News comes this week that Limewire has lost a big, big lawsuit over in the states, where the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took LW creators to court over copyright infringement on behalf of the four major music labels it represents. The exact value of the damages is not yet known - though it the RIAA is claiming many many million ($150k for every infringing work - of which there are several million...), but the result is definitely in - and Limewire has lost big-time.

However, the consequences seem likely to be dire not only for Limewire itself, but also peer to peer file-sharing in general, since it seems clear that such software now represents a serious legal liability for its creators. With Limewire having been downloaded around 200m times (according to CNET) this would represent a huge - but somewhat fleeting one feels - victory for the US media companies.

Even if we remove Limewire from the equation (which supposedly accounts for 58% of peer-to-peer music file-sharing) - and then also extrapolate the consequences to the industry's best case scenario - i.e. total peer-to-peer eradication, then one might reasonably expect the RIAA, the labels they represent, will share quite the celebratory glass of champagne...

The morning after though might bring with it somewhat of a reality check - namely the fact that other methods of illegal file-sharing (such as torrents) would simply scoop up the ex peer-to-peer user group, and that actually the problem really lies in people's willingness to continue to download illegally - something which is hardly abated by briefly high-profile lawsuit victories (Napster and the Pirate Bay spring to mind as other examples of supposedly crucial breakthroughs for copyright associations - though time has shown that the actual consequences of such have been far less significant than the claimant parties would have liked).

This is the true nature of the task of the RIAA - locked into fighting a war they know they can't win (America's war on drugs springs to mind here), but nonetheless hoping that the next high profile 'bust' and the ensuing media focus on law enforcement strength will magic away the sheer unfathomable scale of the problem.

So, when the current victories against peer-to-peer and Limewire are announced in the press over coming weeks, I recommend taking those headlines (like my one above) with a pinch of salt; for a more accurate reflection of the significance of such events, check the stock index of the music labels involved. It should tell you something a little more realistic, that such developments are nice for recording companies - they represent a good day for them - but hardly the dawn of a new era without piracy...

Dejan Levi

Apparently though this is not a conflict of interest according to the judge in question. Well that's alright then, isn't it... Though it's exactly like having a Manchester United-supporting referee take charge of a Man U game. But nothing wrong there either, is there? Or maybe it's like having the CEO of McDonalds giving advice on the health impact of fast-food - again, seems ok to me. (I should stress these are fictional scenarios - i'm not referring to things that have actually happened as far as I know).

The argument is that the judge is an experienced professional who will not let such issues cloud his judgement. But I can't help but wonder how come the case came to this guy and not any of the other, non copyright group-affiliated, judges? It seems awfully convenient for the media companies that their case landed on the desk of this guy.

Anyway however it happened it seems likely that the issue will form a cornerstone in the defendants' upcoming appeals, leading to a probable re-trial. How such a detail was not spotted and dealt with prior to the very expensive media circus is anyone's guess, (and the Swedish taxpayers' loss) but ultimately all it does is add another very messy chapter in the online file-sharing saga. It's all turning out to be quite the reality tv show for those who fancy a bit more of a tech-component to their soaps than Eastenders currently provides...

Dejan Levi

This lends the story quite a David vs. Goliath angle, as well as providing opportunity for headline grabbing statements such as made by one defendant, Peter Kolmisoppi, who held up an IOU in court and said it was as close as the media companies would get to their fines. He also said he would rather burn everything he had than give it anything to them...

However I can't help but feel that their attitude is having more of a serious consequence than many may realise (whether they intend this or not it is impossible to tell at the moment). Had they appeared crestfallen, repentant and daunted by the prospect of prison and financial penury then maybe the media companies could have been satisfied that they had made an example of them for the whole torrent community to see.

Instead by denying the media companies even this symbolic victory, the Pirate Bay defendants are ensuring that the scare-mongering potential of the case as an example is absolutely minimal. Perhaps that is why, instead of shutting down out of fear, other sites are already expanding to take Pirate Bay's place (see Techcrunch for a full report of this).

Ultimately it seems the Pirate Bay gang will end up serving some prison time (unless their pending appeal is succesful - though this seems unlikely according to many commentators). During these moments maybe they will come to regret their continued taunting of the multinational corporations that put them there. But I doubt it: say what you will about these guys, it is clear that they know how to get one over on the record/film companies. Even a supposed (and rare) victory for the multinationals is here instead being turned into an example of their impotence and an opportunity for file-sharing martyrdom for the Pirate Bay-ers.

How long will the record companies pursue the rather expensive and seemingly ineffectual tactic of trying to solve the file-sharing issue with court cases? For every small victory there arises another obstacle to tackle, and I doubt even they believe they can fully stamp out this problem with such measures. Maybe they just hope to be seen to be doing something for the sake of keeping shareholders happy, or maybe they see such cases as essential in ensuring that the problem at least doesn't get bigger. Who knows? But I feel pretty sure of one thing, and even more so after following the Pirate Bay case, - it is that while people still want to download material illegally they will always find a way to manage the risk, and continue to do so. Coercion cannot put a stop to this - only co-operation can lead to change...

Dejan Levi