CNET Sued Over LimeWire Client Downloads

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CNET Sued Over LimeWire Client Downloads

Posted by Soulskill on Friday May 6, 2011 @05:07AM from the seeing-what-sticks dept.

suraj.sun writes with this quote from Ars Technica: "Alki David, the wealthy film producer and entrepreneur behind sites like FilmOn, has sued CNET and its owner, CBS, for providing hundreds of millions of downloads of LimeWire P2P software over the last decade. He argues that CNET had 'direct participation in massive copyright infringement on peer-to-peer systems, such as LimeWire, that are used to copy and distribute songs, films and other artistic works,' and that CNET's Download.com was the 'main distributor' of the software. P2P software isn't illegal, though companies that use it to induce or encourage copyright infringement can be held liable. The principle, most famously articulated by the US Supreme Court in the Grokster shutdown, was extended to LimeWire last year when a federal judge shut down most of the company's activity."

151 of 206 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

However by Black+Parrot · 2011-05-06 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Last time I updated Company of Heros, P2P is the only way I could get the patches. From the publisher.
Maybe they should cut out the middle men and sue ARPA for creating the internet?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Shouldn't that be Al Gore ? ...
2. Re:However by phantomfive · 2011-05-06 05:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Maybe, how much money does ARPA have? Remember, leeches follow the money. CBS has money. That's why they now are getting sued.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:However by SuricouRaven · 2011-05-06 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's ROT13 somehow, and appears to be similar in nature to the non-cyphered texts. Strings of quotes concatenated.
4. Re:However by _xeno_ · 2011-05-06 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody's tinkering trying to fix the broken fortune that hasn't changed for weeks.
  
  On the production server?
  ...Oh, right. This is Slashdot. Never mind.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
5. Re:However by Canazza · 2011-05-06 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I got a ROT13 encoded tirade of medical jokes.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
6. Re:However by Illy-chan · 2011-05-06 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Anyone who really thinks this is about protecting their work is either a fool or terribly naive.
7. Re:However by hairyfeet · 2011-05-06 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ya know, normally I'd tell these lawsuit scum to jump off a short bridge, but sadly in this case I think he kinda has a point. If you follow the links to his page and look at the evidence he's collected, not only is Cnet making money on the downloads with ad revenue, but they have several articles where they test P2P software by looking for infringing stuff to download complete with screenshots, several of their articles have lines like 'The best stuff to snatch music with" and their writers for their P2P reviews are pretty much 'Suck it bitches!' while making cracks and having every single screenshot be them downloading infringing material.
  We have always had the twist on the Fight Club rule, we ALL know what the software is for, but we don't go around blabbing about it! But these clowns at Cnet have been pretty much flying the bird while laughing and taking screen caps. This reminds me of the moron that robbed a place and then put it on FaceBook. If you are just offering the software that's one thing, but putting your tune snatching in screencaps? Way too fucking stupid, and they should be busted for being total dumbasses if nothing else.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
8. Re:However by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  CBS may have money, but not as much as their advertisers. If CNet profited from distributing Limewire, so did the advertisers that bought ads that were displayed on the CNet when users were downloading Limewire.
  The actual infringement was done by Limewire users. First they asked the courts to accept that Limewire was responsible for the behavior of their users. Now they're asking them to accept that a company that provided a service that hosted downloads for many software products should be responsible for the customer that the courts ruled was responsible for the behavior of its users. If the courts buy this, I see no reason why they wouldn't also buy that the companies that made the application hosting possible by paying for advertising wouldn't be responsible for the software hosting service that was responsible for the software developer that was responsible for the users who committed the actual copyright infringement.
  And, by the same token, after dealing with all the advertisers, they should go after any customers that purchased from those advertisers...after all, were it not for them, the advertisers would have stopped paying CNet who would have stopped hosting Limewire who would have stopped distributing the software to the people illegally traded copyrighted material.
  At some point, the courts need to accept that lawbreakers use legitimate services and that those legitimate services cannot be held responsible for who their customers are. I'd expect it would be this case where CNet would be able to prove that their service was primarily intended for use by legitimate software developers and that they can't be responsible for the software that's distributed by their service anymore so than the ISPs can be held responsible for the fact that the software sent the copyrighted files over their networks.
9. Re:However by macs4all · 2011-05-06 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  The funny part about this is that CBS has copyright, licenses, or produces content.
  That's exactly what I was thinking.
  
  We now have the MAFIAA eating its own.
  Cool!
10. Re:However by anonymov · 2011-05-06 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Then sue them for "tune snatching", not for "enabling infringers".
11. Re:However by hairyfeet · 2011-05-06 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? They had articles on which software to snatch with, had screencaps all over the place showing how to use said software to snatch tunes, they did everything but have a link to Goatse with a hyperlink that said "Here is what we think of your steenkin rules, bitches!"
  It wasn't in this case that they offered the software, it was that they were completely fucking blatant about what to use it for and when. To use a /. car analog it is like the difference between offering a radar detector and having it accompany an article saying "And just in case you're unclear of its purpose, please follow along with John who will show you how to rig your license plates so you won't have to worry about speed cams either!"
  They broke the carinal rule, which is "don't be an asshole about it". There are plenty of places like Major Geeks that offer the software, but they aren't assholes about it. Reading the links in TFA the writers at Cnet made it VERY clear they thought the movie and record companies could suck their collective dicks, and then went out of their way to make sure everyone knew they thought piracy was all that and a bag of chips. So again if for nothing else being giant assholes about it will probably get them busted, as I can't see how any judge could read those articles and say Cnet wasn't condoning and assisting with infringement. I mean every damned screencap had them hunting for pirate movies and tunes!
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 05:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.

--
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
1. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  But this is more like suing the company that made the steel used by the gun manufacturer.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-05-06 05:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
  If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
  This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.
  FTFA
  
  The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
  If this pans out in court, this won't simply "pass", unless there is a settlement involved. They are alleging that CNET didn't simply distribute PTP file sharing software, but that they encouraged it's use for sharing copyrighted music, highlighting big name (by their standards, not mine) artists in screenshots. This detail is huge, and likely the lynchpin of the entire case.
  
  Disclaimer: IANAL
3. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-05-06 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The gaping hole in your strawman is that, under the laws of this jurisdiction, the kiddie porn is inherently illegal, to possess or distribute. There are absolutely no recognized legitimate applications(aside from law enforcement's evidence stash). The limewire client, on the other hand, contains no inherently illegal material whatsoever, and is capable of both licit and illicit uses, by the person downloading it.
4. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  The artists might have nexus, but I'm guessing that CNet will be held harmless, after many lawyers buy yachts. IANAL, too. Yet this shoot-the-messenger approach is really unlikely to succeed.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
5. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by KhabaLox · 2011-05-06 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it's like suing the trucking company that shipped the gun to the store. Get your /. car analogies right.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
6. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by guspasho · 2011-05-06 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Funny because the article uses the gun metaphor too.
  "Would gun sellers enjoy "Freedom of Press" protections if they offered catalogs demonstrating the ease of use of the Handguns being Sold for engaging in criminal activities such as robbing stores or banks. Then offering Solutions to specifically cover up your crime.
  "CNET provided the "Guns", the P2P Software, and the encouragement to commit "Robbery", here, the online file sharing of known copyrighted works.
  I'm not saying I agree with the guy, I absolutely do not, but it's funny that you both came up with a gun analogy and thought opposite things.
7. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by biek · 2011-05-06 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  When dealing with grey-area stuff like limewire, CNET should learn from head shops and throw a legal disclaimer on the page. That way it's being distributed for legit purposes, even though everyone knows what you're *really* using it for.
8. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by AJH16 · 2011-05-06 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  But how many miles per library of congress did the trucks get?
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
9. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by NotQuiteReal · 2011-05-06 05:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I am confused, I thought a car analogy would clear things up for me, but you gave a truck analogy.
  
