TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

CNET Doesn’t Have to Ban BitTorrent Clients, Court Rules

CBS and CNET do not have to stop distributing BitTorrent clients and other file-sharing software. A California court has denied the request for a preliminary injunction from a group of artists, who accused the companies of facilitating piracy. According to the judge there is no indication that CBS and CNET will purposefully encourage copyright infringement in the future, and a ban would needlessly silence “public discussion of P2P technologies.”

download CBS and CNET have scored an important victory in their ongoing copyright infringement case against a coalition of artists.

The musicians, joined by billionaire Alki David, had requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the media conglomerate from distributing file-sharing software through Download.com.

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

In a ruling this week District Court Judge Dale Fisher denied the preliminary injunction.

In his ruling Judge Fisher explains that the companies are indeed well-aware of the infringing potential of file-sharing clients, but that there is not enough evidence that CBS and CNET will be found liable for their ongoing distribution of this software.

“There is ample evidence of BitTorrent’s – and other P2P software’s – ability to infringe copyrights and that a large number of individuals use the software to infringe. Defendants are clearly aware of both of these facts,” Judge Fisher writes in the memorandum.

“However, inducement of infringement requires more than just knowledge of actual or potential infringement. While there might be some evidence of past inducement of copyright infringement, there is no evidence of any ongoing distribution of any file sharing software ‘with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement’.”

The artists had argued that it is not uncommon to grant an injunction based on wrongful conduct in the past, as their evidence showed. However, Judge Fisher adds that there must be at least some evidence that future infringements may occur.

In his order the judge writes that the “only solid evidence of possible inducement comes from reviews that were published a decade ago.” The more recent articles merely discuss file-sharing issues and don’t include any encouragement of online piracy.

“The other articles cited by Plaintiffs merely discuss P2P issues, including legitimate distribution through P2P, and the various technological and legal issues that have emerged with the technologies. The Court has no reason to believe that Defendants will purposefully encourage copyright infringement now or in the foreseeable future.”

Judge Fisher goes on to note that an injunction is not in the public interest as most of the recent articles are news related. The suggestion that this may facilitate copyright infringement could therefore stifle the discussion on file-sharing issues.

“Most of the articles cited by Plaintiffs are straightforward, legitimate news articles that do not in any way encourage or induce copyright infringement. This suggests that Plaintiffs’ goal goes far beyond stopping actual infringement by Defendants and extends instead to silencing public discussion of P2P technologies,” the Judge writes.

The ruling is a clear win for CBS, and the company refers to it as a “resounding victory.”

“The Court has clearly recognized that none of our ongoing actions encourage or induce copyright infringement. Needless to say, we are very pleased with this resounding victory at this stage, and are fully confident we will similarly prevail on all remaining claims as well,” CBS Interactive’s Rosabel Tao tells TorrentFreak.

The present ruling does not mean that the case is over. For the time being CBS and CNET can continue business as usual, but they still have to defend themselves against the accusations laid out in the original complaint.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • ScrewEwe2

    This is a good, common sense decision.

    • Guest321

      Amazing that common sense in the judiciary is so rare these days that we are having to applaud each and every such stupendous decision because they don’t come that often.

    • Restling

      Even if they’d have been banned,
      I assure you, that software would be available
      on another site of the internet.
      That already happens with a P2P program.

      They’re just wasting time with these things
      or they simply want to scare other admins.

  • castingcouch

    Finally, some sanity.

  • Guest

    To have placed an injunction to ban CNET/CBS from hosting Bit Torrent file sharing software and to then accuse and bring charges against them of facilitating copyright infringement just because the software could be used for copyright infringement would have been wrong.

  • Mr Magoo

    Judge Fisher explains that the companies are indeed well-aware of the infringing potential of file-sharing clients… However, inducement of infringement requires more than just knowledge of actual or potential infringement… “FINALLY THE JUSTICE SAW THE LIGHT”

  • icec0ld

    Good sense prevails.

