The mechanism preferred by the big recording and movie studios is the so-called ‘graduated response’ scheme, whereby Internet users are subjected to ever increasing punishments for their infringing behaviors.

Now, having faced resistance for so long, it seems that the MPAA and RIAA will get their way in the United States.

According to CNET, some of the country’s largest ISPs including AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are close to striking a deal with Hollywood and Big Music to put in a framework of measures to progressively punish errant subscribers.

Although a final agreement is yet to be signed, plans are said to be “on track” and could be officially unveiled next month. The deal is believed to be structured as follows:

- Rightsholders track infringing Internet users and send notices to ISPs
- ISPs used this data to send warnings, called “Copyright Alerts”, to subscribers
- If subscribers fail to improve their behavior, further warnings will be issued

Eventually though, ISPs have agreed to get tough with customers who don’t heed warnings.

Sources quoted by CNET say that ISPs will be a given flexibility to select from a “menu” of sanctions, including throttling a subscriber’s connection through to limiting web browsing. One scenario would see the web almost completely removed, with access granted only to the top 200 websites. Other more gentle measures include copyright-awareness programs.

However, unlike the legislative changes already implemented in the UK, the range of sanctions in the US will not include the dreaded “3rd strike”, i.e complete termination of the subscriber’s account. Currently there is no mention of temporary suspensions either; they could prove a deal-breaker in this sensitive environment.

The agreements between the MPAA, RIAA and ISPs in the United States will be completely voluntary. The ISPs will insist that they are completely within their rights to amend their Terms of Service to accommodate such an agreement and will almost certainly do so quickly.

In March, during the House Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet, it became increasingly clear that the US government would be backing voluntary agreements to deal with the subscriber end of infringement, rather than the legislative change approach favored for dealing with file-sharing and streaming websites.

“Voluntary cooperative solutions are a priority focus and we believe that, in combination with law enforcement action, voluntary actions by the private sector have the potential to dramatically reduce online infringement and change the enforcement paradigm,” said U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel.

“We will continue to push forward to encourage voluntary cooperative actions on multiple fronts. Our ultimate goal is to reduce infringement online so we will continue to assess our approach to ensure that it is as effective as possible.”

The costs of the ‘graduated response’ will be shared between the entertainment industries and ISPs, meaning that regular Internet subscribers will, as always, pick up the enforcement tab.

Source: MPAA, RIAA, Major ISPs Preparing ‘Graduated Response’ To Piracy

The evidence further showed that LimeWire marketed its application to Napster users and that its business model depended on mass copyright infringements.

Following the injunction LimeWire immediately disabled its file-sharing client, but the trouble for the company was far from over. Record labels and music publishers kept chasing LimeWire demanding compensation for the losses they claim the file-sharing service operator had caused.

The labels calculated that the company behind the popular file-sharing client owed them up to a billion dollars, and they filed a claim to collect it.

Last week, a New York federal jury trial started, but before this came to an end the two parties agreed to settle the case for $105 million. The RIAA brought in 9,715 tracks as evidence, which means that the amount translates to $10,808 per track instead of the maximum $150,000 the jury could have awarded.

The labels are obviously pleased with the outcome of the case. They’ve successfully argued that LimeWire caused both them and their artists significant losses.

“The resolution of this case is another milestone in the continuing evolution of online music to a legitimate marketplace that appropriately rewards creators,” RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol said in a comment.

Too bad, however, that the RIAA isn’t sharing any of the ‘damages’ with the artists, to reward them. Despite presenting thousands of artists as victims in the case, none of them are expected to see any of the settlement money in their bank accounts anytime soon.

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy previously told TorrentFreak that the ‘damages’ accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. “Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,” he said.

Thus far the RIAA has not announced officially how the LimeWire settlement will be spent, but we don’t expect them to steer away from their previous course. This makes today’s decision on compensation a victory for the major labels, but certainly not one for musicians.

Source: LimeWire Pays RIAA $105 Million, Artists Get Nothing

Google were tight-lipped, saying only that the company removes products that violate their terms and conditions. Last year, however, Grooveshark’s app was removed from Apple’s store on the same grounds. It was later confirmed that Apple had received a complaint from Universal Music.

