probably allowing anyone to purchase a license as long as they pay the price for it. This is usually how it works. What is not OK is something like this: The RIAA refuses to allow anyone to purchase distribution rights for digitized music except for one or two companies, later jacking up the price. Notice the difference.
The final failure of the argument is the fact that the RIAA is an association of artists, distributors, producers, etc. The rights are not actually purchased from the RIAA, but rather from the record companies that own the rights.
Again, it's a clever attempt, but I believe that it will ultimately fail. 'E' for 'effort'.
I think that this is a creative counterclaim, but ultimately it will prove to be a loser.
For one thing, Lime Wire is not a legitimate online music distribution service. In many court decisions, court have held that peer to peer file sharing is flatly copyright infringement. We don't know exactly how much Lime Wire purposefully ignored the fact that they contributed to copyright infringement, or how much they marketed themselves as the next Napster. But let's call a spade a spade - Lime Wire is not in the business of selling digital music. Therefore, they really can't complain that the RIAA may be using unfair trade practices with services like iTunes.
Another issue is the fact that copyrights and really all IP rights are innately about a monopoly of rights. It's never enough to claim that the holder of rights is trying to get as much as the market will allow for its licensing contracts. Rather, you really need to show outright abuse of the legal framework. Here, the RIAA is probably allowing anyone to purchase a license as long as they pay the price for it. This is usually how it works. What is not OK is something like this: The RIAA refuses to allow anyone to purchase distribution rights for digitized music except for one or two companies, later jacking up the price. Notice the difference.
The final failure of the argument is the fact that the RIAA is an association of artists, distributors, producers, etc. The rights are not actually purchased from the RIAA, but rather from the record companies that own the rights.
Again, it's a clever attempt, but I believe that it will ultimately fail. 'E' for 'effort'.
posted by Dan Levy | 12:56 PM
|
0 comments