    The link between hosting links for download and the actual act of piracy is ludicrous enough as it is without associating bittorrent clients with their use in this

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

    omg, someone with common sense there. that’s give some kind of hope, I guess

  • Andrew me

    A very small win which the court had no option but to pass as if they had not it would have clearly pointed to corruption.The Judges don’t like that, they prefer their corruption to be questionable not clear.

    A good win non the less and a win that could start the conversation going in the direction it needs to go.

    • nonamthanks

      It is a good win, but it is only on the level of the primary injunction. That is to say that the claims of the plaintiff and / or the harm caused does not rise up to the level of an immediate injunction before a fuller hearing. The case was not dismissed, only the motion for a primary injunction was quashed.

      That means that yes, the case can continue to go forward, but obviously has to overcome the hurdle of one judge feeling that it didn’t make it up to the level of a primary injunction.

      • Guest

        For CNET to be convicted and found guilty of “facilitating copyright infringement and inducement” by the people suing them then it would have to be proved by the people suing them that it was the case.

        “However, inducement of infringement requires more than just knowledge of actual or potential infringement. While there might be some evidence of past inducement of copyright infringement, there is no evidence of any ongoing distribution of any file sharing software ‘with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expressionor other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement’.” and In his order the judge writes that the “only solid evidence of possible
        inducement comes from reviews that were published a decade ago.” The
        more recent articles merely discuss file-sharing issues and don’t
        include any encouragement of online piracy.

        The people suing CNET/CBS will still have to prove that CNET/CBS is “faciltating copyright infringment and inducing it” which seems less likely now if the only evidence as pointed out by the Judge was of reviews decades ago.

        • nonamthanks

          Well, remember, that is the ruling of a single judge, in response to the request for a preliminary injunction. In a matter of a civil case, the level of guilt required for a judgement against isn’t the same as that of a criminal trial.

          Remember OJ Simpson – innocent in criminal court, totally 100% liable in the civil part.

        • Guest

          Although this is a primary injunction the whole actual case against CBS/CNET is a civil matter and it is still for those suing CBS/CNET to prove that CBS/CNET has committed the offence of “facilitating copyright infringement and inducement”. The ruling of this judge will be used as evidence in defence of CNET/CBS in the rest of the civil case matter against them which will now prove even harder for those suing CBS/CNET that “facilitating copyright infringement and inducement” occurred.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Well, remember, that is the ruling of a single judge, in response to the request for a preliminary injunction…”

          Still generating a precedent which another judge must then overturn.

          In the precedence-based law of the US that is something judges usually do with far more care than is the case in, say, Sweden where a precedent is not considered as more than a case bias.

          OJ was indeed convicted in a civil court. Though not after a civil judge had already written a statement to dismiss. Small things like that, nonamthanks, is why you should be careful with your postulates.

        • nonamthanks

          “Still generating a precedent which another judge must then overturn.”

          Clearly you don’t understand how legal precedents are set. There is no requirement to overturn a request for a primary injunction, except on specific appeal of this ruling for this particular case. It’s not a judgement, it’s a motion denied, and not much more.

          If you are going to talk about the legal system with such BOLD LETTER AUTHORITY at least try to have a clue.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Clearly you don’t understand how legal precedents are set. There is no requirement to overturn a request for a primary injunction…”

          You seem to bring arguments to the contrary on another thread. Remind me about the argumental logic you brought with your little diatribe on how the TPB trial could be used as a ‘precedent case’?

          It can’t.

          Now, if a judge denies a motion, then another judge first has to overturn the ruling of the first judge. In the US, that has far bigger consequences than in a nation where case law does not set precedent.

          No, a motion denied is not case law. I never claimed it was. Should I thank you for the goalpost-moving straw man?

          “If you are going to talk about the legal system with suchBOLD LETTER AUTHORITY at least try to have a clue.”

          You mean I ought to do what you do, ignore anything not written in the monthly pamphlet the copyright apparently sends out?

          No, I talk about systems – any systems at all, in general – only AFTER I’ve read up on the matter. I have this idea that an opinion is what you form AFTER reviewing FACT. The other way around – shaping FACT after your OPINIONS – doesn’t really work. That is where we conflict.

        • nonamthanks

          Wow, you are arrogant, aren’t you?

          First off, the TPB case happened in Sweden. Last time I looked, Swedish courts don’t set precedent for US courts.

          Second, denying a motion isn’t a complete judgement, it’s only a statement that X did not rise to the level required for a preliminary judgement, and not much more. That the judge happened to take the time to list out the reasons doesn’t change it’s standing in the legal system. Understanding the difference between a motion hearing and a full on judgement and ruling is pretty important.

          The rest of your post is only your opinion, and no more and no less valuable than my own. However, since you have shown that you don’t understand the basics of the law and what a motion is, it pretty much makes the rest of your opinions seem questionable.

        • Christopher Kidwell

          Which that should have been overturned. We need a ruling that says when you have been found innocent in criminal court, you are automatically deemed innocent in civil court as well.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          Not quite. The method of law employed for OJ was for one accusation in a criminal court – and for an entirely separate one in another. Nonamthanks does have one point there.

          However, note in the thread about the Pirate Party being threatened with a lawsuit, nonamthanks is equally willing to forgo the logic he employs here in order to insist that the TPB trial renders another trial against the Pirate Party a foregone conclusion. And gets very rude when you doubt that would be the case.

          This is called a double standard. One he applies to the precedent as well.

          Personally I think he has the right of it in this case, as far as the OJ case is concerned.

        • nonamthanks

          “However, note in the thread about the Pirate Party being threatened with a lawsuit, nonamthanks is equally willing to forgo the logic he employs here in order to insist that the TPB trial renders another trial against the Pirate Party a foregone conclusion”

          You really don’t understand, do you?

          Why do you make stuff up? I don’t say that any trial against the PP is a foregone conclusion, but JUST AS THIS RULING AGAINST ALKI MAKES IT HARDER TO GET THINGS DONE, IT IS NOT A COMPLETE CONCLUSION

          The PP would have to show that, even though TPB site operators have been found liable in the past, that they have X or Y or Z reasons why they think they are in the clear. Alki would have to do the same thing, saying that even through they were not able to get a primary injunction, because of X and Y and Z they should still win.

          it’s exactly the same. I don’t know why you have a hard time understanding that. Perhaps you are too busy MAKING EVERYTHING BOLD AND BIG AND LARGE FOR PEOPLE TO READ.

          Oh,is your other handle RD? You write almost exactly like another prick I have met online before.

        • Scary_Devil_Monastery

          “Why do you make stuff up? I don’t say that any trial against the PP is a foregone conclusion…”

          Oh? You simply spent four or five wordwalls trying to get the point across. Now if all you wanted to debate was semantics, then learn how to read what you yourself write.

          ” I don’t say that any trial against the PP is a foregone conclusion, but JUST AS THIS RULING AGAINST ALKI MAKES IT HARDER TO GET THINGS DONE, IT IS NOT A COMPLETE CONCLUSION”

          Your contention that a case against different individuals, against other methodology – and which lacks any of the criteria the judges in the TPB case took great pains to jot down for the verdict – should be considered “precedent” is still pure imagination.

          “The PP would have to show that, even though TPB site operators have been found liable in the past, that they have X or Y or Z reasons why they think they are in the clear”.

          No, actually Wadstedt has to prove to the court that they have a case at all. Only after that has been established can we even proceed.

          This process is called “presumed innocence” because it is always up to the plaintiff to prove, not the defendant.

          And I feel the need to bold that in the vain hope that you may grasp this rather fundamental fact of law.

          “…Alki would have to do the same thing, saying that even through they were not able to get a primary injunction, because of X and Y and Z they should still win.”

          Alki, in this case, is the plaintiff. PP are defendants. Mull that one over and see how well your comparison on who has to prove what stands. To begin with.

          Let me provide you a hint. Three words called “burden of proof”.

          “…it’s exactly the same.”

          Except, you know, for the roles being reversed?

          “Perhaps you are too busy MAKING EVERYTHING BOLD AND BIG AND LARGE FOR PEOPLE TO READ.”

          Actually, the reason i bold text for emphasis is usually because some people have such a staggering lack of reading comprehension they don’t even realize what they themselves have posted and need all the help they can get.