  --
  This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
10. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by tripleevenfall · 2011-05-06 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Limewire has non-infringing uses, therefore, CNET shouldn't be liable for distributing it.
11. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  1) it's not clear that CNet came up with whatever was being placed around the LimeWire ad; it might have been ad copy from the P2P software provider or its ad agency 2) there might indeed be legal software on any given P2P software; if bands are shown in an ad, that might violate IP surrounding the band's image, but it doesn't talk about the action of downloading specific things 3) lots of free/shareware can be used incorrectly and the enticement to use software in such a way doesn't endorse the actions. 4) If you use a picture of a robber in a gun ad-- is one encouraging the action of robbing or using a gun to stop a robbery? 5) are there actions using P2P software to legally share software? I can think of a few-- although many actions clearly are not 6) to what extent have the ostensible holders been hurt? do they have nexus to claim damages?
  All good question to make lawyers rich.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
12. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by phantomfive · 2011-05-06 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  It can make them liable. If they are distributing it knowing that it will be used for illegal purposes, then they may be liable. Of course this is a civil case, but the related concept is accessory to a crime.
  
  If you are selling guns, and market them as, "the best for killing your neighbor," and someone takes it and kills his neighbor, you may be accused as an accessory to the crime as well. This is what happened to Limewire: the court concluded that Limewire was encouraging copyright infringement. If their website had discouraged people from downloading materials illegally, and had trackers for various linux distros, they probably would have been ok. Note: IANAL (but I am right ;)
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
13. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 05:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  He was misrepresenting the original position.
  Original position: You shouldn't be held liable for distributing something that has legal uses, such as Limewire.
  Strawman: You shouldn't be held liable for distributing anything; for instance child porn.
  
  Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
  Key point: Limewire has legal uses; child porn is always illegal to create, possess, or even attempt to obtain. Ignore that point and suddenly distributing Limewire is like distributing child porn - oh noes! Clearly they must be held responsible.
14. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Lord_Jeremy · 2011-05-06 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  I think a better analogy involving shipping would be they're suing the trucking company that transported the gun from the online distributor to your house. The actual Limewire company being the online distributor, the Limewire software being the gun, and the trucking company being the download site (in this case CNET).
  
  Amusing anecdote: it's actually all this anti-piracy's fault that I download anything. Back when I was in high school living at home, my father came to me one day with a letter from Cablevision (our ISP). The letter was pretty much a general threat to all of their customers that "using 'Peer To Peer' software such as Limewire or Kazaa to obtain free music and movies is illegal under US copyright law and a violation of our Terms of Service" or somesuch. Seriously, they essentially told all of their customers how they could get free music and movies and then listed software that would allow them to do it. Right after reading that I went and googled "LimeWire" and thus began my piracy foray.
15. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  But using Limewire to download music and videos is not illegal unless the music and videos are copyrighted. The music and film industries would like everyone to forget that non-copyrighted music and videos does exist...
16. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  *do exist.
17. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Various US civil litigation results have held hosting organizations immune for the actions of users that post comments, files, and so on. Much has to do with the site's EULA, and how the TCA works to hold hosting orgs harmless. If CNet came up with ad copy that said yeah, download music for free! then they're likely still not culpable because there is music that can be downloaded legally-- bereft of copyright protection-- for free. Encouraging people to download legally free music is protected, too. LimeWire was ultimately stupid for many reasons covered here before. CNet is merely a distributor of stuff. I don't think they encourage downloading software illegally or using the tools they offer to do so. Ad banners around various products are likely provided by the product makers or their agents.
  If you go by a Lamar billboard on the freeway and it encourages illegal action, Lamar isn't liable. (yes, CBS owns billboards and CNet, too, oddly). I'm pretty sure that same protection is afforded in this case, but IANAL and dislike them anyway.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
18. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by KhabaLox · 2011-05-06 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Different instance of the class.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
19. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by bunratty · 2011-05-06 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, the AC's point was that if they were distributing child porn that they would be liable, so why wouldn't they be liable for distributing Limewire? In any case, the AC was clearly making a new point, not misrepresenting a point that someone else had made. If he had claimed that someone had said that no one should be held accountable for distributing illegal material, that would certainly be a straw man.
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
20. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  By "non-copyrighted" I mean to refer to material either whose copyright term has expired and has entered the public domain, or material whose "copyright" is specifically intended to give you the right to copy it. But either way, copying those materials would not be illegal, and the music and film industries want you to forget the existence of music and videos which are perfectly legal to copy.
21. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  the AC's point was that if they were distributing child porn that they would be liable
  I amend my previous statement.
  Original claim:
  Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable for its use.
  The strawman which Anonymous Coward knocked down so easily was more like this claim, however:
  Posting something never makes anyone liable for anything.
22. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by phantomfive · 2011-05-06 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  You are right. And if Limewire had advertised their product as a way to download music and videos that are in the public domain or otherwise legally downloadable, they likely would have won the court case. But they didn't do that. Similarly, don't expect MusicFrost to survive for long if they ever manage to make money worth suing for. Their website is clearly encouraging infringement. Compare that website to the new isohunt website (it is different outside the US), which has been designed specifically to avoid encouraging infringement. Isohunt will probably survive.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
23. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's almost impossible to find material that isn't copyrighted (an author has an automatic copyright anytime they produce a creative work), so by non-copyrighted I really meant that the copyright had either expired or specifically allowed people to copy it.
24. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by VortexCortex · 2011-05-06 06:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Limewire has non-infringing uses, therefore, CNET shouldn't be liable for distributing it.
  MOD PARENT UP.
  When the Movie Industry sued Sony, Sony was allowed to continue producing BetaMax cassettes and recorders because of the mere POSSIBILITY that they could be used for non infringing purposes!
  Let's face it -- BetaMax was designed to allow recording of live TV and dual cassette dubbing models were designed to copy movies, but they also had the possibility of being used for non-infringing purposes.
  The same logic (and case-law) should be applied to PirateBay, BitTorrent, Limewire, and (ironically) Sony PS3 DRM firmware hacks.
25. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by overlordofmu · 2011-05-06 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Three internets divided by a chicken pot pie.
26. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Illy-chan · 2011-05-06 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, by that logic (and case law saying that you can't sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed by people who bought their guns) LimeWire shouldn't have been liable to begin with, never-mind CNET. At most, they should have gotten into trouble for not trying to mitigate the piracy and even that would be pushing it in my opinion. Not that it matters. Of course, the RIAA has more close friends in the government than Charlie Sheen has drugs, so I'm not exactly surprised that the court didn't come to the same conclusion in this case.
27. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Archangel+Michael · 2011-05-06 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is more like suing Oenada for making the fork that made Rosie O'Donnel fat.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
28. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by w1mp · 2011-05-06 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I would have to suggest it is more akin to suing the printer who made the gun catalog from which you ordered said firearm.
29. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by nschubach · 2011-05-06 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Banquet or Swanson pot pies?
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
30. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by nschubach · 2011-05-06 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully you mean the vehicle superclass instead of the car subclass. I'd hate to see the car class being used for trucks. ;)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
31. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by idontgno · 2011-05-06 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  African or European swallow pot pies?
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
32. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Xtifr · 2011-05-06 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
  Ah yes, geeks trying to "logic" the law--almost as dangerous as the proverbial programmer-with-a-screwdriver. The summary (for once) even mentioned "induce or encourage", yet we still have people trying to judge the actions as if there were no actors, and assuming that any vague analogy between two different actions makes them identical.
  Hey, if someone trips on your staircase and breaks their neck, they're just as dead as if you'd put a gun to their temple and pulled the trigger, right? So it should be the same crime in the eyes of the law, right? Except its not. The former is probably, at worst, negligent manslaughter, while the latter is almost certainly first-degree murder. Those are very different crimes. Yet the only measurable difference is intent.
  In the case of peer-to-peer software (and similar), the question of intent becomes even more critical, as it doesn't just distinguish between two types of crime (as with manslaughter vs. murder), but actually decides whether you've crossed the line into illegal activity. Grokster and Limewire (unlike, say, Bittorrent) crossed that line.
  The interesting details of this case are going to be whether or not CNet ever promoted Limewire as a tool for infringement, and if not, then perhaps whether they could or should have known it was being promoted as an infringement tool. If the former, then I suspect they'll lose. If it's the latter, then things get tricky (and ugly), and I don't think there's any precedent to guide us, so it might go either way. Those computer makers you mentioned, on the other hand, never provided Limewire, so there's no issue, and your analogy fails utterly. Limewire and Bittorrent are not equivalent under the law; why would Limewire and computer hardware be equivalent?
33. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by zeroshade · 2011-05-06 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  If the copyright has expired, then it is public domain and not copyrighted any longer.
34. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  And we geeks caveat ourselves: IANAL. And we geeks also watch proceedings very carefully, for many different reasons. We analogize, we cite previous cases and the theories of judgment behind them, and how the cases were argued-- and especially what the results were, like them or not.
  The equivalency cited up and down the post comments indeed cite whether CNet promoted the activity or whether actually encouraged or otherwise incited users to perform illegal downloads. We don't have the direct citations in the captioned litigation available for comment. It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
  CNet is a conveyance, just like a billboard is a conveyance. There are countless suits brought against computer service providers that are held subsequently harmless for conveyance-- unless they actively censor or promote what third parties do. Merely serving as a host for conversations, files, and so on, isn't harmful, says case law that I've seen.
  It's my guess that their attorneys convinced them that there's a theory of law that can goad a positive judgment. It's my belief they're wrong. Geeks with screwdrivers are good people. I code, and I rebuild cars and motorcycles, build systems, and refurbish homes. Casting a broad net is an unwise position.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
35. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by bertoelcon · 2011-05-06 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'd hate to see the car class being used for trucks. ;)
  Well they did make those El Caminos and Rancheros...
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
36. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Xtifr · 2011-05-06 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  And we geeks caveat ourselves: IANAL.
  Speak for yourself--I didn't, but then I assume that anyone who takes their legal advice from slashdot deserves what they get! :)
  I'm not saying that CNet is going to win or lose (I haven't got the faintest idea at this point). I was simply saying that your claim, "If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers" was fallacious. As for whether CNet promoted illegal activity, you write:
  
  It's unlikely that they did. They would be stupid to do so.
  Companies do stupid things all the time. Look at Sony! Look at Microsoft submitting doctored evidence in open court. Look at all the companies that have partnered with Microsoft (if you can find any outside of history books).
  As for programmers with screwdrivers, the most dangerous thing about them is that they often feel they know how to use them; a fact that causes sheer terror in most hardware folks I know, and I know this because I am programmer (and yes, I sometimes wield a screwdriver).
37. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  We'll have to continue to disagree. Lots of case law backs up the theory that the transitive properties of the TCA and DCMA protect CNet pretty thoroughly. And I caveat my statements with IANAL as I feel that I'm obliged to-- with my understanding of how law is practiced, and who can practice law. Making pronouncements that imply legal practice aren't legal in my jurisdiction. Impersonation has been successfully challenged, and clarity isn't good here.
  Could CNet have been stupid? It wouldn't have been the first time, but in my personal experience with CNet and their personnel, it would have been out of character-- and on the surface of what's been presented, the analogies stick.
  There are those with poor interdisciplinary skills, but although they make glaring mistakes, I believe these geeks you cite to be in the minority. I prefer the company of geeks. And I have no fear of out-wrenching any number of people. Coding? I'm a comparative light-weight. The same for hardware-- cars and mechanical things are pretty easy for me. Politics? Never.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
38. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by vux984 · 2011-05-06 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, by that logic (and case law saying that you can't sue gun manufacturers for crimes committed by people who bought their guns) LimeWire shouldn't have been liable to begin with,
  Limewire wouldn't have been liable, except that the judge found them to be actively encouraging infringement.
  Merely making and distributing p2p software wasn't the issue. Actively marketing the software as a way to get music from all your favorite bands...
  It'd be like walking into a gun store and them having signs up not just about self-defense, and target shooting, and hunting (all legal)... but also displaying big banners declaring how it you can use them to boost your income robbing 7-11s, get even with your co-workers by putting a cap in their knees, and then round out your day shooting at street signs from your car while driving home from work.
  If they did that then the gun venders might well find themselves liable...
39. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by cdrguru · 2011-05-06 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  I would offer that using an image of a band or performer as promotion of LimeWire is almost equivalent to using a picture of Lacy Peterson to advertise a brand of rope or Ted Bundy to advertise knives. You know, make sure your victim dies with the first stroke, not the fifth. Or, how about "To kill like a pro you need a Slasher(tm) knife. Nothing else will do."
  Not that I put the use of Mr. Bundy to advertise anything beyond the scope of advertising in the US. I suspect his likeness is not trademarked in a manner that would prevent it, although certain renderings might be trademarked by movie companies.
  I seriously doubt there would be much question about Download.com's ads and promotional displays.
40. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by dnahelicase · 2011-05-06 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  for its use. It's the theory of selling guns, while immoral by some people's standards, doesn't pull the trigger-- purchasers pull the trigger.
  If CNet is liable, then so are computer makers as they're a huge source of computers, which then download that pirated stuff.
  This guy is merely enriching the lawyers that talked him into it..... and this too, will soon pass.
  I don't think it's the computer makers that are ultimately liable. I would think it would be either people that make sound recording equipment, or even the recording people themselves, for making audio in a format that is so easy to share.
  Seems like if they had a simple authentication system that authorized every piece of hardware for each and every song individually, and had some way to authenticate who was listening to it - this wouldn't be a problem for them.
41. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Xtifr · 2011-05-06 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I'm not arguing in favor of transitive properties of the relevant laws--just the opposite! I'm pointing out that your initial analogy of CNet and computer makers was flawed because CNet distributed Limewire, while computer makers merely create devices which can, in theory, be used to run Limewire. To me, it was your original analogy that seemed to rely on the non-existent transitive properties of these laws.
  As for whether CNet was stupid, I'm reserving judgement, but I don't think the situation is quite as simple as you suggest, even though I mostly agree with your second and third posts (as far as they go). If CNet wasn't stupid and didn't promote illegal activity (which I admit is at least plausible, though I reserve judgment at this time), there might still be a question of whether they should have known that Limewire was a tool promoted for illegal purposes. This is a bit of a stretch for the plaintiffs, I think, but I do believe that there is precedent for liability based on what you should have known. Anyway, I'm not saying I think CNet going to lose; I'm simply saying that your original analogy was flawed, and, moreover, it strongly resembled a class of stupid arguments I regularly see here on slashdot. Since it is now apparent to me that you don't subscribe to the stupid argument version, I apologize for assuming you did, but the analogy is still flawed.
  (As for the programmer-with-a-screwdriver thing, it's an old joke. I'm sorry you didn't get it, but I have 'N' word privileges here, so get over yourself!) :p ;)
42. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by MarkvW · 2011-05-06 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You may not be a lawyer, but your post makes good sense. And CNET is not a judgment-proof defendant.
43. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by postbigbang · 2011-05-06 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Accepted.
  In terms of the broad-brush, I've lived long enough to find that categorization is endemic to the human will to try to make sense out of what they see. I would want to subscribe to ostensible N-word privilege, yet find it still ends up poking at other human defense. Along the way, I watch those with poorly formed defenses allow umbrage to blossom into other ugly emotions, seeded by their circumstances. I traipse lightly, therefore-- except where sociopathy attracts the poke it so richly deserves. I think you no sociopath, but most of the lawyers I've met have that trait, IMHO, caveated by IANAP.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
44. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by suutar · 2011-05-06 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  yeah, but the USSC has since gutted that precedent by bringing 'inducing' into it.
45. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Bing+Tsher+E · 2011-05-06 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  As for programmers with screwdrivers....
  OMG. Follow your own advice: Speak for yourself
  Also, programmers are a small subset of geeks. Most geeks know how to program, but lots of programmers are just IT drones.
46. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by makomk · 2011-05-06 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that CNET - and especially the parts of CNET that they're alleging were encouraging the use of P2P software - is fairly obviously a news organisation. A very big, quite traditional, blatently-part-of-the-organised-press news organisation. Suing a traditional publisher over news pieces about newsworthy topics that aren't sufficiently anti-P2P is the kind of thing that seems likely to make judges ask very pointed questions about the First Amendment.
47. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Thing+1 · 2011-05-06 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  child porn is always illegal to create, possess, or even attempt to obtain.
  What porn actors don't have parents? (Yes, I am willfully misunderstanding.)
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
48. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by rtb61 · 2011-05-06 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  To get the car analogy correct, it is more like the taxi drive, who takes you to the location you wanted to go and then somehow talks you into not stopping and instead driving all over the rest of the city instead. Lawyers income is based upon how convincing their legal arguments are, now don't think for a second they don't subtly target those skill at their own customers as well in order to extend their highly profitable litigation roles.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
49. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by mjwalshe · 2011-05-06 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  what do mean a real programmer of course know how to use a screwdriver and soldering iron
50. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by wvmarle · 2011-05-06 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'd guess Microsoft is next. For producing the leading browser (IE is still the most used; and definitely was in the LimeWire era) that helped people find out about music and display the CNet web site, if not for producing the leading operating system, after all Windows was a prerequisite for running LimeWire. So without Windows no LimeWire no infringement. Right? Right. Now Microsoft please pay up for the losses, OK?
  What a world we live in...
51. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by wvmarle · 2011-05-06 22:27 · Score: 1
  
  CNet IS the store.
52. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by wvmarle · 2011-05-06 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder why you got a +5 insightful for that. As only your BetaMax statements are true, and well known.
  The BetaMax case was primarily related to time shifting and maybe format shifting of content. Recording live TV for later watching; maybe lending the tape to a friend or inviting them over to watch the program at your home. Not much distribution was involved, nor was it promoted as a tool for distribution of any content.
  LimeWire was promoted for distribution of content, specifically for the illegal sharing of copyrighted content with as many people as possible, and also as a channel to receive such content. That's quite a different scenario from BetaMax. Copying your own CDs to your iPod or to CD-R, that's BetaMax territory. Wholesale sharing with the world, not so much. In case of home taping the source of the material was usually legitimate (TV broadcasts), can't say that for LimeWire.
  PirateBay lives in Sweden, which has nothing to do with US law. I know the US likes to see it differently, but that's not the point. They're under Swedish law. Oh well probably moving all over the world by now but that's where their origins lie.
  BitTorrent is primarily a protocol, not an entity. A protocol can not be sued as such. And indeed in the US it should fall under the BetaMax cases, in the rest of the world (mind the US has a mere 5% of the world population! it may be different.
  Sony's DRM cases fall under the DMCA's realm which postdates and thus overrules the Betamax case. As such the BetaMax case is not applicable any more.
  While you may like to put it all under BetaMax case law, it really doesn't fly. Minor differences are enough for case law - and here the differences are huge, not to say totally inapplicable.
53. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Xtifr · 2011-05-07 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  So you've never heard the old joke: Q. How many programmers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A. None--that's a hardware problem!
  Hey, I don't write these, but they exist for a reason. Anyway, I may know (or think I know) how to use a screwdriver and soldering iron, but that doesn't mean the hardware folks are going to trust me with one or feel comfortable when they see me wielding one. And I'm old-school (been programming for three decades). I remember when it was impossible to set up your computer without at least knowing how to set jumpers. Nowadays, all that stuff is plug-and-play, and your claim about "real programmers"* is less true than its ever been.
  * Real programmers don't document--it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
54. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Xtifr · 2011-05-07 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  programmers are a small subset of geeks
  Wow, your grasp of the concept of a simile is amazing. If I said a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle, would you also complain that fish aren't even a subset of women?
55. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by mjwalshe · 2011-05-07 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well if your allowing commercial programmers in :-) if your a technical programmer I would expect a basic level of competence :-)
  
  Actually at the first place I worked this was the case as I got sent on day release to do a Btech in mech engineering.
56. Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable by Illy-chan · 2011-05-09 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, to be fair, I never really used LimeWire enough to see what they did or didn't do in regards to promoting piracy. Mostly, I'm terrified for what type of case-law is going to come out of this. Even for people who think that LimeWire did deserve what it got, I really don't think there should be precedent for holding software creators/manufacturers accountable for the crimes committed by unrelated individuals from all over the world. Things are bad enough for businesses without making it their responsibility to act as law-enforcement.
And they turn on themselves by russotto · 2011-05-06 05:14 · Score: 1

May both parties in this suffer ruinous lawyers fees, regardless of the outcome.
Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 05:14 · Score: 1

Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser let me actually download the executable.
Intel's "Pentium Processors" allowed me to run the software.
Go get em boys!
good luck.
1. Re:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  Not only that but your parents and your grade school teacher taught you how to read - without that skill, you wouldn't have been able to find and download limewire. Sue the teachers, and the parents - hell sue everyone.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 05:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  But, listening to the song on the radio made me want to download it in the first place.
  And the record companies made the recordings to be put on the radio.
  So it's all their fault if you ask me. Go sue the record companies!
3. Re:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  At the rate they are going, I am sure they will get to it eventually. After all, lawyers would still make money under that model.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
4. Re:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by mlts · 2011-05-06 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  We nearly had that happen, in '06 with the INDUCE act that nearly become law. A computer made without a hardware DRM stack was considered under that bill only made for copyright infringement.
5. Re:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads by drb226 · 2011-05-06 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser let me actually download the executable.
  Excuse me, sir, I believe you are at the wrong website. All legitimate nerds hate IE.
Next Lawsuit Target: Google by Covalent · 2011-05-06 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

CBS should sue Google for providing searches that linked to CNET which, in turn, linked to LimeWire. If it weren't for Google, most people would not have found CNET, and then LimeWire, and then typed in the movie they wanted to download illegally, then waited for that download to finish, then watched that movie. After Google is successfully sued, I suggest CBS should sue "eyes". Without "eyes", computer users wouldn't be able to intercept photons from Google, thus never finding CNET, LimeWire, Movies. After eyes are successfully sued, all people will have to have DRM-enabled "SuperEyes (TM)" installed, thus eliminating the problem and freeing the world from dirty, nasty piracy.

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by cosm · 2011-05-06 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Photons should be sued while we are at it, along with quantum mechanics. Hell, suing space-time as well might be the best way to ensure that all bases are covered. Or we can just put all the layers in the b-ark and send them to the nearest dying star.
  
  --
  'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
2. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by djchristensen · 2011-05-06 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget about the manufacturer of the servers, network gear, cabling, racks, etc that CNET uses. And the contractor that built the building the equipment is in. And the local restaurants that provide sustenance to the people that keep the servers running. And the local governments that profited (via taxes) from the ill gotten gains CNET took in as a result of the blatant infringement. And the parents of the children who receive public education payed for by those taxes. And the ...
3. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by game+kid · 2011-05-06 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  After Google is successfully sued, I suggest CBS should sue "eyes".
  
  Maybe that explains their logo. It's not like that because they want people to watch, it's a "Wanted" poster for pirating eyes everywhere.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
4. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-05-06 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  They should just sue Mozilla, Microsoft, Google and Opera for providing the web browsers used to access the downloads. Then the world would finally be safe. Won't someone think of the children?
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
5. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by yincrash · 2011-05-06 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  CNET is owned by CBS. CBS is being sued, not doing the suing.
6. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by steelfood · 2011-05-06 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  CBS isn't the one suing CNet. CBS owns CNet, and is being sued.
  Hm, there's either some delicious irony going on here, or somebody's playing devil's advocate.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
7. Re:Next Lawsuit Target: Google by Em+Adespoton · 2011-05-06 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Before they sue eyes, they'd better sue CBS, who has often mentioned Google as a place where people can go to download illegal content. They've even profited off of it via advertising.
Sue Dell and Cisco next by Sabalon · 2011-05-06 05:16 · Score: 1

Dell made the computers that people downloaded Limewire from CNET.
Cisco routed the packets.
Kingston made the RAM.
Seagate made the hard drives that stored it.
1. Re:Sue Dell and Cisco next by mordenkhai · 2011-05-06 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  You are missing the mastermind behind all of this. The entity that needs to drive usage, and consumption in order to reap profits..... the electric company! They enable piracy, porn, and terrorist communication! How do they get away with it!?!? Down with electricity!!!
2. Re:Sue Dell and Cisco next by VortexCortex · 2011-05-06 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Dell made the computers that people downloaded Limewire from CNET. Cisco routed the packets. Kingston made the RAM. Seagate made the hard drives that stored it.
  Sue the Musicians that made the music that allowed itself to be infringed!
  Ah, reductio ad absurdum, proving one again that no one is not to blame.
3. Re:Sue Dell and Cisco next by zAPPzAPP · 2011-05-06 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Sue Microsoft, a company that made Internet Explorer, the tool millions of Limewire-downloaders used to access CNET.
  Internet Explorer has a special "download dialogue" feature for downloading P2P client software.
Can intent of end-user be determined? by l0c0 · 2011-05-06 05:18 · Score: 2

LImewire isn't used exclusively to download copyrighted material right? So isn't suing Cnet/Download.com for providing copies of Limewire something like suing Home Depot for selling crowbars that somebody MIGHT use to break into a home? Can Cnet be held responsible for how somebody uses the tools/utilities they provide if those tools/utilties aren't exclusively JUST for downloading copyrighted material?
1. Re:Can intent of end-user be determined? by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-05-06 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
  It's not a matter of how the software can be used, it's a matter of how the software was being promoted. Advertising "Download this software and share documents with your friends" is different from promoting "Download this software and get the latest hits from well known music artists A, B, and C." When you promote the software as a tool to violate copyright, you can't claim that it's an unintentional way for the software to be used.
2. Re:Can intent of end-user be determined? by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well insofar as pretty much everything you can download IS copyrighted - be it the poem you wrote, this post I am writing, grandma's photos, or Mass Effect 2, I would say that limewire is used to download any copyrighted material. Now the question remains about who had permission to distribute what. I promise not to sue you for reading this post.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
3. Re:Can intent of end-user be determined? by Scarletdown · 2011-05-06 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  LImewire isn't used exclusively to download copyrighted material right? So isn't suing Cnet/Download.com for providing copies of Limewire something like suing Home Depot for selling crowbars that somebody MIGHT use to break into a home? Can Cnet be held responsible for how somebody uses the tools/utilities they provide if those tools/utilties aren't exclusively JUST for downloading copyrighted material?
  Except for works truly in the public domain, anything downloaded is copyrighted material. That includes, CC, GPL, and other works placed under free terms. So yes, LimeWire is used primarily to download copyrighted material. But what the people in control of the various media industries neglect to say is that not all of that is illegally downloaded copyrighted material.
  I suspect that they are purposely encouraging this little bit of confusion in order to simply condition the masses (the consumers, not the thinking customers) to think "Downloading and copying bad, period. Buy from Wal-Mart or Amazon and keep it legal." Keep their awareness of legally free alternatives to a minimum, and suppress those works if at all possible so they can keep control of the means of distribution (can't control means of production, so we go to the next step in the chain.)
  
  --
  This space unintentionally left blank.
4. Re:Can intent of end-user be determined? by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I'm happy that you know what public domain means. However your point is irrelevant in the context of my argument. I suggest that you think about, say, how many "project gutenberg" text files (public domain due to expired copyrights) are transmitted via limewire versus, say, amateur porn videos (which are very much copyrighted).
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's the same old shit, really by trifish · 2011-05-06 05:21 · Score: 1

If producing and distributing P2P software is a crime, then producing and selling guns should be a crime too. People use guns to commit crimes too.
It's so easy to understand that I'm clueless as to why no attorney has been able to use the above reasoning to persuade even the most stupid judge in the US.
1. Re:It's the same old shit, really by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-05-06 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's so easy to understand why you're clueless because you don't read.
  
  The plaintiffs contend that CNET encouraged people to use LimeWire to violate copyright. One of the plaintiffs, Mike Mozart, has spent the last year collecting alleged examples of this; it's an odd mix of material that spans a decade and multiple sites from ZDNET to CNET.
  If CNET promoted Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights, and this is proven in court, CNET is going to be paying out. It's not simply that it can violate copyrights, it's that it was made to do so. Since you bring the gun analogy up, lets reapply it after reading: It would be similar to a gun company advertising their guns as being especially suited for gas station stickups, and another model for bank theft.
2. Re:It's the same old shit, really by 0123456 · 2011-05-06 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  It's so easy to understand that I'm clueless as to why no attorney has been able to use the above reasoning to persuade even the most stupid judge in the US.
  I suspect that the Second Amendment might just have something to do with it.
3. Re:It's the same old shit, really by phantomfive · 2011-05-06 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  lol you do realize we are based on laws, right? And laws don't have to make sense. If we, as a people, decide that red roses should be illegal in front yards, but yellow roses are fine, then that will be the law. You can argue it as long as you want with the most impeccable logic, but in the court, law is greater than logic.
  
  In our legal system, guns are legal. That is enshrined in the constitution, as interpreted according to the system laid out for interpreting the constitution. If you want to win an argument in court, you have to argue based on law, not based on common sense. Common sense doesn't apply (and actually, for good reasons).
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
4. Re:It's the same old shit, really by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did they promote Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights? Or did they merely promote it as a tool to download music and videos?
  The former is like touting your guns as a great way to take people's jewelry and get rid of obnoxious spouses. The latter is like proclaiming that your guns are really good at killing, and it's up to you to figure out that there are both legal and illegal times to kill.
5. Re:It's the same old shit, really by trifish · 2011-05-06 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  In our legal system, guns are legal
  And in your legal system, distributing P2P software, so that people can share for example free software, is illegal too?
6. Re:It's the same old shit, really by trifish · 2011-05-06 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
  Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
7. Re:It's the same old shit, really by phantomfive · 2011-05-06 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. Under US law (and most other legal systems), intent matters. In the case of Limewire, the court concluded that they were distributing the software with the understanding and intent that the users would download copyrighted material.
  
  If Limewire had been promoting their software primarily as a way to share free software, they would have been ok. But they didn't.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:It's the same old shit, really by softWare3ngineer · 2011-05-06 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  i haven't seen an ISP that doesn't do this. 'higher bandwidth packages are a great way to download movies and music' i very much doubt that CNET would go out of their way to say that its users should willfully infringe on another's copyright. How ever if a user wrote that in a comments section, then CNET still is liable for their users.
9. Re:It's the same old shit, really by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  How ever if a user wrote that in a comments section, then CNET still is liable for their users.
  Absolutely not. That is why Slashdot has the disclaimer: "Comments owned by the poster."
10. Re:It's the same old shit, really by idontgno · 2011-05-06 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  A car analogy. Good. Still, could be better.
  A pizza analogy: Pizzas can be used to commit crimes too. For example. to feed criminals before they go on their criminal rampages. Even to kill people. (Dominos, I'm looking at you...) So does making and selling pizzas make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
  I'm sure all decent right-thinking people will agree that yes, absolutely, pizza needs to be banned, or at least highly restricted. Taxed, and usage strictly monitored. and all users, producers, distributors, and disposers of pizza must be licensed by competent pizza authorities.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
11. Re:It's the same old shit, really by Xtifr · 2011-05-06 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  And in your legal system, distributing P2P software, so that people can share for example free software, is illegal too?
  Nope, Bittorrent is still legal because its makers have never promoted it as a tool for violating the law. So P2P software as a class is not illegal.
  The difference between Bittorrent and Limewire is like the difference between murder and manslaughter, except that in this case, the issue of intent doesn't just determine what type of crime you committed; it determines whether you committed a crime at all.
12. Re:It's the same old shit, really by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Mmm, yes, I volunteer to be the pizza-regulator who confiscates pizzas to make sure they're not used for anything illegal. I'll personally dispose of as much of it as I can.
13. Re:It's the same old shit, really by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-06 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing that some people use Constitutional rights as an argument against my guns analogy, I am amending it as follows:
  Cars can be used to commit crimes too. For example, to transport stolen goods, even to kill people. So does making and selling cars make you punishable for contributing to those crimes?
  Let's not forget the government's culpability for building a road to drive the car on in the first place.
14. Re:It's the same old shit, really by Bobfrankly1 · 2011-05-06 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Did they promote Limewire as a tool to violate copyrights? Or did they merely promote it as a tool to download music and videos?
  The former is like touting your guns as a great way to take people's jewelry and get rid of obnoxious spouses. The latter is like proclaiming that your guns are really good at killing, and it's up to you to figure out that there are both legal and illegal times to kill.
  Some of the claims (from referenced material of TFA, not from a court document):
  
  CNET Editorial Staff Created MANY Instructional Videos for P2P software for years. CLEARLY Showing Copyrighted Songs were used to demonstrate the software.
  
  Cnet had editorial Articles ( Many Shown Here in this Blog) featuring comparison tests to determine the Best p2p Software FEATURING Known Copyrighted Artists Names such as Britney Spears and Metallica WITH INLINE HOT LINKS to the download pages for the test subjects
  
  CNET Editors RATED the Software with glowing Reviews often with Copyrighted songs Mentioned by Name or Shown in Sample Screen Shots.
  They may not have outright stated "pirate music! download music illegally!" or the like, but this might be enough to land them in hot water.
15. Re:It's the same old shit, really by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  If true, then quite possibly they may. Though CNET itself might be able to shield itself behind the fact that CNET != its editorial staff.
16. Re:It's the same old shit, really by cheekyjohnson · 2011-05-06 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to win an argument in court, you have to argue based on law, not based on common sense.
  And, sometimes, seemingly not based on logic, either. Though, I don't see any good reasons for that.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:still using LimeWire? by SuricouRaven · 2011-05-06 05:23 · Score: 2

Legal action always lags a few years behind current pirate techology. Limewire used to be huge.
They should sue Best Buy, Walmart, and ISP! by Cito · 2011-05-06 05:23 · Score: 1

Computers were purchased at Best Buy and Walmart that were then connected to the internet via an ISP. From there, they were able to search google/bing/yahoo/lycos/altavista/webcrawler/etc which is how they got onto CNET from there they were able to download limewire and aquire all the movie screeners before they hit the theaters due to screener leaks usually caused by the very same movie studios that work with MPAA. oh ok then let's sue the MPAA, they work closely with Movie Studios whose screeners at times leak before the movie has even hit the theater. :) oh hell, lets just sue everyone in the United States... lets bring so many lawsuits in front of the court that everyone needing to go to court will have a 100 year waiting list on their lawsuit.
Re:Yet another by Dunbal · 2011-05-06 05:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

Or mesothelioma sufferers. As a physician I find it ridiculous - do you know how many cases of mesothelioma there are every year? It's astonishingly small (3000 cases per YEAR in the US). The ONLY reason lawyers pursue it so aggressively is because it's very easy to miss.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
While evil... by guspasho · 2011-05-06 05:31 · Score: 1

While evil, this trend poses some interesting possibilities. If Cnet has to take a hit, then maybe the RIAA/MPAA will sue the telcos next, and they'll sue each other in to bankruptcy.
Safe Harbour? by TrueSatan · 2011-05-06 05:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

