TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Artists Score Victory in Mass-Piracy Lawsuit Against CBS, CNET

A coalition of artists has scored an important victory in their piracy lawsuit against CNET and CBS Interactive. The artists, joined by billionaire and FilmOn founder Alki David, accuse the media conglomerate of promoting piracy through websites like Download.com. CBS moved to dismiss the complaint, but federal Judge Dale Fischer upheld the artist’s claim that CNET induced piracy by demonstrating how file-sharing programs can be used to infringe copyright.

downloadLast year, Alki David and a coalition of artists sued CBS and CNET for their role in distributing uTorrent, LimeWire and other P2P software.

The artists claimed that CNET profited heavily from distributing file-sharing software via Download.com, while demonstrating in editorial reviews how these application can be used to download copyright-infringing material.

In the original complaint the artists pointed out several examples where CNET editors posted videos and screenshots of infringing materials. For example, a review of MP3Rocket included a screenshot of pirated songs from Madonna, Lady Gaga, Alicia Keys, Usher, Rihanna and Eminem.

CBS and CNET responded to these allegations by arguing that these videos and articles are merely opinions. If they were held liable for inducing copyright infringement then that would be a violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

However, the Judge disagrees and points out in her ruling yesterday that inducement can be considered because CNET is also distributing the applications they review.

“Defendants here are alleged to have distributed specific P2P software, while simultaneously providing explicit commentary on that software’s effectiveness in infringing copyright. Such behavior moves beyond opinion into the realm of conduct and does not directly implicate any First Amendment issues,” Judge Dale Fischer writes.

The Judge adds that “most reasonable parties” could easily avoid inducement liability under Grokster by separating the reviews from the downloads.

“It would not be difficult to avoid liability by either (1) only providing editorial content without distributing the software or (2) distributing the software without demonstrating or advocating its use for violating copyrights,” Judge Fischer writes.

As a result, the Judge decided to deny CBS/CNET’s motion to dismiss the inducement claims. The motions to dismiss the claim for vicarious copyright infringement and material contribution to copyright infringement were granted.

Alki David, who started the lawsuit after CBS sued his company FilmOn for copyright infringement, was delighted with the ruling and notes that the lawsuit will go full steam ahead.

“This is a huge win for us. This sets the precedent for other artists and copyright owners whose work has been illegally distributed by Limewire, BitTorrent, FrostWire and the billions of copies of P2P software which CBS continues to induce people to download and steal,” Ali David said responding to the ruling.

According to David, the evidence that his legal team has will further reveal that CNET linked to numerous copyrighted songs on its website.

“Our evidence will show that not only do they have vicarious liability but CNET actually embedded links from their web pages to thousands of known copyrighted songs. That puts a giant “I” on inducement,” David says.

Jaime Marquart, the attorney for the artists, says he will now move to the damages claim, which could in theory amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. “The focus of the case now shifts from the question of liability to the question of damages for our many plaintiffs,” he says.

While the case is not yet decided, CBS and CNET are in a tough spot. Time will tell if the inducement claims hold up, and what this means for other online publications that distribute file-sharing software.

Update: CBS is happy with the two dismissals and says it has a good defense against the inducement claims as well.

“It is a very good sign that at the very earliest stage of this proceeding, the judge has fully and completely granted our motion to dismiss two of Mr. David’s three claims. We will continue vigorously defending the third claim, and are fully confident we will prevail on that count as well. We look forward to beginning our defense as to this last remaining claim,” a CBS spokesperson told TorrentFreak.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • thedude321

    This is one of the stupidest things that I have ever heard. I mean really? You can’t get it from CNET? Just get it from filehippo or somewhere else, I really don’t get why artists would spend so much goddamn money on something utterly pointless. Anything cane be used for good and for bad, just get used to it!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Hannah-Bailey/100000028473487 Hannah Bailey

      If they manage to win this lawsuit, they’ll be able to scare other sites (like filehippo) into removing links as well. It’s what they did with MegaUpload, take down one big site, and you teach the smaller ones to censor themselves.

      • Anonymous

        It’s what they did with MegaUpload, take down one big site, and you teach the smaller ones to move offshore.
        FTFY.

      • anon

         yep hit the big guy and scare the small ones. But like they said it is only because in the reviews of the P2P software they were showing you can download copyright infringed material. So if the other smaller hosts have reviews if they just skip showing to download shitty music like lady gaga and eminem and just show how to get stuff like Dan Bull and Ubuntu then it would be fine because it is freeware. But if they want to show in the review you can get that shitty mainstream crap then they have to just keep the review separate from the download page / link. Like having a “reviews section” and a “downloads section” just 2 different categories, such an easy fix to the site layout and how the content is found.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          Actually, they don’t even have to do that. All they have to do is appeal and get a SANE judge that realizes that putting out all the usages of something doesn’t rise to the level of ‘inducement to infringe copyright’ and the decision will be overturned on appeal.

        • http://otester.myopenid.com/ PiRat

          @google-6bb179a6b07a293b0dbe2e8887cdb03f:disqus  For starters they’ll just keep appealing until they (CBS) win and/or pouring some money into a judges pocket.