Perhaps inevitably, some observers have added these two events together and come to the conclusion that if Apple and mighty Google both have issues with Grooveshark there must be a pressing legal issue with the service.

Not according to Senior VP of Information Products at Grooveshark, Paul Geller. In a statement responding to the “misleading press” created by the company’s “detractors and competitors”, he insists that his company’s product and operations are entirely legal.

“Google hasn’t specified what it was in their ‘Terms of Service’ that we allegedly violated, but there does appear to be some confusion about whether Grooveshark is a legal service,” Geller first told Digital Music News.

“So let’s set the record straight: there is nothing illegal about what Grooveshark offers to consumers.”

Geller goes on to clarify the difference between a ‘legal’ service and one that is ‘licensed’.

“Laws come from Congress. Licenses come from businesses,” he explains. “Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet).”

According to Geller, Grooveshark is a technology company, and one which operates firmly within the boundaries of the DMCA.

“Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt. Not so,” he insists.

Geller suggests that the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provision was put in place to allow companies like YouTube (and indeed Grooveshark) to innovate and create ways around the problems being suffered by the content industries.

“If it weren’t for this notion, many of the products and services that are now taking a bite out of piracy would never have been born,” he notes.

On licensing, Geller says that Grooveshark has agreements with thousands of labels all over the world and also pays the three largest US performing rights organizations.

“We pay for our streams, and we actively negotiate with virtually every single content owner,” says Geller.

“We’ve taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users. These are not the characteristics of a company ‘dedicated to copyright infringement’. As we work with artists and labels to make more content available to our users, Grooveshark becomes more competitive as an alternative to piracy.”

Grooveshark is hardly a small affair. Geller says they serve twenty-five million unique monthly users spanning more than 150 countries and will fight for their business.

“In light of the recent misleading press concerning Grooveshark’s application, it is important to make clear that we will defend our service, and the letter and the spirit of the law, in court and in Congress.”

“We will defend our name and our ideals for the sake of our users who expect modern delivery systems and comprehensive access across devices, for the sake of artists and content owners who fear another decade of decline, and for other innovators who continue to bring new ideas to market through the expression of creativity in the form of technology,” he concludes.

In departing, Geller asks Google and Apple to reinstate the Grooveshark apps to their stores. Considering the pressure both companies are under and the negative noises coming from the RIAA, he could be waiting for a long time.

Source: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

Google were tight-lipped, saying only that the company removes products that violate their terms and conditions. Last year, however, Grooveshark’s app was removed from Apple’s store on the same grounds. It was later confirmed that Apple had received a complaint from Universal Music.

Perhaps inevitably, some observers have added these two events together and come to the conclusion that if Apple and mighty Google both have issues with Grooveshark there must be a pressing legal issue with the service.

Not according to Senior VP of Information Products at Grooveshark, Paul Geller. In a statement responding to the “misleading press” created by the company’s “detractors and competitors”, he insists that his company’s product and operations are entirely legal.

“Google hasn’t specified what it was in their ‘Terms of Service’ that we allegedly violated, but there does appear to be some confusion about whether Grooveshark is a legal service,” Geller first told Digital Music News.

“So let’s set the record straight: there is nothing illegal about what Grooveshark offers to consumers.”

Geller goes on to clarify the difference between a ‘legal’ service and one that is ‘licensed’.

“Laws come from Congress. Licenses come from businesses,” he explains. “Grooveshark is completely legal because we comply with the laws passed by Congress, but we are not licensed by every label (yet).”

According to Geller, Grooveshark is a technology company, and one which operates firmly within the boundaries of the DMCA.

“Some would have you believe that those of us who use the DMCA to innovate are inherently infringers and that claiming Safe Harbor under the DMCA is as good as admitting guilt. Not so,” he insists.

Geller suggests that the DMCA’s Safe Harbor provision was put in place to allow companies like YouTube (and indeed Grooveshark) to innovate and create ways around the problems being suffered by the content industries.

“If it weren’t for this notion, many of the products and services that are now taking a bite out of piracy would never have been born,” he notes.

On licensing, Geller says that Grooveshark has agreements with thousands of labels all over the world and also pays the three largest US performing rights organizations.

“We pay for our streams, and we actively negotiate with virtually every single content owner,” says Geller.

“We’ve taken down over 1.76 million files and suspended upload privileges to 22,274 users. These are not the characteristics of a company ‘dedicated to copyright infringement’. As we work with artists and labels to make more content available to our users, Grooveshark becomes more competitive as an alternative to piracy.”

Grooveshark is hardly a small affair. Geller says they serve twenty-five million unique monthly users spanning more than 150 countries and will fight for their business.

“In light of the recent misleading press concerning Grooveshark’s application, it is important to make clear that we will defend our service, and the letter and the spirit of the law, in court and in Congress.”

“We will defend our name and our ideals for the sake of our users who expect modern delivery systems and comprehensive access across devices, for the sake of artists and content owners who fear another decade of decline, and for other innovators who continue to bring new ideas to market through the expression of creativity in the form of technology,” he concludes.

In departing, Geller asks Google and Apple to reinstate the Grooveshark apps to their stores. Considering the pressure both companies are under and the negative noises coming from the RIAA, he could be waiting for a long time.

Source: Grooveshark Bites Back at the RIAA: We’re Completely Legal

A landmark ruling, and one The Hollywood Reporter went so far to describe as “the most important decision to date in the ongoing mass-litigation campaign against thousands of individuals who traded copyrighted movies on BitTorrent.”

But then, a few days later we reported that Judge Beryl Howell may not be the most objective person to rule on these types of cases. After a quick background check we found that Howell earned close to half a million dollars as an RIAA lobbyist in previous years. At the time, she was the Managing Director and General Counsel at a consulting firm with expertise in digital forensics.

This unveiling of Howell’s close ties to the RIAA was again widely reported in the press, and it now seems that this may have had an effect. In two new orders that came out of the same cases where Judge Howell previously gave a carte blanche, she is now putting several restrictions on what the copyright holders can and can’t do.

In Maverick Entertainment cases, Judge Howell orders (pdf) the copyright holders to dismiss all the cases for which they indicated they would not name the defendants. This means that it will result in a dismissal “for all John Doe defendants for which the plaintiff has received identifying information as of February 1st, 2011.”

In the cases related to the Call Of The Wild movie (pdf), the judge appears to want to kill the case for the same reason John Steele’s CP Productions, Inc. case v. Does 1-500 case was killed in Illinois (violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4m). That is, defendants had to be served within 120 days after the complaint is filed.

However, the copyright holders are being given the opportunity to give a good reason why the defendants should not be dismissed, and in both of the above cases they have the option to name new defendants in an amended complaint.

TorrentFreak talked to Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits, to find out how he sees the remarkable turnaround and what the latest orders mean for the current defendants.

“Whether these defendants get dismissed or not is based on the coming acrobatics of the plaintiff attorneys, and how hard the judge claps her hands in amusement,” Cashman told us in a response.

Interestingly, Cashman agrees that it appears the negative attention on her RIAA past may have had an effect on her ruling. He thinks that bringing the nefarious nature of the cases to Judge Howell’s attention may have led to the latest orders.

“I do not think she was aware when she wrote her opinion, that the plaintiffs were using the legal system (her court) to harass and extort thousands of dollars from each of the John Doe defendants while pretending to her as if they were merely conducting evidence gathering,” Cashman said.

“It appears she — consistent with her previous ruling — is finding another way out of these cases while still keeping her past pro-copyright stance in accordance with the current US administration’s policy against copyright infringement,” he added.

Whatever the true motivations for Judge Howell are, the end result is more positive for the defendants than Howell’s previous verdicts. Together with the thousands of dismissals we’ve seen in recent weeks, it’s beginning to look like the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits may not be that profitable for the copyright holders after all. Not even with an former RIAA lobbyist as a judge.

Source: RIAA Lobbyist Turned Judge Backpedals On BitTorrent Cases

A landmark ruling, and one The Hollywood Reporter went so far to describe as “the most important decision to date in the ongoing mass-litigation campaign against thousands of individuals who traded copyrighted movies on BitTorrent.”

But then, a few days later we reported that Judge Beryl Howell may not be the most objective person to rule on these types of cases. After a quick background check we found that Howell earned close to half a million dollars as an RIAA lobbyist in previous years. At the time, she was the Managing Director and General Counsel at a consulting firm with expertise in digital forensics.

This unveiling of Howell’s close ties to the RIAA was again widely reported in the press, and it now seems that this may have had an effect. In two new orders that came out of the same cases where Judge Howell previously gave a carte blanche, she is now putting several restrictions on what the copyright holders can and can’t do.

In Maverick Entertainment cases, Judge Howell orders (pdf) the copyright holders to dismiss all the cases for which they indicated they would not name the defendants. This means that it will result in a dismissal “for all John Doe defendants for which the plaintiff has received identifying information as of February 1st, 2011.”

In the cases related to the Call Of The Wild movie (pdf), the judge appears to want to kill the case for the same reason John Steele’s CP Productions, Inc. case v. Does 1-500 case was killed in Illinois (violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4m). That is, defendants had to be served within 120 days after the complaint is filed.

However, the copyright holders are being given the opportunity to give a good reason why the defendants should not be dismissed, and in both of the above cases they have the option to name new defendants in an amended complaint.

TorrentFreak talked to Texas lawyer Robert Cashman, who represents several defendants in mass-BitTorrent lawsuits, to find out how he sees the remarkable turnaround and what the latest orders mean for the current defendants.

“Whether these defendants get dismissed or not is based on the coming acrobatics of the plaintiff attorneys, and how hard the judge claps her hands in amusement,” Cashman told us in a response.

Interestingly, Cashman agrees that it appears the negative attention on her RIAA past may have had an effect on her ruling. He thinks that bringing the nefarious nature of the cases to Judge Howell’s attention may have led to the latest orders.

“I do not think she was aware when she wrote her opinion, that the plaintiffs were using the legal system (her court) to harass and extort thousands of dollars from each of the John Doe defendants while pretending to her as if they were merely conducting evidence gathering,” Cashman said.

“It appears she — consistent with her previous ruling — is finding another way out of these cases while still keeping her past pro-copyright stance in accordance with the current US administration’s policy against copyright infringement,” he added.

Whatever the true motivations for Judge Howell are, the end result is more positive for the defendants than Howell’s previous verdicts. Together with the thousands of dismissals we’ve seen in recent weeks, it’s beginning to look like the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits may not be that profitable for the copyright holders after all. Not even with an former RIAA lobbyist as a judge.

Source: RIAA Lobbyist Turned Judge Backpedals On BitTorrent Cases

The question is, however, whether this is a laughing matter as some seem to think. The true aim of the RIAA has never been to gain financially from lawsuits against individuals, they wanted to make a statement and used the United States legal system as their ultimate anti-piracy campaign.

TorrentFreak contacted the RIAA to find out more about their side of the story and how they justify the millions of dollars spent in legal costs. Jonathan Lamy, Senior Vice President Communications at the RIAA, was kind enough to give us some insight.

“Before we announced the lawsuits, we spent years on various educational campaigns. PSAs. Magazine advertisements. Artists speaking out. Instant messages to millions of Kazaa users. You name it. We made extensive efforts to engage fans and inform them about the law. It made a little difference,” Lamy told TorrentFreak.

So, the next step for the RIAA was to go after people who shared songs online, to send out a clear message that they were breaking the law. Since everything else had failed thus far, they believed that suing thousands of people was a good way to communicate their message to the public.

“But it’s simple human nature that for some people – and I’m not suggesting everyone – when tempted to do something that is easy and anonymous and perhaps they do not appreciate that it is illegal, it is very difficult to their change behavior WITHOUT introducing the threat of consequences,” Lamy told us.

“Do you think people would not speed if there were no cops? You slow down more often than not because you think you might get caught.”

“I remember sitting in a focus group of college students and the moderator kept asking the students what would it take them to stop downloading illegally: more than one said, ‘You have to sue me or my roommate. We need to see first hand that getting caught could lead to trouble’,” Lamy said.