On the face of it (and IANAL) I would have to wonder if a defence under the "safe harbour" provisions of the DMCA might apply (these same provisions allow YouTube et al to host content without being liable for copyright infringement so long as they abide by the requirements of the DMCA with respect to "take down notices" as and when any that are of a legal form and correctness are sent to them.) If CNET were to be sent such a notice and to refuse to comply with it there would also be the question of the legality of the notice to consider...if the plaintiff had the right to issue the notice. I can see that lawyers are going to make a lot of money...yet again.
1. Re:Safe Harbour? by ninthbit · 2011-05-06 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is, Limeware isn't the infringing material, it is only a tool commonly used by infringers. CNET can argue that their only a service provider, but with the state of the US legal system it will still cost them a fortune to end this.
Let's be realistic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 05:47 · Score: 1

ARPA created the internet about as much as Edison created the worldwide telephony network.
Wake-up call: What we know as the internet today could only have been created through the voluntary collaboration of thousands of independent organizations. ARPA couldn't even have imagined it back in the 70s, let alone created it single-handedly.
1. Re:Let's be realistic by RobertM1968 · 2011-05-06 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  ARPA created the internet about as much as Edison created the worldwide telephony network.
  Wake-up call: What we know as the internet today could only have been created through the voluntary collaboration of thousands of independent organizations. ARPA couldn't even have imagined it back in the 70s, let alone created it single-handedly.
  Which, with the **AA's mentality, and that of these other garbage... err... content... creators, it would make perfect sense (to them) to sue ARPA - if only ARPA had as much money they could potentially win.
  
  --
  StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
2. Re:Let's be realistic by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-05-06 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  You really need to learn some history. Actually, they did envision a global packet switching network because they're goal was to provide a network that could survive a nuclear disaster for the US military.
  Also, in association with ARPA, the did build the first networks to universities. "ALOHAnet, the first packet radio network, developed by Norman Abramson, Univ of Hawaii, becomes operational (July) connected to the ARPANET in 1972"
  Collaboration of thousands of independent organizations? They're called UNIVERSITIES that received FEDERAL FUNDING for their projects. Get your facts straight.
  And Edison? Edison pretty much got out of the communications game after his stock reader. He spend most of his life on microphones, media, and electricity. He's a horrible example to make your point for inventions he's not even widely known for related to telephones. The only telephone invention he made was for a microphone used IN phones.
  
  --
  I8-D
3. Re:Let's be realistic by NiceGeek · 2011-05-06 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Where was TCP/IP developed? Thank you for playing.
Obligatory Car reference by Banichi · 2011-05-06 05:53 · Score: 1

"Peer-to-Peer Software enables Piracy in the same manner that Automobiles enable Smuggling."
Re:Hey... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-05-06 06:00 · Score: 1

That has actually been tried. In addition, several municipalities sued gun manufacturers for selling guns used in crimes. I do not remember if that got to the Supreme Court or if it was knocked down by Circuit Courts (if the latter it was at least two). I suspect (and hope) that this case will have similar results.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Pot, Kettle, Black by count0 · 2011-05-06 06:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Alki's startup FilmOn streamed over-the-air broadcasts online without any licenses...and was sued successfully by CBS and the other networks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704369304575632643263718292.html
cz
1. Re:Pot, Kettle, Black by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-06 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  It has been observed elsewhere that this is essentially a "revenge" lawsuit on Alki David's part. This comment on Hacker News has more insight (the poster is a lawyer):
  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2515692
um... by Charliemopps · 2011-05-06 06:07 · Score: 1

since neither Alki David or his failing company FilmOn do not own ANY of the content their talking about, what right do they have to sue? This is a publicity stunt to try and bolster his idiotic idea for streaming TV on mobile devices thats clearly doomed to failure from the start.
1. Re:um... by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-06 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  since neither Alki David or his failing company FilmOn do not own ANY of the content their talking about, what right do they have to sue? This is a publicity stunt to try and bolster his idiotic idea for streaming TV on mobile devices thats clearly doomed to failure from the start.
  I look forward to streaming TV on mobile devices. The courts have already ruled that pulling programming off the airwaves and copying for personal use is not a copyright infringement (ie. recording radio broadcasts) and it is allowable for anyone with a receiver to receive that airwave broadcast.
  However, what will be interesting is whether or not the FCC will have jurisdiction over streaming media. Currently, cable only programming, that which is not actually broadcast, escapes the FCC regulations. However, a cell tower or wifi base station is not cable and is definitely broadcast over the air. Does that mean if they stream HBO or even USA Network, it then falls under the FCC jurisdiction?
2. Re:um... by thegrassyknowl · 2011-05-08 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  But your cellphone is not broadcast. The signal travels over RF as a broadcast, but each individual packet is intended only for one recipient. Encryption and signalling ensures that the data/call is decipherable only by you. There are pretty specific laws about when it's legal to receive telephone data that is not intended for you. A cellphone is, in effect, narrowcast.
  The same could be said for anything travelling over secured wireless network. Unsecured wireless is another kettle of fish and I will not speculate on what sending broadcast packets to an unsecured WiFi router would be considered as.
  
  --
  I drink to make other people interesting!
My house was burglarized by EmagGeek · 2011-05-06 06:08 · Score: 1

Can I sue the manufacturer of the screwdriver that was used to pry open the lock on my front door?
1. Re:My house was burglarized by Xtifr · 2011-05-06 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. If you can show that the manufacturer promoted their screwdriver as "a tool for prying open doors so you can steal things inside other people's houses", then probably you could sue them. Otherwise, probably not. This is why Bittorrent is still legal.
What about the browsers? by slapout · 2011-05-06 06:13 · Score: 1

Since browsers allow access to CNET, shouldn't they be suing Microsoft & Mozilla?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:Quote by UninformedCoward · 2011-05-06 06:14 · Score: 1

Best QOTD ever!

You will be a winner today. Pick a fight with a four-year-old.
And what about Shoes? by Timmy+D+Programmer · 2011-05-06 06:16 · Score: 1

Because people smuggling physical copies of pirated content are using Shoes to get around!

