Sunday, November 1, 2020

TorrentFreak's Latest News

 

20 Years Ago, LimeWire Took File-Sharing to A New Level
Ernesto Van der Sar, 01 Nov 07:39 PM

limewire logoTwenty years ago, a new trend called file-sharing started to conquer the Internet.

What used to be a niche activity, only reserved for the technically inclined, suddenly became a popular pastime for the masses.

At the turn of the century, Napster was the first to be widely embraced, which happened to be right around the time MP3 players became popularized as well.

This new sharing culture did not just intrigue music-loving teens. It offered limitless inspiration for many developers as well. In the year following Napster's release, other P2P applications such as Direct Connect, iMesh, eDonkey2000, Freenet, and LimeWire launched.

Napster initially remained the most popular application but this reign ended in the summer of 2001, when it was ordered to shut down by a US federal court. By then, however, its successors were queuing up to take over, and LimeWire stood out.

LimeWire's 'Slow' Start in 2000

LimeWire was founded by entrepreneur and hedge fund manager Mark Gorton. The application was created under the wings of Lime Group, LLC, by a small group of developers with a keen interest in peer-to-peer technology.

According to the online history books, the Gnutella-based software was first released on May 3, 2000. However, at the time, it wasn't called LimeWire yet. The application as people know it, the Gnutella-based file-sharing client, came out a few months later.

"To say we had a slow start was an understatement. At the time, we celebrated every 100 downloads and then every thousand but that was just a drop in the bucket," Greg Bildson, former LimeWire CTO/COO, and employee of the first hour, recalls.

"Newer clients like LimeWire were definitely an improvement on the Gnutella network but we were still only a tiny fraction of the network," he adds.

Limewire Interface

limewire interface

That slow start should be seen in perspective. While the official Gnutella client from Nullsoft was much more popular early on, LimeWire caught up quickly. Within a year more than three million copies of the software were downloaded, something most developers could only dream of.

LimeWire's Explosive Growth

During the time the file-sharing business was booming, LimeWire grew faster than other applications. This growth was helped by the shutdown of competitors such as Napster and Grokster. Also, the site was less aggressive on ads and toolbars than some competitors.

This doesn't mean that it didn't have downsides of course. The Gnutella network was dealing with spam and fakes, for example, where the files were not always what they promised to be.

Many former users will be familiar with the frustration of downloading a music track, to realize after half an hour of downloading it wasn't what its title promised. At the time, that was all part of the game.

Despite the drawbacks, LimeWire became the dominant file-sharing tool during the first decade of this millennium. While BitTorrent generated more traffic, LimeWire appealed to a broader audience of casual file-sharers.

One in Five PCs had LimeWire

Around its height in the mid-2000s, roughly one in five of all PCs in the world had a copy of the software installed.

The software became the go-to tool for millions of people, many of whom used it to fill up their MP3 players. At the same time, heaps of money were flowing in thanks to people who paid for the 'Pro' version, even though a pirated copy could be downloaded with the free LimeWire version.

Limewire Pro

limewire pro

With LimeWire's first release now twenty years ago and its eventual demise ten years later, we decided to reach out to some people who were working for the company at the time. We spoke to Angel Leon, Zlatin Balevsky, and Dave Nicponski, three members of the LimeWire team.

LimeWire Developers Look Back

Over the years many stories have been told about LimeWire but we wanted to hear from insiders why they think their software became such a success.

Leon, who later started the LimeWire spinoff FrostWire, joined in 2005 after responding to a Craigslist ad. He became the webmaster for Limewire.com and Magnetlink.com but, along the way, mastered the application's code as well.

According to Leon, the LimeWire developer team was very talented and the technology itself worked well. However, the success, as is often the case, also came down to timing.

"The technology was very easy to use, search, download, share all in one place. The project was developed and maintained by a group of very talented developers, truly a world-class team," Leon says.

"But I think they rode greatly on the circumstances, soon after I got there, if I remember correctly there was a ruling against Grokster, I imagine they took in a lot of their userbase," he adds.

Nicponski joined the LimeWire team in 2004 but already was an experienced P2P developer by then, as he worked at Bearshare since 2001. There was a healthy competition between the two teams as both were trying to build the best and most appealing file-sharing application.

Why LimeWire eventually became the most popular of the two is still a mystery to him and there probably was a bit of luck involved

"In many ways, BearShare was a technically superior product, but at the end of the day, that wasn't the primary differentiating factor which determined popularity. I don't rightly know what was. I suspect a combination of branding and a whole lot of luck," Nicponski says.

Balevsky also joined the LimeWire team in early 2004, while he was still at university. He reached out to the company directly to see if LimeWire was hiring, while offering a solution to a problem they were trying to solve.

