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."

Comments

However

[Black Parrot]

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?

Re:However

[phantomfive]

Maybe, how much money does ARPA have? Remember, leeches follow the money. CBS has money. That's why they now are getting sued.

Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[Bobfrankly1]

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

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[NotQuiteReal]

I am confused, I thought a car analogy would clear things up for me, but you gave a truck analogy.

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[tripleevenfall]

Limewire has non-infringing uses, therefore, CNET shouldn't be liable for distributing it.

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[_0xd0ad]

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.

Re:Posting free/shareware doesn't make CNET liable

[VortexCortex]

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.

Next Lawsuit Target: Google

[Covalent]

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.

Re:Yet another

[Dunbal]

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.

Safe Harbour?

[TrueSatan]

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.

Re:It's the same old shit, really

[_0xd0ad]

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.

Re:It's the same old shit, really

[phantomfive]

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.

Pot, Kettle, Black

[count0]

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