--

(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
Boycott Alki David's movies . . . by mmell · 2011-05-06 06:20 · Score: 1

It'll be easy - he doesn't seem to have made anything I would have considered watching (let alone paying to see).
IMDB listing
1. Re:Boycott Alki David's movies . . . by Zorque · 2011-05-06 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, as a pirate I'm insulted he would insinuate that we would have downloaded any of his movies willingly.
Who's next? AT&T, TimeWarner, Bell Labs, TI? by AmazinglySmooth · 2011-05-06 06:22 · Score: 1

This type reasoning really has no logical boundary as to who is responsible. Are they going to sue TI for inventing the integrated IC that is used directly everytime someone downloads something against their copyright?
Back when CDs were ubiquitous by Maritz · 2011-05-06 06:23 · Score: 1

People used to print their own CD box inserts and labels. Time to sue Xerox, HP, Canon, Epson etc.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Wait, "what" participation by EatingSteak · 2011-05-06 06:33 · Score: 2

"CNET had 'direct participation in massive copyright infringement on peer-to-peer systems"

Also FTA, "They provided the guns"

So CNET let people download the software, and the users used it for infringing purposes. Isn't that the definition of INDIRECT participation? How does he claim their part in it was direct?
Re:Quote by _0xd0ad · 2011-05-06 06:34 · Score: 1

It's like killing the golden goose... and actually getting all the golden eggs at once!
Also, a lot of them make no sense whatsoever. What the hell are these supposed to mean?
"Tuesday is the Wednesday of the rest of your life."
"You are destined to become the commandant of the fighting men of the department of transportation."
Your wishes will be granted by a stranger stranger by VortexCortex · 2011-05-06 06:36 · Score: 1

Is it just me, or did somebody dump a box of fortune cookies in the QOTD?
Somebody should dump more often
Verbal Laxative... Go!
(For posteriority's sake)
Try the Moo Shu Pork. It is especially good today.
Try to get all of your posthumous medals in advance.
Try to have as good a life as you can under the circumstances.
Try to relax and enjoy the crisis. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Try to value useful qualities in one who loves you.
Tuesday After Lunch is the cosmic time of the week.
Tuesday is the Wednesday of the rest of your life.
What happened last night can happen again.
While you recently had your problems on the run, they've regrouped and are making another attack.
Write yourself a threatening letter and pen a defiant reply.
You are a bundle of energy, always on the go.
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
You are a very redundant person, that's what kind of person you are.
You are always busy.
You are as I am with You.
You are capable of planning your future.
You are confused; but this is your normal state.
You are deeply attached to your friends and acquaintances.
You are destined to become the commandant of the fighting men of the department of transportation.
You are dishonest, but never to the point of hurting a friend.
You are fairminded, just and loving.
You are farsighted, a good planner, an ardent lover, and a faithful friend.
You are fighting for survival in your own sweet and gentle way.
You are going to have a new love affair.
You are magnetic in your bearing.
You are not dead yet. But watch for further reports.
You are number 6! Who is number one?
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
You are scrupulously honest, frank, and straightforward. Therefore you have few friends.
You are sick, twisted and perverted. I like that in a person.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
You are standing on my toes.
You are taking yourself far too seriously.
You are the only person to ever get this message.
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend too much time reading this sort of trash.
You attempt things that you do not even plan because of your extreme stupidity.
You can create your own opportunities this week. Blackmail a senior executive.
You can do very well in speculation where land or anything to do with dirt is concerned.
You can rent this space for only $5 a week.
You could live a better life, if you had a better mind and a better body.
You definitely intend to start living sometime soon.
You dialed 5483.
You display the wonderful traits of charm and courtesy.
You don't become a failure until you're satisfied with being one.
You enjoy the company of other people.
You feel a whole lot more like you do now than you did when you used to.
You fill a much-needed gap.
You get along very well with everyone except animals and people.
You had some happiness once, but your parents moved away, and you had to leave it behind.
You have a deep appreciation of the arts and music.
You have a deep interest in all that is artistic.
You have a reputation for being thoroughly reliable and trustworthy. A pity that it's totally undeserved.
You have a strong appeal for members of the opposite sex.
You have a strong appeal for members of your own sex.
You have a strong desire for a home and your family interests come first.
You have a truly strong individuality.
You have a will that can be influenced by all with whom you come in contact.
You have an ability to sense and know higher truth.
You have an ambitious nature and may make a name for yourself.
You have an unusual equipment for success. Be sure to use it properly.
You have an unusual magnetic personality. D
Sue themselves next? by Manfre · 2011-05-06 06:49 · Score: 1

After they sue CNET, will they sue themselves for creating the copyrighted content.
Let's sue Ford and GM next by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-05-06 07:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Let's sue Ford and GM next, because they are the primary means for obtaining vehicles that are used in crimes. Using the reasoning that is being used against limewire/p2p, then the automakers also have direct participation. Let's not rule out the firearm manufacturers.
Making software available that has a legitimate use, should not make the distributor liable if somebody chooses to use it for illegitimate purposes. Limewire is a software tool, just as a crowbar is a tool. If I use a crowbar to change a flat tire, that is a proper use. If I use it to bash somebody's head in, that is not. In either case, the crowbar is just a crowbar. It didn't commit any crime, a person did.
There is a slogan for the NRA that goes something like "Guns don't kill people, people do." Maybe the software industry should say "P2P doesn't steal content, people do."
Too many degres of separation by 91degrees · 2011-05-06 07:56 · Score: 1

I just can't see this succeeding and wonder if there's another motive behind this lawsuit.

It would be hard for the users to plausibly claim innocent infringement. Limewire's creators may argue that they weren't aware and it wasn't intended that it would be used for infringing purposes. It's up to the prosecutors to prove that they were aware and did intend this.

With CNet it's the same, except they would have to prove that CNet knew or should have known that one of the many application they offered was being used primarily for copyright infringement.

Bit of a stretch.
Makes No Sense by Striikerr · 2011-05-06 08:44 · Score: 2

What a bunch of BS! Using this logic, let's sue the car dealerships for selling cars which were used to conduct crimes. Let's sue the book stores for selling books and magazines which contained details which criminals could use to their advantage. Let's sell merchants who sell cell phones because they were used by criminals..
The various P2P networks and programs are used for more than just piracy. They are a legitimate means of distributing files.
CNET? by Thelasko · 2011-05-06 08:49 · Score: 1

CNET? Really? Is this 1997? Back in the day, CNET was the one stop for all of your hacking needs, but that time is long gone.

If this lawsuit proves successful, look out Sourceforge, you're next.

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Re:All in all it's just another brick in the wall by wesgray · 2011-05-06 09:00 · Score: 1

Yes, this will probably be known as the Ass-hole epoch.
Crowbars by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-05-06 09:53 · Score: 1

Newsflash: Crowbars are used in home burglaries. Sue hardware stores now.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
let's sue car mfg's for making getaway cars by jsepeta · 2011-05-06 12:02 · Score: 1

P2P can be used for legitimate purposes, just like cars can be used for illegitimate purposes. Why are judges so stupid to put up with these frivolous lawsuits?

--
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Sue Microsoft by sjames · 2011-05-06 12:48 · Score: 1

After all, without Windows, the software wouldn't have done anything.
subject by Legion303 · 2011-05-06 17:38 · Score: 1

TFA fails to mention that David was joined in his suit by (among other plaintiffs) 2 Live Crew, Pretty Ricky and the Ying Yang Twins. I submit that the only way these artists are going to be heard at all will be over Limewire.
Maybe.
A joke by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-07 01:52 · Score: 1

Any publicity is good publicity, eh? way to reinvent yourself Mr. Alki David. With a filmography like this, I'd want more money and publicity too; why not leech it!
This guy is such a tool, though I don't know whether to blame his ignorance, greed, or IP law itself. Also, as a film editor/director/actor/Hollywood-top-shot or whatever claims one might make, please be sure to keep pictures in their correct aspect ratio. Portraits generally are not in an AR of 16:9, nor do they look good stretched to that dimension.
dream on by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-05-08 23:46 · Score: 1

The same logic (and case-law) should be applied to PirateBay, BitTorrent, Limewire, and (ironically) Sony PS3 DRM firmware hacks.
By this Scalian (and his shadow) Supreme Court? Not bloody likely.