          Hope the artists get nothing, as that’s all they deserve and hopefully CBS will talk with the other big media corps and screw FilmOn by raising licensing costs.

      • 0omg

        still in the end 100 more will start after that and again NOTHING HAVE CHANGED 

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        I doubt it. As long as the site is just putting these things up with no ‘commentary’ by the site owners on it, they won’t get caught by what CNet ILLEGITIMATELY got caught by (until overturned on appeal).

        Bottom line is that I don’t see this ruling standing on appeal.

    • Gear Mentation
      • ScrewEwe2

        This could have very chilling and far reaching implications. Could TorrentFreak theoretically get shut down because your link to the cnet “Results for “utorrent”" page be construed as facilitating copyright infringement because it links to a site that contains links to programs that can be used to facilitate copyright infringement? :-(  

      • harry krishna

        right about what?  possessing p2p software is a crime?

        • Blah

           in their review they showed how you can download pirated music. with screenshots.

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          With a warning, Blah, that it was illegal to do that and they did not support that. Give the WHOLE fucking story please.

    • Bananas

       The judge is right in this one.

      • harry krishna

        my gps isn’t working.  right about what?  possessing p2p software is a crime?

        • Rzu

          Of course not. The judge was correct in stating that CNET hosting the software AND showing that it could be used to infringe copyright induces copyright infringement. 

          I’m as pro-P2P as the next guy, but that doesn’t mean that artists’ hard work should be stolen without a damn good excuse (regional restrictions, etc).

        • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

          Rzu, no, he wasn’t right. CNet was just doing their journalistic duty by pointing out to people how these things could be used for legal and illegal purposes, and telling the average person what the illegal purposes were.

    • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

       Pay Attention the lawsut is suing those big companies that have been suing people for copyright infringment yet they are promoting p2p software cnet/download.com is owned by viacom which also owns paramount etc etc i could give you a full list of all the networks or you could google it yourself. Paramount/viacom is part of the motion picture association aswell as the riaa, so basically when we mention artist getting screwed the same boy who cried wolf is also the wolf.

      How are artist getting screwed because those companies that are supposed to represent those artist aren’t getting the money they are supposed to get viacom is promoting p2p so they can scheme the public aswell as the artist you have a file sharer sharing they get sued and the mpaa/raa make profits but the artist gets jack shit. In any case hopefully megaupload could use that in their defense against mpaa/riaa/goverment :)

      If we can only get artist to realize they don’t need a third party representation and use today’s technology like file sharing etc the skies the limit. louis ck seems to be doing very well for himself :)

      All in All it’s about damn time.

    • ayman

      PEOPLE, they are liable not because they distributed the software, but because they publicly demonstrated how this software can be used to infringe copyright, which is what most people are looking for.
      I remember a software got rejected from android market because the screenshots contained infringe material same as this case.
      http://torrentfreak.com/google-boots-transdroid-torrent-manager-from-android-market-110626/
      How come Cnet didn’t realize this?

      • NonDisclosedIdentity

         So if I write a book on how to make bombs and someone builds one, I’m liable for murder?  This is nonsense.

        • ayman

          Again with non-related comparison :/
          No need to lie to ourself, no matter how you justify it with sweet words; it’s obvious that Cnet is using copyrighted material as their selling point for the software.
          I’m not saying this is illegal or anything, it’s just too stupid to not realize that this will backfire on them.

        • http://twitter.com/aaronjacques aaron jacques

          no but if you also sold or gave them all the materials to make the bomb then you would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

          re read the judges ruling

          It would not be difficult to avoid liability by either (1) only providing editorial content without distributing the software or (2) distributing the software without demonstrating or advocating its use for violating copyrights, 

          if there demonstrations for example only pointed to cc-sa mp3 artists (who would love the free publicity) they would be completely fine.

          If they only put up the reviews and did not provide the download links they would be fine.

          or vice versa 

          it only when you combine both together that you get in trouble

        • FreeBSD

          only if u distribute bomb-making material along w/ the book. this is not nonsense. 

        • Noway

          How about so if someone makes a video on youtube showing you how to download a copyrighted work. They are liable? (comment to be deleted?)

    • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

      thedude321

      Pay close attention this lawsuit is a lawsuit going after a big company, which we know as Viacom who also owns Cnet/Download (dot) com who also own CBS who also owns PARAMOUNT PICTURES etc. You could find a list of all the networks they own including Mtv SyFy etc etc. Who also are in the Mpaa/Riaa. Pretty much this big company that likes suing the public are the same people distributing the software and promoting it.

      The same people who cry wolf are the wolves themselves. The scheme they have going is distribute the software get the public into file sharing and then sue the public. How are the artist getting screwed? Because those same exact people that are “supposedly” supposed to represent them are screwing them when the /labels / Mpaa / Riaa/ aren’t giving them the profits they are supposedly supposed to make.

