Slashdot Mirror
CNET Sued Over LimeWire Client Downloads
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."
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
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.
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.
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?
Legal action always lags a few years behind current pirate techology. Limewire used to be huge.
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
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."
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
"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?
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.
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.
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.