So the real question that should be asked is whether the RIAA actually got any bang for its bucks. If you look at the expenditure as an investment in an anti-piracy campaign it might actually not be as bad for them as it looks. Over the years tens of thousands of news reports carrying their anti-piracy message have been published in the mainstream media. No PR agency could have ever given them the massive exposure they’ve got from these lawsuits.

But was it worth it? The question still stands whether this PR has been an effective deterrent.

Although there are still a lot of people who share music illegally it would be hard to make the claim that the message had no effect on the piracy rate. The well-informed might not be scared as easily, but we can safely say that for quite a few people the press about million dollar fines might have been a scary enough reason not to pirate.

Whether the big music labels actually profited from the few percent less file-sharers is yet another question, especially when one doubts that there are any losses at all. The bottom line is, however, that the RIAA made a conscious choice to spend all these millions of dollars on lawsuits and that they believe that the money was well spent.

Luckily for those who kept on sharing the RIAA has stopped their actions against individual file-sharers. They claim that the music piracy rates have decreased enough and studies show that more people buy music instead of pirating it.

Nevertheless, the legal campaigns have been quite costly, and not only for the RIAA. In the process, the music labels hit thousands of people financially with settlements and the two file-sharers whose cases made it all the way through court are pretty much financially ruined.

The RIAA doesn’t seem to hold much compassion for these victims though, and appears to see them as collateral damage. “Well, there are thousands of folks who have been laid off because of the decline of the music business. That wasn’t pleasant experience for them either,” Lamy said.

Ouch…

Article from: TorrentFreak.

In the RIAA’s case against Jamie Thomas, the jury-awarded damages were reduced significantly as the excessive damages were ruled to be unconstitutional. Today, the same thing has happened with the case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum.

The ruling issued by District Judge Nancy Gertner states that the constitutional issues are clear, and that attempting to avoid the constitutional challenges (that the damages are excessive in proportion to the crime) by reducing the damages would be the best way to handle these.

The verdict comes as no surprise to many, and may even come as a relief to the RIAA, who have faced some negative publicity over the damages awarded. It’s unclear, though, if this modification will stand, as the RIAA will have to accept it. If they don’t, a retrial will be called.

Judge Gertner finds a retrial likely, stating in the judgment: “The plaintiffs in this case, however, made it abundantly clear that they were, to put it mildly, going for broke. They stated in open court that they likely would not accept a remitted award.”

“The Constitution protects not only criminal defendants from the imposition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, but also civil defendants facing arbitrarily high punitive awards,” Gertner added.

The meat of the subject can be found on page 6, though.

I reduce the jury’s award to $2,250 per infringed work, three times the statutory minimum, for a total award of $67,500. Significantly, this amount is more than I might have awarded in my independent judgment. But the task of determining the appropriate damages award in this case fell to the jury, not the Court. I have merely reduced the award to the greatest amount that the Constitution will permit given the facts of this case.

There is no question that this reduced award is still severe, even harsh. It not only adequately compensates the plaintiffs for the relatively minor harm that Tenenbaum caused them; it sends a strong message that those who exploit peer-to-peer networks to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works run the risk of incurring substantial damages awards. Tenenbaum’s behavior, after all, was hardly exemplary. The jury found that he not only violated the law, but did so willfully.

Reducing the jury’s $675,000 award, however, also sends another no less important message: The Due Process Clause does not merely protect large corporations, like BMW and State Farm, from grossly excessive punitive awards. It also protects ordinary people like Joel Tenenbaum

This judgment relieves some of the PR pressure around the RIAA. While they were clearly happy with the height of the damages, hoping it would intimidate filesharers, it also became a rallying cry for others. The reduced damages proposed by Judge Gertner may silence the opposition to some extent, and reduce the impact of campaigns.

Joel Tenenbaum was somewhat relieved upon hearing the verdict. In a telephone interview with the Boston Globe he said: “Obviously, it’s better news than it could have been. But it’s basically equally unpayable to me.”

Even if he could pay it, none of the money – be it $675,000, or $67,500 – would find its way into the pockets of the artists whose songs were involved. The RIAA told TorrentFreak that the damages will be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns instead.