      So basically to make a long story short- Distribute software be the bad wolf, act like the boy crying wolf, act as if you’re the victim, sneak the artist songs on the p2p networks the average file-sharer sees it downloads gets sued artist get jack shit and the potential Customer / Consumer / Fan/ gets sued and screwed.

      In this case i hope those like kimdotcom and others being falsely accused of infringement use this case in their defense. Now if we can only convince artist on today’s technology instead of using third party companies / labels / Riaa affiliates. Those like LouisCk who seem to be doing extremely well.Using today’s business model.

      All in all it’s about damn time.

      P.S. Torrentfreak no idea why you deleted my last comment i was only trying to correct it. Sorta disappointed. That was a first timer. ~Takes note don’t try fixing your comment more than once or it’ll get deleted.~

      • FreeBSD

        Good point.

        • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

          Thanks :)

      • thedude321

        I’ve heard this argument before, and frankly its getting a little tiring. CBS does own cNet, but the thing is, CNET has a lot of autonomy, and is separate from CNET in many ways. They always try to promote free and open-source software, for many developers, they rely on CNET servers to promote their programs, one such example is Avast free Antivirus. I have CBS but I do not hate CNET, because even their editorials and articles are against the copyright monopoly.

        • http://www.twitter.com/echoman74 echoman

          Well you might be right but in many ways Sumner Redstone owner of Viacom/Cnet’s reputation is not what i would consider a very good one. He seems to think he’s untouchable. The courts finally stepped in. I seriously hope CBS and all incorporated realize what the public hates so much about them.

          I actually don’t use Cnet because it’s only windows based operating systems but when i did use them i liked download(dot)com.But ever since i heard all the tricks etc.. I don’t watch nor support any of their programs and the fact viacom sued Google/YouTube numerous times, doesn’t make me a happy camper either.

          As for artist they are within their right to money they earned and shouldn’t be screwed by the same people that are supposed to support them. I don’t agree on parts of this lawsuit about file sharing because there are actual artist me included that use p2p and file hosting for their music, movies, etc. Their are many legitimate usages for them aswell. As you may already know. :)

    • FreeBSD

      this might just be to prove a point.

    • Barbie

      this is why http:// tiny.cc /jyahhw
      A-C–T-A TRU-TH H0RROR STORY S0PA Exposed in the UK Richard O’Dwyer
      also do not cuss Gods name, you damn yourself 

  • Timmy

    CBS/ CNET deserved this … they are promoting software to be used for copyright infringement then going on to sue the people who use the software. IMO, I think the industry wants us to pirate so they can sue and take control of the internet (more power for them).

  • http://www.facebook.com/ken.bingham Ken Bingham

    This is one ruling I agree with. It is interesting how CBS/VIACOM have been  promoting ”piracy” while claiming to fight against it. CNET and Download.com were the primary sources for p2p networks and they are owned by CBS/VIACOM who has been suing Youtube and others for violating copyrights all the while being the main distributors of software that is used for copyright infringement.

    • David Fuchs

      Actually this is probably a screw up on the part of the editors. If you have any old school app like LOL Limewire and search *.mp3. You will get the ones it finds first, which happen to be the ones with the most copies available.That happens to be popular bands. Truth be told the authors could have self published also with the editors just glancing at the article. 

      Lets hope they get a better judge on appeal. 

  • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com/ SJD

    It’s impossible for the famous Mike Mozart’s video not to be mentioned in the comments, so I’ll be the first: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tD1yaE0GfQ

  • cgimusic

    I don’t support the judgement but I really hate CNET so I am not as angry as I would normally be.

  • kamikaji

    Well, this is a good thing in some ways, and a bad thing in other ways.  

    The good:
    CBS and CNET are pretty evil because of what they were planning here: to promote piracy and downloading of free content on their website (while profiting immensely through partnership deals and advertising as a result), and then making even MOAR monies by going after the same pirates THEY CREATED with lawsuits.  Pretty evil.  So it is really good that someone is making them pay for that.

    The bad:
    The group that is trying to go after CBS and CNET for their hypocrisy is totally AGAINST the free and open sharing of media and information (AKA pirating).  So, if they DO win this fight against CBS/CNET, they will get them to pay for their wrong actions, but in doing so, will also seek to further limit the free and open sharing of all information via precedent.

  • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

    “sued CBS and CNET for their role in distributing uTorrent, LimeWire and other P2P software.”
    OMG. This is stupidest thing I’ve read lately. I mean, why the fuck would you sue sites that distribute free software? And even more, what fucking moron of a judge will stand on the site of idiots who are suing? Fucking retarded 

    • FreeBSD

      i think u mean side, not “site”. and the sites aren’t only distributing “free software”, but also encouraging it’s use for copyright infringement. read the article again.

      • http://twitter.com/Anime4PSP Anime 4 PSP

        Nop, I meant sites.
        I’ve read it don’t worry. I just don’t agree that that was encouraging to use it 

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        You read the article again, FreeBSD and you WATCH THOSE PIECES. They were basically laying out all usages of the software including the ‘illegal’ ones so that people knew what was currently illegal and told people “If you do this, we bear no responsibility for you breaking the law!”

  • Pianogamer

    LMAO 100s of millions dollars in damages because some reviewers didn’t censor their screenshots… imagine a google employee publishing a video of himself pirating through a Google search. Uh-oh.

    • Jentai

      Tomorrow on Torrent Freak “Google sued for 5 billion internet dollars because video showing how to search the internet using music as a search term revealed in the bottom left corner what experts in the field of screwutography say is a description of a website that may have said “madonna down…” which proves that google induced copyright infringement, or not, and therefore may or may not be responsible for everything everywhere anytime or so sayest Cthulu. Judge Dummass had this to say “We will not rest until the economy is completely down the toilet, until every man, woman, and child is in our private run prisons, and until the terrorists are defeated, but first lets take some more of these useless freedoms away. Praise Satan.” In other news, the Rothchilds are giving it to you up the pooper. 

  • ofProto
  • Anonymous

    the trouble is, in the end, absolutely no one wins.

    • Guest

      Uhm, yeah someone always wins in the endgame. the lawyers!

  • Pingback: Artists Score Victory in Mass-Piracy Lawsuit Against CBS, CNET | Best Seedbox

  • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

    Computers can be used to infringe copyright if you press the right buttons in a certain order, so let’s sue everyone that makes computers.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Don’t give them ideas…… at one point, because of FTP, some jackasses were thinking of doing that at these companies.

      Luckily, they realized that going against the Microsoft behemoth with these spurious claims was asking for a smackdown and dropped it.

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      Yes, well….that would have been irony if it weren’t true. Try reading up on how certain companies wanted to make the “record” button on VHS machines inoperable or how certain industries have pushed for a concept called “trusted computing”. (latter resurrected by China as a scheme for government control called “Green Dam”).

      In short, it’s been tried.

  • Guest

     Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to the inducement claim. TheMotion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the vicarious liability claim and the materialcontribution theory of contributory liability claim. Further, the Motion to Dismiss isGRANTED as to the nineteen Plaintiffs who have failed to make a claim to ownership of a copyrighted work. The counts are dismissed with leave to amend consistent with thisOrder. An amended complaint must be filed and served no later than July 25, 2012.Failure to file by that date will waive Plaintiffs’ right to do so. Leave to amend is grantedonly where specifically identified and only to address the issues raised in the motion.The Court does not grant leave to add new defendants or new claims. Leave to adddefendants or claims must be sought by a separate, properly noticed motion. If Plaintiffsfail to amend, Defendants must answer the Complaint no later than August 15, 2012.

  • FredNorris

    I found this blog. http://onecandleinthedark.blogspot.co.uk
    Is this the evidence? Coincidence that the same allegations are made?

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      The guy at that place sounds batshit crazy, to be blunt. All of his stuff is a bunch of mashed together innuendo with no real factual allegations in it.

  • Trollarmy

     CNET, have I got a story for you ! 

    email me:  trollarmyATyahoo.com  Your email must include a link to show that you ARE from CNET and who you are. 

  • Fake

    This isn’t a win for artists at all. Wtf?

  • Guest

    I will stick to downloading films and music from Google.

    • Ophelia Millais

      That’s great, but if this pans out for Alki David, the next step is suing everyone who distributes and reviews web browsers. Like P2P software, they are general-purpose tools that are wildly popular in part because they enable people to download infringing content (porn, mostly!) … any review or how-to guide showing non-free content in a browser screenshot opens up the site owners to liability…

  • JeepersMedia
  • Andrew me

    Seriously this is crazy, what type of a judge is this , surely he should know how his actions affect others not just those in front of him.

    If anything with this ruling you could say that anyone that has created a programming language is guilty of copyright infringement.

    I want a list of those musicians that took legal action , i want to know who to hold responsible for doing this.

    If musicians cannot understand that there fans will desert them in droves if they do not support sharing they are going to have a big big fall from the top of the charts to being artists that are unheard of.

    • Guest

      Guess you could say that the people who programmed these programs are responsible for encouraging piracy and they too should be sue for creating a program that encourages the infringement of copyright. I bloody hope it doesn’t come to this.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        They have already tried that argument with EDonkey2000 back in the day. Unfortunately, they had reams of evidence that eDonkey2000′s creators and company did encourage copyright infringement using the thing flat out.

        Best thing you can do is put out tools like this via TOR so they have no idea who is the one releasing them, THEN you can speak out all you wish without fear of running afoul of these obvious free speech restrictions (which might be unconstitutional if someone brings up that First Amendment argument).

  • chillinfart

    A list of these copyright trolls (bad named “artists”) available?

    “Justice for Artists Coalition” site does not working here and i want to blacklist. I don’t feed trolls

  • ANewCourse
  • Jentai

    Yah, those CBS mofos had it coming for sueing other people, so I don´t feel sorry for them, but, I don´t like the reason why the judge sided with Al.

    This is ridiculous really, the first thing that came to mind when I read the first paragraph was, “Here is another company that will soon go offshore.” Freaking greed is killing the US economy right now. I find it no wonder why many companies and business men and women are using offshore accounts and establishing themselves offshore. Getting sued at the drop of a dime in this country due to the excess of lawyers, stupidity, and useless authority.

    I remember when McDonalds was sued because someone spilled hot coffee on themselves in a car. DON´T DRINK AND DRIVE! Or the attempt at sueing because “I am soo fat because the Burgers are soo cheap, I can´t help it, I must sue them.” Carrots are also dirt cheap FATASS!

    I am getting more and more fed up with business, irresponsible people, and authority. Really, no one has the right to blame me or tell me what to think, do, or feel. Hypocrites, rant over.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Um…. you missed the point of that case, McDonald’s was sued because the coffee was served at near boiling point, which was obviously a danger to the people who were drinking it whether drinking while driving or not.

      • teenygozer

        The woman who sued wedged her cup of coffee between her thighs as she drove and the top popped off when she moved her legs, that’s how she scalded herself.  Last I looked, that’s not how the product was designed to be used.

        Coffee beans are at their least bitter when brewed at 200 degrees Fahrenheit but they brew at a much cooler temp now, which is why coffee is demonstrably more bitter these days.  I love my coffee piping hot and haven’t enjoyed a cup of coffee in a restaurant or fast-food service since the nanny state determined that coffee needed to be cooler when served so that no idiots got hurt.  We had coffee served at near-boiling for generations, since a cuppa joe was invented as a POP sale, and it wasn’t until this suit that it suddenly became an “obvious danger.”

  • Aaa

    Lets all sue those bastard hard drive makers for making storage possible :)

  • Mwhahaha

    And now perhaps people can see why cyberlockers are being extremely cautious when idiotic decisions like this are made.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      No, I cannot see it because one appeal and the decision is overturned. Maybe the real ‘problem’ is that we have so many ‘no balls’ in corporations right now who are unwilling to challenge idiotic decisions like this.

  • Tabris

    Why on Earth are so many people mad at these artists or the judge? Do you guys not understand this judgement? They were distributing the software and literally showing how to use it to download things illegally at the same time; not only that, but they’re owned by Viacom, a company that is constantly suing people for downloading things in this manner even though they’re the ones who showed them how to do so. These guys deserve to get fucked. I’m not even worried about it being a slippery slope since, as the judge said, it’s only the fact that they both distributed the software and advertised that it could be used for piracy that’s getting them in trouble. Saying that creators of hard drives or programming languages could be held liable makes no sense here.

    • Anyone

      showing videos or articles on how to download stuff should not get you into trouble, no matter how big of an asshole you are

      • Guest

        Well guess that the parent company of CNET who is a member of the RIAA etc. did not pay/bribe the judge enough. CNET were distributing the software and there parent company were suing people for copyright. How about that for a contradiction.

      • ndmushroom

        For god’s sake, it’s not that complicated. If I sell knives which someone uses to kill people, that doesn’t mean I’m liable. If I post a video showing how to stab people (say, as a “self defence class” and someone follows the instructions to kill people, that doesn’t mean I’m liable. If I sell knives AND say “these knives are great for killing people, here’s how to do it”, then yes, I am liable.
        Have you noticed that whenever TF presents a new software/site/service they ALWAYS include screenshots to perfectly legal torrents/links/results? Why do you think that is?

  • anonymous

    Play it it cool and just say those “songs” were actually trojans.

    Also torrents can be used to transfer data offline, for instance from my PC to my laptop.

  • Pingback: Torrent News » Artists Score Victory in Mass-Piracy Lawsuit Against CBS, CNET

  • Nobudy

    The guy who sold someone a kitchen knife is guilty because when he advertised his knife, it looked like it was being held in a stabbing sorta way.

  • Violated0

    Well to be fair then any business owner should know that if you are providing tools that some people use for some naughty purpose then YOU DON’T ADVERTISE YOUR TOOLS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

    The big question though is did CNET really do that? Are not these help videos user created and uploaded by the users? Under a DMCA type system then it is hard for them to monitor every upload and infringement is less clear. It is a First Amendment issue for average people to make such videos. So this is comes down to the actual glue that pulls this all together and that much much less clear.

    I can only now hope this does not turn out to be some mass censorship virus and CNET Download.com goes and deletes all help videos.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Violated0, you miss the fact that CNet was just being a reputable news organization and laying out ALL the usages of this software, with a stern admonishment that using these things to infringe copyright was currently illegal and you shouldn’t do that.

      It’s like trying to go against MSNBC for doing a piece on how Oxycontin can be used to dull pain and how it can be used for pleasurable purposes illegally.

  • Pingback: Artists Score Victory in Mass-Piracy Lawsuit Against CBS, CNET | The Illuminati

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004049924513 Finnian Ryan

    “However, the Judge disagrees…” There is your problem with the legal system right there.

  • Master13

    Wow this is complete Crap. Its not like they are promoting Piracy they are simply reviewing the tools they provide for you just in case you need an extra opinion or help. If someone sells you a gun is it their fault you went and killed your wife.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

    So, simply giving information in a factual light can be inducing copyright infringement? IN A FUCKING PIG’S EYE!