"I was contributing to an open-source project called Freenet which was written in Java and saw that LimeWire was trying to solve a problem I had already solved," Balevsky tells us.

This initial offer was rejected but after some time had passed, Greg Bildson invited him for a job interview, after which he joined the team as a developer.

Spyware Free

According to Balevsky, the team worked very hard to create the ultimate file-sharing experience. However, he believes that LimeWire's success also stems from the fact that it was relatively clean, while other software was bundled with adware and toolbars.

"That wasn't always the case – when I first joined we did bundle some third-party software in the 'basic' version. I remember clearly that within a month or so of removing the adware our popularity had exploded," Balevsky says.

LimeWire was also relatively virus-free in the early years. This set it apart from competitors such as Kazaa, whose hashing algorithm allowed viruses and fake files to masquerade as genuine.

"The virus writers eventually figured out how to use LimeWire as an infection vector, but that didn't happen until years later which gave us plenty of time for good publicity," Balevsky notes.

Limewire.com in 2004: Faster Than Kazaa, No Spyware

limewire.com 2004

In the meantime, life was good at the LimeWire office. There was an open-source mentality and the company itself was very open as well, involving and respecting all team members. The was no shortage of money either and the sky was the limit.

Rooftop Parties and a $300 Waterpipe

Leon recalls LimeWire's well-known rooftop parties which attracted many outsiders as well, including Casey Neistat and his brother. Located in Manhattan, the Limewire building had a great location with a terrace of top and a view of the New York skyline.

Limewire's rooftop terrace

limewire rooftop terrace

This team of young and talented people worked hard but also knew how to enjoy life. Balevsky seconds this party atmosphere, as well as the company's openness.

"We were young, crazy, had virtually no management or oversight as the bosses let us do whatever we wanted," he says, adding that he is reluctant to share too much as that may make some former colleagues uncomfortable.

"The fact that we had a $300 fancy waterpipe in the office – a gift from the owner – should give you enough of an idea of what the atmosphere and culture were like."

"The inventor of Kademlia – Petar Maymunkov worked in a different company owned by the same owner so we had many in-depth technical discussions over a waterpipe and poker."

Lawsuit Shuts LimeWire Down

LimeWire's seemingly limitless expansion eventually came to an end. This started in 2006 when a group of music companies, represented by the RIAA, sued Lime Group over copyright infringement. Leon had left the company by then but was served nonetheless.

"I was still served with a subpoena with very loud and scary bangs at my Bushwick, Brooklyn apartment one early morning. LimeWire was kind enough to take care of my legal bills at the time," he recalls.

Nicponski was more directly involved in the lawsuit and he was deposed for roughly eight hours by New York lawyers working for the major music labels.

"It was a bit surreal to have to give testimony to a small army of lawyers at the top of a Manhattan skyscraper for an early-twenty-something," Nicponski says, while highlighting another important point.

Looking back, many people believe that the file-sharing boom helped to change the music industry. While the labels witnessed a loss of control and income, people including Nicponski see things differently.

"My general feelings during that deposition were that I had helped open the pandora's box of technology against an industry that I viewed (and still view) as overwhelmingly evil. We exposed the cracks in the foundation of that business, and once the cracks started to appear, they then began to widen."

In a way, file-sharing helped to break up the music industry monopoly, turning music into a community. This meant more choice for consumers and paved the way for "per song" sales, new distribution models such as Apple's iTunes, and eventually streaming.

The LimeWire lawsuit was expected to a degree and didn't come as a shock. However, as the legal battle dragged on for several years, uncertainty grew at the LimeWire office. While Mark Gorton explored several options to survive, the end was always near.

"Every other Friday was the last day at work, we had at least three 'Goodbye dinners' and in general development stagnated due to the uncertainty," says Balevsky, who was still with the team.

Balevsky, in the meantime, started to help Leon and another developer with the FrostWire spinoff. This would ensure that the LimeWire spirit would survive, even after the company shut down.

LimeWire's demise eventually came in 2010. Facing trillions of dollars in potential damages, Lime Group LLC decided to settle the lawsuit. The company agreed to pay $105 million in damages and a message on the official site urged users to remove the software.

The end of an era

limewire

People who visit LimeWire.com today will no longer see the shutdown notice. The domain was eventually taken over by Balevsky who uses it to promote his own anonymous file-sharing application MuWire.

The developer never witnessed LimeWire's end as he left the company in 2008 after obtaining his green card. Leon was gone by then too, and continued working on FrostWire, which despite troubles with Google's Play store, is still around today.

With LimeWire gone, the name lives on in the memories of millions of people, and partially in FrostWire and MuWire. What happened to the $300 waterpipe is unclear, however.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

An Extraordinarily Successful Anti-Piracy Campaign…Or Maybe Not
Andy Maxwell, 01 Nov 12:36 PM

Pirate KeyOver the past few decades there have dozens of campaigns aimed at preventing people from either copying, downloading, or sharing pirated content.

