The biggest record companies, according to the lawsuit, are engaged in a “modern conspiracy” to acquire “a monopoly over digital distribution of commercially valuable copyrighted music.” In all, the suit names 13 record companies.

In a statement, the industry association called the countersuit “a kitchen sink of frivolous charges” that doesn’t change the Supreme Court ruling last year in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster holding that file-sharing companies can be sued for copyright infringement.

Mr. Paczkowski called LimeWire’s language “heavy-handed,” but concluded that it’s not off base. LimeWire cites the recording industry’s relationship with iMesh, a file-sharing service it sued, but which is now essentially working at the industry’s behest, operating a fee-based downloading service. “While from all outward appearances iMesh is not controlled by the R.I.A.A.,” the lawsuit states, “dealings with iMesh by LimeWire and other P2P companies demonstrate, in reality, that this is not the case.”

That accusation “merits some looking into,” Mr. Paczkowski wrote.

“Much more interesting,” according to Nate Anderson of ArsTechnica, “is the lengthy section in which LimeWire discusses its decision to ‘go straight’ ” (arstechnica.com).

LimeWire says it had planned to introduce a system that would prevent copyrighted material from being traded, but the music labels would not license the necessary technology to make it work. The only way it could be done is if LimeWire and other file-sharing outfits became partners with iMesh. The plan, according to LimeWire, was to allow sharing of noncopyrighted files and to send users who wanted copyrighted works to legal sites like iTunes. “If you don’t think that this sounds like a profitable strategy, you’re not alone,” Mr. Anderson wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/business/30online.html