    Appeal coming on this, I see it very soon.

    • Ophelia Millais

      It has to go to trial before there can be an appeal. The judge said 80% of Alki David’s claims are bunk, but this one issue is still open to question and can proceed to the trial phase. What we don’t know is if CBS/CNET will fight or just settle. If they fight and lose, it’s bad, obviously. If they settle, it’s bad, because it encourages more such settlements, and the issue is never properly resolved in court.

      • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

        True. I’m hoping beyond all reasonability that they will refuse to settle this case out and will push forward with this in trial.

        We need a ruling that says organizations/corporations like CNet are only doing their ‘due diligence’ in giving out ALL the ways that a software can be used.

        • vaatidorf

          I agree, but that wasn’t all they were doing. Copyright infringement was all CNET was promoting the software for and other sites at the time had the same software and didn’t even mention that use of it. Take a look at the evidence someone collected against them: onecandleinthedark.blogspot.com and 
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc

  • Mr. M

    In that case the makers of violent movies and games should be convicted for demonstrating how to kill people.

    • http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

      Good point and I am surprised that the judge didn’t see that obvious flaw in his reasoning.

    • Ophelia Millais

      Things are changing, and it’s not a problem in movies anymore, but for some reason, games are still always on the verge of being blamed for real-life violence. This has been true ever since the anti-Dungeons & Dragons hysteria of the early and mid-’80s, and especially since the advent of first-person shooters. It’s happening right now in the Norway shooter trial [click].

      You may notice that most violent computer games nowadays still very deliberately don’t have you running around killing innocent, ordinary people; the game makers don’t want to be perceived as liable for causing wackos to go out and mimic what they did in the games. If killing “real” people is even an option in a game, there are negative consequences for doing so, especially the more realistic the game is. Typically, the targets are always aliens, zombies, Nazis, terrorists, opposing soldiers and other villains and monsters. Either that, or the whole game’s just very cartoonish/unrealistic and it’s not an issue.

      Hands up, who here remembers The Bilestoad?

  • Pingback: Artists Score Victory in Mass-Piracy Lawsuit Against CBS, CNET | Zombie Torrents - Ultimate Torrents Downloads

  • Andrew me

    I think some people here are agreeing with the judge because cnet advertised that you could download music files,  in fact it is not illegal to share content if it is not for monetary gain, this is the crux of the matter that needs to be drummed into peoples heads. Copyright laws were only ever meant for artists to protect themselves against big businesses making money of there content and not reimbursing them.

    The problem we have at the moment is big business has gained control of copyright laws, they have twsited them to gain profit and not give as much to the artists,and actually make way way more than the artists.

    What a judge needs to do is to clarify this in a ruling , make the gatekeepers that are making trillions give that money to those it belongs to. There should be a law that every sale , no mater how much it is , 90% of the sales price go to the artist. If the studios or whoever distributing say they cannot afford to do that as they will not be able to make any profit or cover costs, then that business entity must shut down ,

     No excuses they obviously do not have a business that can run on the profits available. Lets start talking about this an getting people to realize what the real problem is , don’t let the gatekeepers make it all about them and there profits. The baker sailor tinker tailer all get there salaries , they work by the hour and if the record being made in the studio’s makes trillions they do not get a bonus or even a rise in salary.

    The conversation must change and must reflect the law as it was first written and the reason it was first written.

    In fact the MPAA or whoever should not be going for file sharers they should be going after the studios that are ripping the artists off. Maybe when we get this as the main talking point , maybe after we have repeated it a trillion billion times every day , people will start understanding what the real problem is.

    I think a few laws need to pass

    1) Artists cannot sell there copyrights.

    2) The MPAA must go after the people skimming trillions of the artists profits. i.e the studios

    3) An artist can allow a studio to promote there work using there profits but this must be totally controlled by the artist or the artists manager. If an artist believes it is too much to pay $100 000 for a party to promote himself then the studio must decide if it is worth them investing there money to pay for the party, at no cost to the artist.

    4) Fair use for non monitory gain is sacrosanct and cannot be touched.
    After 2 years music becomes available for total fair use. i.e riffs can be used free of charge and people can do various renditions of the original and benefit 100% of what they make.
    Fair use is for an individual not a business entity. A business entity will always pay for copyrighted work from the day the work is created until the day the sun dies.

    5) If a piece of music cannot be traced back to any individual then the music will enter the public domain, other than when used for monitory gain, then a percentage of the total profits must be paid into a fund to promote the arts.Any music in the public domain will always have copyright protection against studios using it. If anything profits that would go to the artist must go to the above fund.

    I am sure there are more things we could do but this would be a good start, oh and one other thing , sharing music online for no monetary gain must be allowed, this is a fundamental right the public is given in return for protecting the artists from big business stealing there work or using it without compensation..