From 'Don't Copy That Floppy' to 'You Wouldn't Download a Car', these campaigns have enjoyed questionable success but at least in the case of these examples, getting the actual anti-piracy ads out there hasn't been a problem.

Millions of people have seen these shorts over the years, which if nothing else is a great start. Interestingly, a new anti-piracy campaign appears to have hit the jackpot too, in a mysterious way.

Internet Matters Launches Anti-Piracy Campaign

Internet Matters promotes itself as a not-for-profit organization with a simple purpose – "To empower parents and carers to keep children safe in the digital world." Undoubtedly this is a noble goal, particularly given all the perils on the Internet today that most if not all of us would like to avoid.

Just over ten days ago, Internet Matters launched an anti-piracy campaign, aiming to inform parents and carers on the dangers of "streaming from unauthorized sites" so that they can educate children on how to avoid "age-inappropriate content, disturbing pop-ups and cyber threats."

To accompany the campaign, Internet Matters launched three videos on YouTube featuring what they describe as "real parents" discussing the above.

The Anti-Piracy Videos – Apparently Huge Online Hits

All anti-piracy campaigns attract our attention so we make a point of monitoring how successful they are in terms of reach and views. Given that the videos are Internet Matters releases are relatively bland and not at all controversial, we were shocked to learn that a little over a week after their launch, they were a roaring success on YouTube.

The first video, claiming that malware obtained through pirate sites can hijack a user's camera, received more than 250,000 views. The second, covering the "general dangers" of digital piracy, achieved 245,000 views. While this is a great achievement, alarm bells began to ring on a number of fronts.

Despite attracting all of those eyeballs, at the time of writing not a single person has commented on either video. Even more curious is that the first video has only 5 votes (3 up, 2 down) while the second has only a single vote, period. For videos that are so popular, that is pretty remarkable.

That brings us to the third video, which in content terms is close to the first two, but this time talking about pirate sites allegedly stealing users' details so they can empty their bank accounts. Bearing in mind all three videos were released on the same day, as part of the same campaign, and listed alongside each other on the Internet Matters site, this one is a massive failure.

Internet Matters

As the image above shows, at the time of writing it has just 102 views, despite being extremely interesting from a parental point of view, at least when viewed through the prism of the other videos. That being said, it has accumulated slightly more hits than the average video recently released by the Internet safety group.

Comparisons With Recent Anti-Piracy Campaign in the US

The reason for the above catching our eye is the contrast with a very similar anti-piracy campaign launched in the United States more than a month ago.

Combining the resources of the MPA, Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, and none other than the US Government's Department of Homeland Security, the 'StreamSafely' campaign also came with a selection of piracy-deterring videos of its own.

At the time of writing the main video, featuring TV host and journalist Katie Linendoll, has achieved 208 views. Another from her, on 'safe streaming alternatives', currently has 47 views. A third has done relatively well, with 585. A fourth, featuring Steve Francis from Homeland Security, has just 91 views.

When all views of all four videos are added together and generously rounded up, that's less than 1,000 views in total, despite the weight of most of the major video entertainment companies in the world (and the US Government) supporting it. Now compare that with Internet Matters' first two videos, which currently have half a million each. Then the third one….with barely over a hundred.

The Results in Both Campaigns Defy Explanation

Quite why the StreamSafely campaign appears to be a disaster and why Internet Matters hit the jackpot with two videos but failed as badly as the US with the third is, quite frankly, a mystery. That said, it's perhaps worth pointing out that Internet Matters, despite describing itself as an organization, is actually a limited company being funded by some of the biggest names in broadcasting including Sky, BT, Virgin Media and NowTV.

In fact, according to traffic analysis, Virgin is responsible for 50% of the visits to Internet Matters' website, with Sky sending roughly 10%. Even then, however, Internet Matters only receives around 250,000 visits per month in total according to SimilarWeb, which means that every single one of those visitors would've been needed to view the first two videos once each, to reach the quarter-million mark.

Even then there are problems as these results were achieved in just 10 days so something, somewhere, doesn't add up, especially when the lack of YouTube comments is taken into consideration.

Things just don't get this 'popular' without someone expressing an opinion or at least clicking the thumbs up/down buttons. And then completely omitting to view the third video, losing it 250,000 views over its stablemates, of course. It's possible that someone, somewhere embedded the first two videos on a very popular site to get all of those eyeballs in such a short space of time but where that might be is unknown.

If that's indeed the case, however, the US campaign might want to exploit the same method because, at the moment, almost no one has watched the videos, let alone heeded their message.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

 
 
Powered by Mad Mimi®A GoDaddy® company

No comments: