Record labels sue LimeWire for... wait for it... $75 TRILLION.

[Recursion]

Source: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/record-companies-75-trillion-limewire-20110323/

Via. (http://www.overclock.net/technology-science-news/973255-geek-record-companies-request-75-trillion.html)

Just staggering how this has even been filed... It's 5x the national debt of the USA!

[Casanova]

It's good to see they have a grip of their projections...

[Conservative,]

Good luck to them. :L

[HotelUser]

The figure's only for an eye grabber but heck, that's still a lot of money!

[Casanova]

Hmm, even so it's just stupendous!? I mean, I understand intellectual property and of course loss of profits etc? but c'mon.

[Recursion]

Put this into perspective.. the world GDP is ~$65 Trillion.

EDIT: Also more money than the music industry has ever made since the phonograph was invented...

http://hothardware.com/News/Record-Labels-Claim-Limewire-Liable-For-75-Trillion-in-Damages/

[Casanova]

LMAO!!

Edited by Dinasaw (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.

[GommeInc]

I assume this isn't real as it's stupid to make "projections" and even worse to assume a company can make this money, especially when most of this money wouldn't go to the musicians. The music industry needs a good kick into the 21st Century :P

[Wig44.]

Do they honestly think that the profits limewire cost them - plus compensation - is anywhere near $75 trillion? If they did somehow project this and it isn't just another scare tactic it atleast underlines how wrong most projections made by suitors are.

[Niall!]

I lol'd

I don't get how companies can sue over this ****. A downloaded copy does not mean a lost sale.

[Hecktix]

Ridiculous really, so a company that no longer exists gets sued for an amount of money they could never make? They file bankruptcy & sorted... nothing's gonna get paid :S

[cocaine]

damnnnnn i've just finished my EPQ essay (extended project qualification) on how file sharing affects revenue accumulated by global music sales - why did i finish it before i saw this!? $75tn is an insane amount of money!

[Jordy]

I lol'd

I don't get how companies can sue over this ****. A downloaded copy does not mean a lost sale.Try telling them that. It pisses me off to no end seeing the movie and music industry carrying on about "losses of revenue" due to "losses of sales" when infact the person would not of bought the track anyway. And whilst they carry on about losses, the movie and music industry is getting increasingly bigger and so do their profits. You'd be a mug to believe people are losing their jobs over this kind of thing, it's false advertising to say the least.

[Niall!]

Completely agreed Jordy, I mean I'm one to admit I pirate almost everything and I'm not proud of it. The prices they charge are ridiculous. They should maybe think about lowering the prices so less people would pirate.

Plus remember that survey that was conducted that found pirates actually spent more than the average consumer? It just goes to show they're targeting them for nothing.

[GommeInc]

Completely agreed Jordy, I mean I'm one to admit I pirate almost everything and I'm not proud of it. The prices they charge are ridiculous. They should maybe think about lowering the prices so less people would pirate.

Plus remember that survey that was conducted that found pirates actually spent more than the average consumer? It just goes to show they're targeting them for nothing.
It's quite interesting how much they moan about it. People do not want to spend money on something they do not properly own. Loads of download sites like Amazon MP3 Downloads only give you one copy, yet a music file is so easy to lose it's unfair and on the other end of the scale you get how easy it is to copy a "legit" version of the file. I'm waiting for the day piracy adverts say "you won't make a copy your girlfriend and let everyone have a go". I'll be happy then. I download all my songs legally (buy them from Amazon, Play and get CDs from shops), but I can see the point of "pirates", because they are expensive - games and films cost about £15 and they last longer than a song you will get bored of playing over and over again.

I don't get where the argument for "pirates are poor" comes from. Pirates tend to have brains and a keen interest in computers and require the internet. £15 a month plus a computer means they're spending quite a bit, and the computer industry is at least modest about their earnings compared to the music industry who harvest most of the money giving a miniscule sum to the artist.

[Niall!]

It's quite interesting how much they moan about it. People do not want to spend money on something they do not properly own. Loads of download sites like Amazon MP3 Downloads only give you one copy, yet a music file is so easy to lose it's unfair and on the other end of the scale you get how easy it is to copy a "legit" version of the file. I'm waiting for the day piracy adverts say "you won't make a copy your girlfriend and let everyone have a go". I'll be happy then. I download all my songs legally (buy them from Amazon, Play and get CDs from shops), but I can see the point of "pirates", because they are expensive - games and films cost about £15 and they last longer than a song you will get bored of playing over and over again.

I don't get where the argument for "pirates are poor" comes from. Pirates tend to have brains and a keen interest in computers and require the internet. £15 a month plus a computer means they're spending quite a bit, and the computer industry is at least modest about their earnings compared to the music industry who harvest most of the money giving a miniscule sum to the artist.

Pirates aren't poor that's the thing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

This quite obviously disproves that. The music industry doesn't understand that people have different reasons to pirate. My friend for example pirates everything but buys it if he likes it. He would not have bought the product if he didn't obtain it illegally. They need to rethink their strategy and lower prices. This counts for ALL the big "media" industries. Films, games etc. They are way to overpriced.

[Marbian]

Unlucky for them... Although, I did like using limewire. :(

[Fez]

The problem with the music/game and generally every industry trying to "protect their profit" is that they don't understand what they're doing isn't harming pirates, it's harming consumers and turning them into pirates.

[cocaine]

Pirates aren't poor that's the thing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

This quite obviously disproves that. The music industry doesn't understand that people have different reasons to pirate. My friend for example pirates everything but buys it if he likes it. He would not have bought the product if he didn't obtain it illegally. They need to rethink their strategy and lower prices. This counts for ALL the big "media" industries. Films, games etc. They are way to overpriced.

that doesn't mean that they're richer than non-pirates, it just means they spend a bigger proportion of their income on music, films, games and other media.

[Niall!]

that doesn't mean that they're richer than non-pirates, it just means they spend a bigger proportion of their income on music, films, games and other media.

Regardless, the point still stands.

[GommeInc]

Pirates aren't poor that's the thing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-most-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html

This quite obviously disproves that. The music industry doesn't understand that people have different reasons to pirate. My friend for example pirates everything but buys it if he likes it. He would not have bought the product if he didn't obtain it illegally. They need to rethink their strategy and lower prices. This counts for ALL the big "media" industries. Films, games etc. They are way to overpriced.
Indeed, it's very odd :P Interestingly, you get a "try before you buy" feature from quite a few places, like Android, iOS, PS3 store etc. so if you do like it you can buy it, but for some reason it's not quite taken off with the music industry and a few gaming companies. Streaming seems to be popular at the moment too, and many people who like a song on YouTube may buy it if they like it - the iTunes, Amazon, Windows Media Market Place(?) all have demo areas, but they're only 5-20 second clips which don't really make a song buyable and I don't believe the film inudstry had got a decent streaming world yet, £4.99 to "rent a film" is quite a lot :P


that doesn't mean that they're richer than non-pirates, it just means they spend a bigger proportion of their income on music, films, games and other media.
Money is still going around in that area, which is the point :)

[Maatt.]

FAIL.
They should never have allowed illegal music, they knew it was coming....
It wont be payed tho.

in all that, the owner could commit suicide.... just a thought.,

[xxMATTGxx]

FAIL.
They should never have allowed illegal music, they knew it was coming....
It wont be payed tho.

in all that, the owner could commit suicide.... just a thought.,

Are you being serious? Do you even know what limewire actually was. A lot of people download illegally across the world, it's not a fail at all. The only fail is that the music industry expect them to pay that much.

[Shockwave.2CC]

lol $75 trillion

[Eoin247]

I lol'd

I don't get how companies can sue over this ****. A downloaded copy does not mean a lost sale.


Try telling them that. It pisses me off to no end seeing the movie and music industry carrying on about "losses of revenue" due to "losses of sales" when infact the person would not of bought the track anyway. And whilst they carry on about losses, the movie and music industry is getting increasingly bigger and so do their profits. You'd be a mug to believe people are losing their jobs over this kind of thing, it's false advertising to say the least.


Hold on now. I'm pretty sure that this is not true for the mostpart. Are you telling me that before the internet this many people simply didn't own and listen to music? I remember that before any of my friends knew about limewire, they all used to buy off itunes. As soon as word got around in my year about limewire, nobody bought off itunes. I know for a fact that if i couldn't get music free, i would pay for it. As would many many others.

[Conservative,]

Hold on now. I'm pretty sure that this is not true for the mostpart. Are you telling me that before the internet this many people simply didn't own and listen to music? I remember that before any of my friends knew about limewire, they all used to buy off itunes. As soon as word got around in my year about limewire, nobody bought off itunes. I know for a fact that if i couldn't get music free, i would pay for it. As would many many others.

I think his point is a lot of music is only downloaded because they can. And I agree. I certainly wouldn't have as much music as I do if I had to buy it all.

[Eoin247]

I think his point is a lot of music is only downloaded because they can. And I agree. I certainly wouldn't have as much music as I do if I had to buy it all.

It's true that some people do that. But he said for example " It pisses me off to no end seeing the movie and music industry carrying on about "losses of revenue" due to "losses of sales" when infact the person would not of bought the track anyway. ". Most people who download free illegal music would buy it if they couldn't get it free.

I mean if you like listening to music and you can't get it any other way then you will buy it. This argument of "downloading it just because you can" doesn't go down very well with me. You either like and want to listen to music or you don't.

[Chippiewill]

Who on earth needs to pirate music anymore, just get Spotify and you're sorted.

The only reason why I pirate is so I can watch a TV programme when I want too without spending ages waiting for it to come out in the UK or spending ages on fiddly PVR settings. I'm fine with watching adverts, just not fine with waiting around for it. Companies need to change their tact, most piracy that isn't music piracy is only because it's more convenient than whatever solution they provide already. That, and am I seriously ever going to actually buy adobe's expensive software without a job? No, they're benefiting because when I can actually afford it I might buy it because I have the skills to use the software.

[Niall!]

Except pirating actually helps the smaller bands. If you see a CD in the shop of a band you've never heard, are you going to buy it? No. If you see it on a torrent site are you going to download it? Yes.

If you like them you tell your friends and chances are one or two of them will buy the CD. Plus you can go to gigs which is were the bands make their money. Seriously, **** paying publishers. I want my money to go to the people that created the music, not the corporations that made the CD.

[Ardemax]

i think whoever filed that add a few too many hundred 0's...

[Conservative,]

It's true that some people do that. But he said for example " It pisses me off to no end seeing the movie and music industry carrying on about "losses of revenue" due to "losses of sales" when infact the person would not of bought the track anyway. ". Most people who download free illegal music would buy it if they couldn't get it free.

I mean if you like listening to music and you can't get it any other way then you will buy it. This argument of "downloading it just because you can" doesn't go down very well with me. You either like and want to listen to music or you don't.

But my point is - I have several songs by artists I don't particularly like (eg; Justin Bieber, Adele etc.) who I would have never have bought the song of anyway, so the record companies didn't lose out there - I only downloaded it for DJing.

[Eoin247]

But my point is - I have several songs by artists I don't particularly like (eg; Justin Bieber, Adele etc.) who I would have never have bought the song of anyway, so the record companies didn't lose out there - I only downloaded it for DJing.

Really though, that's the exception. Most people don't download songs that they don't like whether it's free or not. There's loads of handy and free software on the internet. Yet do you download all of it just because it's free? If you don't like it/wont use it, then why download it?

[GommeInc]

Really though, that's the exception. Most people don't download songs that they don't like whether it's free or not. There's loads of handy and free software on the internet. Yet do you download all of it just because it's free? If you don't like it/wont use it, then why download it?
An interesting point. I only get things I like so downloading illegally would be pointless to try out a song, hence why I've never seen the point in illegally downloading songs. Quite a few people, however, dislike the capitalism involved in the music industry where organisations seem to be profiteering off of good music talent where the "talent" does not get a fair enough share or the money involved in buying a song doesn't justify it. 70p could be considered a lot for something that doesn't "exist" and you will get bored of soon. An argument I can think of is the Games vs. Films vs. Music, where people consider a game more desirable than music because a game lasts longer and comes in a physical form making it somewhat desirable.