    • Ophelia Millais

      You said “it is not illegal to share content if it is not for monetary gain.” Under U.S. law, that is completely, provably false. There is no exception for noncommercial use. Go read the law (17 USC); it’s not written in Chinese. If you don’t have permission from the copyright owner, you can’t copy or distribute the content, unless it’s a case of fair use. Fair use has certain “prongs” to test against, and not only is noncommercial use not one of those prongs, but the courts have roundly rejected arguments that it is, most recently and relevantly in Sony v. Tenenbaum.

      The question of whether CNET induced infringement does not hinge on how commercial the alleged infringement committed by users of CNET-reviewed, CNET-distributed software was. Infringement is infringement, regardless of whether it’s commercial, at least under U.S. law.

  • Conservative

    The US Military provides 100,000s of persons with guns.
    The US Military provides those 100,000s of persons with instruction manuals for the guns.
    The US Military provides those 100,000s of persons extensive training with the gun, and how to use it to KILL PEOPLE.

    If at some point, years later, one of those people commits a murder with a gun, you can now sue the US Military for “inducement to commit murder”.  Because the US Military provided the hardware and the training to commit murder.

    The judge in this case is a criminal.  And possibly insane.  And he has clearly violated federal law by prohibiting freedom of speech.

    Now that freedom of speech has been revoked by this judge we can look forward to another 1000 year long DARK AGE. :(

    • Ophelia Millais

      No judgement has been rendered. The judge is merely allowing the inducement claim to proceed to the trial phase, because if everything the plaintiffs and defendants both said up to this point is true, it’s possible that inducement occurred. It’s still up to Alki David, et al., to prove that inducement actually occurred, which I think is going to be hard for them to do.

      The judge said there are legal limits to free speech, and inducement is one of them, therefore it’s not a First Amendment issue, per se. I don’t think the judge had much of a choice there.

      I do agree with you that inducement didn’t occur, and the analogy you gave is a good one.

  • JordanKratz

    Big Sell Out Artists sue Big Content Industry…………………YAWN
    Wish they would just fight it out in the Arena like Gladiators

  • Lulz

    “Alki David, who started the lawsuit after CBS sued his company FilmOn for copyright infringement…’

    Although this sets a dangerous precendent for us, I can’t help but laugh my ass off at the irony of the situiation. CBS sues for copyright infringment, and they get counter-sued with the same thing.

  • Yanw

    I’m starting to grow more weary of artists than of their representatives. These pricks deserve each other and the more they fight for a piece of the pie the more I spend elsewhere. Fuck them.

  • Noobusagov

    Tomorrow they may case a complain upon Microsoft because they provided operating system ..lol.

  • Indie Musician

    As an indie artist, I both support and embrace piracy. 98% of my revenues come from people that share my songs through sites like Pirate Bay, who end up liking them and buying them.

  • wow

    just another billionaire whining to get more money from people

  • Ophelia Millais

    Alki David is trying to spin this as best he can. In his mind, it’s a “big win” when any part of his case survives to the next round. The most ridiculous spin is when he says “The focus of the case now shifts from the question of liability to the question of damages for our many plaintiffs.” Technically he is correct but only to the extent that he can cook up a damages figure that is less than CBS’s cost of litigating, so he can get a settlement and move on to sue similar parties with fewer resources to fight.

    All the judge said is that there’s still a question as to whether there was, legally, “inducement.” So it still has yet to be determined; it’s just not something that can be said yes or no by the judge without having a trial. At the same time, the judge said there is no question about CBS’s liability for copyright infringement, both vicarious and material – i.e., providing generic file-sharing tools to potential pirates doesn’t automatically make you liable for each of those users’ alleged acts of piracy.

    Winning an inducement claim requires showing that not only did CNET do things that had the effect of encouraging copyright infringement, and not only did people use the software to actually infringe, but also that CNET intended for them to infringe, and (I think, due to the Limewire precedent) also that CNET had the power to mitigate the infringement but deliberately chose not to. It is not an easy combination to prove.

  • Ophelia Millais

    Another highlight from the judge’s memo:

    In order to claim secondary infringement of copyright, Plaintiffs must allege primary infringement. Allegation of a registered copyright is an element of a copyright infringement claim. Here, Plaintiffs filed a Form AO-121 listing the registered works at issue in this action. However, nineteen listed Plaintiffs do not hold any of the copyrights listed on the form. The Motion to Dismiss as to these Plaintiffs is GRANTED.

    Oopsie! Is this part of your “big win,” Alkiviades?

    I would like to see the current, full list of plaintiffs and the list of works at issue.

    • Laughinhisface

      That post will make him mad !  They have to PROVE that those artists that were listed actually had their work downloaded by someone using limewire.  They cannot prove that at all.  How are they damaged when their little known works were not even being offered to be downloaded?

      They “won” on one count and lost on all the rest.  Some big win.

  • vaatidorf

    I’m definitely with the artists on this one. CNET and CBS should be held responsible for what they did. Not only did they distribute most of the p2p softwares, but they promoted to the death the fact that they can be used for copyright infringement in their own screenshots on the reviews. Not to mention they were the ones who caused all of the piracy in the first place and profited from it. 

