In theory, hosting code that runs any part of the internet could be construed to aid in such infringement.
Napster was centralized, that was a different set of facts. I don't know what happened to Limewire.
I watched the Mega Upload saga closely when it all played out. The government's case was pretty flimsy (even without accounting for obvious problems with jurisdiction). They argued that employees of Mega Upload were aware of infringing content, maintained lists of infringing content, made infringing content easy to find, and were generally just an illegal file sharing site. It's quite a fascinating case, it's been ongoing for over 7 years now.
Ultimately, why is it any business of the government to safeguard the precious movies? They should have to run their own security and settle matters civilly. There should be absolutely no criminal penalties for copyright infringement.
> In theory, hosting code that runs any part of the internet could be construed to aid in such infringement.
These kinds of theories have been roundly thrown out in court. What really matters is whether the primary purpose of your app is copyright infringement. It's clear from any "average" person that the getpopcorntime website is promoting the ability to watch copyrighted movies for free. Contrast that with bitorrent itself, which is clearly used for tons of infringement, but it also has a clear legitimate purpose WRT large file distribution, and importantly it doesn't promote itself by shouting "watch free movies" from the rooftops.
I think the Frostwire fork is still around, but I really have no idea how large the Gnutella network is these days. I imagine the primary use case for Frostwire these days is as a Bittorrent client.
I was actually 1 of the 5 full-time Limewire developers when the Grokster Supreme Court case was decided. I left Limewire sometime between when the direct legal threats started and when the lawsuits were actually filed.
As I remember, the CEO panicked for a week or two and looked certain to fold the company as soon as the direct threats started coming in. He ran a hedge fund and a brokerage, and started lots of side projects like Limewire and a non-profit to promote a bike-friendly NYC. Limewire was a pure liability to his fortune, and the rational thing to do would have been to just fold Limewire and walk away. Somehow he mustered the courage to fight the lawsuits. My understanding is that sometime after I left, the recording industry made a credible threat to pierce the corporate veil and directly go after the newly married COO/CTO with a kid on the way. Once the COO/CTO was over a barrel and willing to say whatever the recording industry wanted him to say, the CEO was forced into a protracted negotiated settlement.
I wasn't a party to any of the talks, but the CEO told me directly that the initial meeting went something like "What kind of content filtering is acceptable to you? Can you give us a blacklist of hashes or audio fingerprints?" "No, you must sell us your company, no negotiation." The CEO seemed to think the recording industry was genuinely concerned that they needed to nip open culture and liberally licensed media in the bud or they might find themselves disintermediated.
Napster was centralized, that was a different set of facts. I don't know what happened to Limewire.
I watched the Mega Upload saga closely when it all played out. The government's case was pretty flimsy (even without accounting for obvious problems with jurisdiction). They argued that employees of Mega Upload were aware of infringing content, maintained lists of infringing content, made infringing content easy to find, and were generally just an illegal file sharing site. It's quite a fascinating case, it's been ongoing for over 7 years now.
Ultimately, why is it any business of the government to safeguard the precious movies? They should have to run their own security and settle matters civilly. There should be absolutely no criminal penalties for copyright infringement.