

CNET Accused of Copyright Infringement for Distributing LimeWire - abraham
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/cnet-limewire/

======
grellas
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...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-limewire-trial-beginsjury-
to-decide-how-much-labels-are-owed/)). 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.

~~~
d0ne
I'm glad to see that someone is finally (attempting) to bring to light the
absurdity of our copyright laws. Unlike the Viacom - Youtube infringement and
the RIAA cases this case is individual content producer vs Big Co. where Big
Co. is the defendant.

Can't wait to see how it shapes up.

------
MatthewB
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
The logic isn't without precedent; it found attorneys trying to sue gun makers
for liability based on crimes committed using their products.

~~~
wdewind
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
Wasn't that in an episode of the The Wire? :)

~~~
wdewind
Haha maybe but I saw it on some FBI cases Discovery show a REALLLLY long time
ago first.

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

------
msredmond
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.

------
Joakal
"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?