    • Ophelia Millais

      Not only did they distribute most of the p2p softwares… P2P file-sharing software is general-purpose software for sharing files. You can share whatever files you want. If some of the files that users choose to share happen to embody copyrighted works, that doesn’t make distributing the software illegal or immoral. It is not up to random 3rd-party distributors like CBS/CNET to monitor what people are sharing or actively prevent them from sharing copyrighted works. So the mere fact that CNET distributed P2P software, even if such software was “widely known” to be useful for infringement, doesn’t make CNET responsible for that infringement.

      …they promoted…the fact they can be used for copyright infringement in their own screenshots on the reviews… Now although I haven’t seen the screenshots and reviews in question, I somewhat agree with you, in that it was rather reckless of CNET to do that. I mean clearly they should’ve scrubbed the examples, at least. Yet I feel it’s really a stretch to say that by showing the software being used for apparent infringement, they necessarily encouraged piracy; this is saying that people who weren’t interested in sharing copyrighted material came to CNET, saw the reviews, and became pirates. That’s impossible to prove, and sounds dubious anyway. Give people the ability to obtain and share whatever they want amongst themselves, and they’re going to share the most compelling content, much of which is copyrighted. That’s a natural thing for people to do; they don’t decide to share copyrighted content because CNET’s reviews encouraged them to. And I highly doubt the reviews and comparisons were like “which software is best for pirating? we’ll help you pick the infringement tool that’s right for you.” I’m sure it was more like “which software is best for sharing files?”

      More importantly, to be liable for inducement, CNET would have had to have intended for piracy to result. They intended and stood to gain from the software being popular, sure, and it goes without saying that the software’s popularity is largely tied to infringement (it had this reputation separate from anything CNET ever did). But were the reviews, comparisons and screenshots indicating that CNET really wanted people to use the software specifically to commit infringement? I mean, CNET stood to gain regardless of what people shared. They didn’t even need the software to be used; all they needed was eyeballs on the page.

      Web browsers are widely used for infringement. Every time someone uses a web browser to download copyrighted content, or even view an image of copyrighted content without proper permission, they’re (arguably) infringing. Are browser distributors liable for inducement, then? Are sites that review browsers liable for inducement if they show uncleared content in their screenshots? It sounds silly when you think of it like that, doesn’t it? I don’t see any difference with P2P software.

      …they were the ones who caused all of the piracy in the first place and profited from it.

      Profited from piracy, maybe, but only indirectly… CNET simply profited from the software being popular. People coming to CNET’s site already knew P2P software could be used to trade copyrighted content among themselves, and this desire to trade such content was already there, not induced by CNET…as proven by decades of home taping, CD-R burning, and portable drive/media-player sharing, and by the reputation this software already had in the media and by word-of-mouth. So I don’t think you can prove CNET caused people to use the software to do something that was already widespread, and that they already wanted to do, and which, given the ability, people naturally do on their own.

      • vaatidorf

        You should check out the SOPA videos on jeepersmedia on Youtube and the site onecandleinthedark.blogspot.com. That man collected so much evidence, it’s scary.

  • Stephen B.

    CNET is owned by CBS, which has close ties with Hollywood, RIAA, MPAA and so on. The CEOs and executives of those companies know each other well.

    In other words, it sounds like they are sacrificing one of their own — and will purposefully lose the lawsuit — so that they can attack other websites in the future, using the same legal rhetoric. 

    These other websites will be unaffiliated, but because the courts ruled against CNET here, they will have to rule against these other sites.

    I am sure they are withholding evidence, and using poor lawyers, etc.

    Simple as that. Pretty sick!

  • anon

    Wow. You people are braindead.

    • Polly

      huh?

  • James Harding

    Sue the phonebook manufacturers!!!!  Someone used it to look up a gun store.  Then the person bought guns and ammo and brought them home and killed his wife.  Sue the phonebook manufacturer – their the responsible party.

  • ewfefe

     very good website: === http://www.abcshopping.org/ The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat the decorations. YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

  • cbgfnb

    Read more: http://commonprosperity.org/
           simpletrading@hotmail.com

    Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $30

    Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $38

    Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14

    Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30

    Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12

    New era cap NY $9

    Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18

    New era cap $8

  • cbgfnb

     http://commonprosperity.org/
    free shipping

    competitive price

    any size available

    accept the paypal

    jordan shoes $32

    nike shox $32

    Christan Audigier bikini $23

    Ed Hardy Bikini $23

    Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

    ed hardy short_tank_woman $16

    Sandal $32

    christian louboutin $80

    Sunglass $15

    COACH_Necklace $27

    handbag $33

    AF tank woman $17

    puma slipper woman $30
    http://commonprosperity.org/
    commonprosperity.org@hotmail.com
    ?????????????????

    ?????????????????

    ?????????????????

    ?????????????????

    ?????????????????

    ???? ???????????

    ???????????????

    ???????????????

    ???????
          ? ??
         commonprosperity.org@hotmail.com
    ???????????????

    ??????????????

    ??????????????

    ???????????????

    ???????????????

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.