UPDATE 2-Lime Wire to pay record labels $105 mln, ends suit

Related Topics

Thu May 12, 2011 7:11pm EDT

* Settlement ends trial over damages, 5-year-old lawsuit

* LimeWire already liable for copyright infringement (Recasts with LimeWire now defunct, adds background and comments, byline)

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, May 12 (Reuters) - The operators of LimeWire agreed to pay record companies $105 million, ending a federal trial over copyright infringement damages owed by the once popular but now defunct file-sharing service.

The settlement with 13 record companies, including labels owned by Sony Corp (6758.T), Vivendi SA (VIV.PA), Warner Music Group Corp WMG.N and Citigroup Inc's (C.N) EMI Group, followed mediation, and ends nearly five years of litigation.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood in Manhattan had ruled last May that LimeWire's parents, Lime Group and Lime Wire LLC, wrongfully assisted users in pirating digital recordings.

She shut down LimeWire in October, leaving open the question of damages that could have exceeded $1 billion on roughly 10,000 recordings released since 1972. A jury trial over that issue had begun last week.

"Lime Wire and its founder, Mark Gorton, are pleased that this case has concluded," according to their law firm Willkie, Farr & Gallagher, which announced the settlement.

The record labels include Arista, Atlantic, BMG Music, Capitol, Elektra, Interscope, Laface, Motown, Priority, Sony BMG, UMG, Virgin and Warner Brothers.

"We are pleased to have reached a large monetary settlement," RIAA Chief Executive Mitch Bainwol said in a statement. He called the accord a victory for music providers that "play by the rules."

Founded in 2000, LimeWire has been a thorn for record companies because millions of fans used it as an easy means to find and download music for free. Its owners have said the service once had more than 50 million monthly users.

LimeWire shut down five years after the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 2005 case involving file-sharing service Grokster Ltd, said companies could be sued for copyright infringement if they distributed services designed to be used for that purpose, even if the devices could also be used lawfully.

Warner Chief Executive Edgar Bronfman testified Wednesday at the trial that he was frustrated that LimeWire did not shut down or convert to a "legal service" after the Grokster ruling. "It's devastating, frankly."

In March, Lime Group settled a separate copyright lawsuit by more than 30 music publishers. Terms were not disclosed. [nN08178050] Record companies own copyrights to recordings while publishers can own copyrights to the songs themselves.

The case is Arista Records LLC et al v Lime Group et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 06-05936. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Gary Hill)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
So… How much of that $105 million will the artist who created the music in the first place see? I am going to guess: zero. Nada. Zilch. This is part of the problem. The music industry has had a long long history of cheating musicians out of their fair share. I don’t agree not paying a musician for their hard work. A vast majority of people who do it do not feel they are taking from the musician. If there was any doubt, this lawsuit confirms it. At no point was it mentioned that the record labels stated that now they would be able to pay the musicians a bonus for their hard work. How the musicians are their bread and butter and without them they would be nothing. Or that this was a victory for the hard working artist. I guess mainly because everyone would know it was a bold face lie and they didn’t mean it. I think it is time to cut the middle man. Pay directly to artist. Then it would not be stealing. The artist could pay the labels what they felt they earned.

May 12, 2011 11:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.