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."

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?

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.

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: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:Google led me to CNET for limewire downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

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: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.

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 [wikipedia.org], 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.