4 ms·

CNET Accused of Copyright Infringement for Distributing LimeWire

33 points by abraham 16y ago

msredmond 16y ago
Although anyone can sue anyone, if this isn't dismissed on summary judgment, this is going to be a case to watch -- scary (and stupid) precedent.
MatthewB 16y ago
This is such bullshit. I had an argument with a close friend of mine (in the music industry) where he argued that the creators of P2P technology (perfectly legal) should be responsible for anyone's implementation of that software. I don't understand this logic at all and it prevents innovation. It is like saying car manufacturers should be responsible if someone commits a crime in a car. I took a quick look at the law suit PDF and I haven't heard of any of the rappers...looks like they're just trying to get a couple bucks because obviously their music career didn't pan out.
- crikli 16y ago
  The logic isn't without precedent; it found attorneys trying to sue gun makers for liability based on crimes committed using their products.
  - wdewind 16y ago
    Those cases are usually based on more than the fact that the manufacturer (or in this case the better analogy is a gun store) created (or sold) the actual gun. For instance I can think of one case where the makers of the Tek-9 were sued using the fact that they advertised that it had a "fingerprint resistant surface."
    - MatthewB 16y ago
      Wasn't that in an episode of the The Wire? :)
      - wdewind 15y ago
        Haha maybe but I saw it on some FBI cases Discovery show a REALLLLY long time ago first.
- ltamake 16y ago
  Exactly. This is also scary because this means that record labels could sue you just for /having/ a LimeWire install file.
  - biot 16y ago
    Or a web browser.
wdewind 16y ago
Next they will be suing the cable companies for letting copyright infringing data run through their pipes.
Joakal 16y ago
"U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ruled last year that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement,” and that the Lime Group — the company behind the application — “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”" I assume LimeWire company doesn't host files. But do they host hashes like DropBox?
grellas 16y ago
A few observations: 1. The lead plaintiff, Alki David, is a billionaire who was sued by CBS and other studios for allegedly infringing their copyrights with a digital streaming service. He is now funding this effort to paint CBS as a company that illegally induces others to infringe copyrights, that is liable as a contributory infringer, and that is responsible as a so-called vicarious infringer. 2. The plaintiff's counsel, Michael Zeller, once successfully defended AOL Time Warner against claims of contributory infringement for distributing the P2P client, Gnutella. He is now trying to make such a theory stick against CBS. This is no flaky lawyer. Mr. Zeller has represented Mattel, Google, and Disney in addition to AOL Time Warner and other big-name clients in IP-related litigation. He is distinguished in his field and highly respected. 3. The main line of attack here is based on MGM v. Grokster, the most recent leading U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with contributory copyright infringement. Before Grokster, the law in this area focused on the nature of the product being challenged and, if a product was capable of a substantial, noninfringing use, a distributor was not contributorily liable for acts of copyright infringement by users of that product. In Grokster, the court shifted the analysis away from the product and over to the distributor's intent, holding that a distributor was liable for acts of copyright infringement committed by users of its product (even if the product was capable of a substantial, noninfringing use) if the distributor intended to induce the infringement. The complaint here tries to paint CBS as a party that is intentionally inducing the users of its download service to commit acts of copyright infringement. Given that the complaint does not seek to break new legal ground, CBS will likely need to defend it primarily on the evidence, which may ultimately put it in a tricky position of hoping that a possibly fickle jury will go its way. 4. The stakes for CBS can be high if it is potentially held liable for the damages caused by LimeWire. The damages being sought in that case run into the billions and the case is not going at all well for LimeWire. Already, the judge has entered rulings saying that the LimeWire founder can be personally liable for the wrongs, that expert evidence that sharing in fact helps content creators is to be excluded from consideration by the jury, and similar rulings that will likely lead the jury to enter a judgment for major damages (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-limewire-trial-beginsjury-to-decide-how-much-labels-are-owed/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-limewire-trial-beginsjury...). If, then, CBS is ultimately held liable as a party that illegally induced such infringements, it too may face a massive liability. 5. This case, then, has seedy elements, beginning with the revenge motive of the lead plaintiff, but it is a case that poses potentially serious risks for the defendants.