          Such as clueless morons who try to draw analogues between how a case must proceed while ignoring the plaintiff-defendant roles and with which one of them burden of proof resides.

          “Oh,is your other handle RD? You write almost exactly like another prick I have met online before.”

          I don’t have any other handles. This is the one I’ve used for several years now.

          However, it’s remarkable you should say it because you are the spitting image in your lack of sense to a few other pro-copyright trolls we have here. The dogma preached by the copyright sect doesn’t leave very much room for individuality, common sense, or respect for empirical fact, does it?

        • Ardvaark

          You pretty much disproved all of his points.

          Just want to add that in regards to
          “the spitting image in your lack of sense to a few other pro-copyright trolls we have here”

          His complaints about people using bold and his insults to people disproving his claims pretty much scream “bobmail”.

        • Pelham123

          “The people suing CNET/CBS will still have to prove that CNET/CBS is “faciltating copyright infringment and inducing it” which seems less likely now”

          Hmm. The way I see it, this ruling doesn’t address the old reviews so much as it says that a ban is an overreach even if CNET is found liable for the old reviews.

        • http://twitter.com/CarmenMJones1 Carmen M. Jones

          as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement’.http://www.Chooseyourjob72dollareveryhouronthelabtop.qr.net/j6IT/75G82-136150BSIiaM430

  • uTorrent.exe 256kB Full

    Hell yeah!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=676827475 Luke Solis

      for once. good news.

  • PelouzeTF

    Fucking renegade judge, making my dick sad. Just you wait; your spankings are coming.

    • Guest

      I am sure that a few judges like to bend over and receive a spanking or 2 (wink wink) from a prostitute or 2 lol

    • icec0ld

      With all due respect. To hell with your dick..

    • Guest321

      Forgot to bribe this judge eh?

    • Anon

      You tell him, Daddy! Are you going to use the big paddle with the DMCA notice printed on it, Daddy? Or are you going to use it on me first?

    • Anon

      Oh yes. The punishments will truly be immense and long. Peloser and I will enjoy. What is a torrent?

    • Boring Phil

      Surely even Steven Seagal films stopped using the word ‘renegade’ some time in the early 90s…

      • joexxx

        That is some funny stuff!

  • anonymous

    unfortunately, it is only the ‘preliminary injunction’ that has been denied. judging by the way courts are ruling in the majority of alleged copyright infringement cases now, i can see more censorship being handed down. all that is going to do is hurt one side whilst aiding the other side to keep itself locked into the dark ages instead of updating everything about it’s industry to the digital age. stupidity at it’s highest level! and it wont stop anything that is happening as far as file sharing is concerned. all these cases are going to ultimately do, is totally screw the internet. that may well be what the entertainment industries and indeed some governments want, but the overall harm inflicted on everything and everyone else will be catastrophic!!

  • GindPipnd

    Its aboput time the kangaroo courts got it right. Wow.

    GotAnon.da.bz

  • Violated0

    Good news and once again a US Judge has made a good common sense decision moving the Justice system further away from the Administration who themselves are only keen to abuse the law to attack companies who handle file sharing.

    The BT network and the various clients are of course neutral where they are just one of many protocols to transfer files. They are currently popular due to being very efficient through turning downloaders into reuploaders. You can apply neutral to many sites as well who currently get a bad rap just because infringement is popular but of course there is a vast array of lawful media too.

    Download.com should celebrate by putting BT software on their front page for a week/month along with a catchy title like “Download media quickly and for free”

  • Pingback: CNET Doesn’t Have to Ban BitTorrent Clients, Court Rules | Best Seedbox

  • http://www.facebook.com/forkingham.melle Forkingham Melle

    good

  • http://twitter.com/forbannad Kinne

    Wow! Even if its not over yet this comes as a surprise. You would’ve thought that reason had completely left the western countries justice systems.

  • Liam JH

    “This suggests that Plaintiffs’ goal goes far beyond stopping actual infringement by Defendants and extends instead to silencing public discussion of P2P technologies,” – this is the most important part of this piece.
    Finaly a judge who recognises the true motivation of the *IAAs.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ettorec Ettore Casagrande

      This. It so blatantly called the plaintiffs out, I love it.

  • Pingback: CNET Doesn’t Have to Ban BitTorrent Clients, Court Rules | The Illuminati

  • http://www.facebook.com/anex.stormrider Gaurav Saxena

    Good news ..!

  • Pingback: In the News.. | TorGuard.net Blog - Anonymous VPN Services

  • GreenPirate

    It’s sad that this ruling is a shock to people. You can’t be held responsible for what a user does with legal software from your server. If we start doing that, then you are all responsible for everything we pirate.

    • n_mailer

      It’s not a shock … although it is a shock that the case was brought. Shows the plaintiffs’ true colors. Their goal isn’t to fight “piracy,” it’s to squelch legitimate competition and silence speech that doesn’t compensate them. The Americans involved should have their citizenships revoked.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ettorec Ettore Casagrande

      … also, everyone becomes liable for every piece of software capable of doing anything illegal. This would immediately make the hosting of anything related to programming illegal … so, anything that can edit a text file. Also, anything related to modifying audio or video, or communicating in any way (that software could be used to tell someone in Oklahoma to kill someone else). Really, outside of games with no networking capability to send messages to one another, I’d say basically anything can be used for illegal purposes.

      Edit: Well, I suppose anything that calculates something could be legal too … maybe,

  • bobmail

    Not fair not fair. This judge should be raped up the bum hole until he realises that the only fair judgement in a copyright case is hanging for the defendants!

    • bobmail

      Hey stop using my name to troll

      • Bobmail Imposter

        Stop impersonating me you trolls.

      • Bobmail

        Hey stop using my name to troll

  • Who

    WOW a California judge said this?

    • joexxx

      He’ll probably get disbarred by RIAA and MPAA.

  • Guest

    Let’s ban highways because they are used by robbers!

    • n_mailer

      Let’s ban highways because people drive cars they borrowed from each other without the manufacturers’ permission!

      • Scary_Devil_Monastery

        Let’s ban bus manufacturers because some guy who robbed the bank had a transit token in his pocket.

        Makes as much sense as the CBS case. I dunno tho…this is only the umpteenth time there has been an attempt made to ban companies from providing dual-use software. It usually doesn’t do much good, so why even keep trying?

        Damn, I forgot – not in the interests of the rightsholders, no. But certainly it’s interesting for lawyers to encourage more lawsuits…

    • ScrewEwe2

      Highways can be used to acquire drugs that can put you in a high way.

  • Pelham123

    “Inducement of infringement requires more than just knowledge of actual or potential infringement.”

    Let freedom ring.

    I’ll be copy and pasting the judge’s wise words into many discussions about so-called “infringing links.”

    As for the plaintiffs – we see what you did there. You used a legitimate complaint to try to overturn others’ free speech rights in your favor. You failed. Again.

  • Ignas

    For this reason, it is important to watch videos on YouTube about how things work, or else it leads to such nonsense.
    They should have requested for Internet to be taken down in whole USA, lol.

  • xenu

    Oh noez! What would I ever do if CNET stopped offering Bit Torrent clients? Oh wait, I don’t need software from CNET.

    (sudo apt-get install transmission)

    I mean really, what on earth do they think this could accomplish? How many dollars are they pissing down the drain on this lawsuit? Do they really think winning would affect piracy even slightly?

    • guess

      Well, it is simply a scare tactic. A somewhat pitiful attempt at one. I am just glad that THIS is what they are spending their money on…:D

  • Boring Phil

    In other news: Scissor Retailers Cleared Of Attempted Murder

    • Scary_Devil_Monastery

      …Alleged attempted murder. Not to forget. One where no one can prove there is a victim.

  • Pingback: CNET Doesn’t Have to Ban BitTorrent Clients, Court Rules - Soicalpost

  • Pingback: Links 22/2/2013: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, Dice Linux Jobs Survey | Techrights

  • jabin

    The musicians are just doug e fresh (scientologist) and a bunch of bitter no name hiphop artists lol

  • Pingback: DJMcloud Podcast 75 – Not claiming to be without the power | DJMcloud

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • 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...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

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.