Whether or not there will be a retrial, the current verdict is a blow to their anti-piracy campaigns, while the Constitutional concern may preclude any further strengthening of copyright laws and punishments in the near future.

Breaking story…

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Although these copyright infringement warnings are nothing new, little was known about the scope of these operations, until now.

This week the RIAA revealed that, since October 2008, it has sent out infringement warnings to 1.8 million Internet subscribers and 269,609 to colleges and universities in the United States. This translates into an average of well over a million infringement warnings a year.

Since the RIAA stopped pursuing individuals for sharing music online a long time ago, these infringement notices are merely a warning. However, the RIAA is confident that a significant number of the recipients will change their downloading habits once they’re notified.

An RIAA spokesman declined to inform TorrentFreak whether the number of infringement notices sent out are increasing or declining. The RIAA has no hard facts on the effectiveness of the notices either, but told us that university administrators usually see “very few” repeat offenders.

It does indeed seem plausible that some who are warned will think twice before they fire up their BitTorrent client unprotected, especially with all the talk about lawsuits recently. However, the effect of the warning campaigns are not noticeable in the number of file-sharing users and the traffic that they generate. Both are still increasing year after year.

RIAA’s openness with regard to their infringement notices comes right after the US put into effect a new requirement for colleges and universities to stop illicit file-sharing on their networks.

Starting this month, a provision of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 puts defiant schools at risk of losing federal funding if they don’t do enough to stop illicit file-sharers on their campus.

In recent years colleges and universities had to undertake measures to reduce piracy, and go after students who use file-sharing networks to share copyrighted files. Those who failed to do so will now lose their eligibility for federal student aid.

Effective or not, the new rules have proven to be quite costly for US educational institutions who spend between $350,000 and $500,000 a year to decrease piracy. With continuing doubts, even from the Government, as to whether or not piracy is causing losses to the entertainment industry, one has to wonder if it’s all worth it.

Whether the measures installed at colleges and universities are successful has to be doubted. We’ve reviewed the effectiveness of a few of the measures in the past and they provided little hope. If we add that users of file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Megaupload are untraceable by the RIAA and its partners, the newly installed anti-piracy measures seem to be just symbolic.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Last month, a US Court ruled that the Lime Group, the company behind Limewire, was liable for the copyright infringements committed by its users. Two weeks later the Lime Group asked the court to reconsider this judgment. This request was followed by one from the RIAA, asking the court to shut down Limewire via a permanent injunction.

The RIAA argues that Limewire’s operation has to be stopped immediately, to avoid it doing any more harm to the music industry in the future. Interestingly enough, very little argumentation or evidence is given for any real losses suffered by the record labels.

“It is patently obvious that the rampant illegal conduct that Lime Wire intentionally induced, and for which it has been adjudged liable, will continue uninterrupted day after day unless and until the Court issues an injunction to rein in this massive infringing operation,” RIAA’s lawyers wrote to the Court.

“Every day that Lime Wire’s conduct continues unabated guarantees harm to Plaintiffs that money damages cannot and will not compensate,” RIAA’s legal team continues. “The scope of the infringements that Lime Wire induced – and that continue to this day – boggles the mind.

The RIAA is right in saying that Limewire users have committed, and are committing many millions of infringements, but there is very little evidence for the massive damage that this has cost. Thus far, a real assessment of the claimed losses has been lacking in most file-sharing related legal cases.

“It does not require sophisticated mathematics to calculate that the likely damage award in this case will run into the hundreds of millions, if not the billions of dollars,” the RIAA argues. However, one of the few academic papers (pdf) that looked at the relationship between actual downloads and lost sales to the music industry has found that there’s no direct correlation.

With that said, the outcome of this case could potentially change the file-sharing landscape for good. Despite BitTorrent being the leading file-sharing protocol for several years already, Limewire is most likely the most installed P2P application on the market. In 2008 LimeWire was the most installed P2P application with an impressive market-share of 37%, compared to 14% for runner-up uTorrent.

If the RIAA score a victory in court against Limewire, hundreds or millions of people will have to seek an alternative download client, which might mean a significant boost in user numbers for some of the major BitTorrent applications.

Article from: TorrentFreak.