33 points by abraham 16y ago

Although anyone can sue anyone, if this isn't dismissed on summary judgment, this is going to be a case to watch -- scary (and stupid) precedent.

MatthewB 16y ago

This is such bullshit. I had an argument with a close friend of mine (in the music industry) where he argued that the creators of P2P technology (perfectly legal) should be responsible for anyone's implementation of that software. I don't understand this logic at all and it prevents innovation. It is like saying car manufacturers should be responsible if someone commits a crime in a car. I took a quick look at the law suit PDF and I haven't heard of any of the rappers...looks like they're just trying to get a couple bucks because obviously their music career didn't pan out.

crikli 16y ago
The logic isn't without precedent; it found attorneys trying to sue gun makers for liability based on crimes committed using their products.
- wdewind 16y ago
  Those cases are usually based on more than the fact that the manufacturer (or in this case the better analogy is a gun store) created (or sold) the actual gun. For instance I can think of one case where the makers of the Tek-9 were sued using the fact that they advertised that it had a "fingerprint resistant surface."
  - MatthewB 16y ago
    Wasn't that in an episode of the The Wire? :)
    - wdewind 15y ago
      Haha maybe but I saw it on some FBI cases Discovery show a REALLLLY long time ago first.
ltamake 16y ago
Exactly. This is also scary because this means that record labels could sue you just for /having/ a LimeWire install file.
- biot 16y ago
  Or a web browser.

wdewind 16y ago

Next they will be suing the cable companies for letting copyright infringing data run through their pipes.

Joakal 16y ago

"U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood ruled last year that LimeWire’s users commit a “substantial amount of copyright infringement,” and that the Lime Group — the company behind the application — “has not taken meaningful steps to mitigate infringement.”" I assume LimeWire company doesn't host files. But do they host hashes like DropBox?

grellas 16y ago

A few observations: 1. The lead plaintiff, Alki David, is a billionaire who was sued by CBS and other studios for allegedly infringing their copyrights with a digital streaming service. He is now funding this effort to paint CBS as a company that illegally induces others to infringe copyrights, that is liable as a contributory infringer, and that is responsible as a so-called vicarious infringer. 2. The plaintiff's counsel, Michael Zeller, once successfully defended AOL Time Warner against claims of contributory infringement for distributing the P2P client, Gnutella. He is now trying to make such a theory stick against CBS. This is no flaky lawyer. Mr. Zeller has represented Mattel, Google, and Disney in addition to AOL Time Warner and other big-name clients in IP-related litigation. He is distinguished in his field and highly respected. 3. The main line of attack here is based on MGM v. Grokster, the most recent leading U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with contributory copyright infringement. Before Grokster, the law in this area focused on the nature of the product being challenged and, if a product was capable of a substantial, noninfringing use, a distributor was not contributorily liable for acts of copyright infringement by users of that product. In Grokster, the court shifted the analysis away from the product and over to the distributor's intent, holding that a distributor was liable for acts of copyright infringement committed by users of its product (even if the product was capable of a substantial, noninfringing use) if the distributor intended to induce the infringement. The complaint here tries to paint CBS as a party that is intentionally inducing the users of its download service to commit acts of copyright infringement. Given that the complaint does not seek to break new legal ground, CBS will likely need to defend it primarily on the evidence, which may ultimately put it in a tricky position of hoping that a possibly fickle jury will go its way. 4. The stakes for CBS can be high if it is potentially held liable for the damages caused by LimeWire. The damages being sought in that case run into the billions and the case is not going at all well for LimeWire. Already, the judge has entered rulings saying that the LimeWire founder can be personally liable for the wrongs, that expert evidence that sharing in fact helps content creators is to be excluded from consideration by the jury, and similar rulings that will likely lead the jury to enter a judgment for major damages (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-limewire-trial-beginsjury-to-decide-how-much-labels-are-owed/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-limewire-trial-beginsjury...). If, then, CBS is ultimately held liable as a party that illegally induced such infringements, it too may face a massive liability. 5. This case, then, has seedy elements, beginning with the revenge motive of the lead plaintiff, but it is a case that poses potentially serious risks for the defendants.