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

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.