The lawsuit claims that CNET’s Download.com distributed file-sharing software including uTorrent and LimeWire after they “shameless promoted” the tools for infringing uses. This week the coalition – Sugar Hill Music, et al – filed a motion for preliminary injunction that if granted would stop Download.com from continuing to distribute BitTorrent software.

But despite this aggressive action that could potentially put an end to Download.com’s streak of 65 million BitTorrent client downloads to its customers, Alki David says that he is actually grateful for file-sharing services.

Speaking with TorrentFreak the FilmOn owner said that he uses locker services such as YouSendIt for transferring edits and reviewing shows his company is working on. P2P networks, he says, also have their place.

“There is a future still for effective load balanced distribution using P2P networks without a doubt,” he explains. “I also think there is a future for live distribution of video on P2P networks.”

But of course, David’s lawsuit against Download.com has the potential to hurt a service that has done much to spread file-sharing software around the world, which in turn has assisted with its growth and development. Might a win over CNET and Download.com have a negative overall effect for P2P technologies?

“Other sites will pop up and good luck to them. The Internet is a small place and easy to navigate. However, Viacom’s CNET and its partner sites are on the one hand perpetuating file-sharing for their own gain whilst throwing the entertainment, software and literary world under the bus,” David explains.

“Viacom is the same company that lobbied for SOPA and arrests, sues and fines kids like Joel Tenenbaum hundreds of thousand of dollars for downloading a handful of songs. The same people who want to have Richard O’Dwyer extradited from the UK for doing something that in the UK is not illegal!

“Viacom is the same company that paid millions of dollars to companies like Media Defender and Artists Direct to monitor and police file-sharing whilst these companies profited from porn sites being exposed to young kids looking for other types of content,” David adds.

One thing we wanted clear up with David was a statement in this week’s motion that predicted that torrent client creators might “soon” be held secondarily liable for infringement. We asked, could that really happen as long as torrent clients aren’t promoted for infringing uses?

“I do NOT think that torrent makers should be held liable.They can distribute but not promote the illegal use of their software. Herein lies the problem. You cannot sell guns and tell people the best way to use them to kill people,” says David.

“This is the fundamental truth the judge realized. That there is not freedom of speech when you coerce people to act illegally and then help them to do so.” (see earlier ruling)

But while the battle against CBS continues, so do millions of unauthorized BitTorrent downloads, whether Download.com supplied the software or not. What does David think about, for example, The Pirate Bay, a site that he says operates with a “socio economic socio political agenda” ?

“Fine… do your thing bro. But don’t be like CNET which is to vacillate between the camps like a hooker selling herself and the entertainment world to the highest bidder. That is lies and deceit. A company as powerful as Viacom needs to be checked otherwise we really start to live the Orwellian nightmare,” David says.

So considering the huge popularity of sites such as The Pirate Bay, how can Big Media move forward in the digital age viewed through the prism of massive online file-sharing?

“I believe that music, movies and software et al is going to continue fragmenting and more people will get a shot at making entertainment for smaller margins and greater choice. I mean it’s already happened really,” David explains.

“There will be the exception of the big tentpole extravaganza but that is a highly specialized and very expensive game. There are models out there today… the free TV model…. the free movie model…. subsidized by sponsors and advertisers.”

And BitTorrent?

“Torrents are a great method of distribution,” David says, while reminding us again that CBS need to pay for what he describes as their “hypocrisy.”

Finally, it seems appropriate that when speaking to a billionaire one should ask him a billion-dollar-question. So, given a magic wand, how would David solve the piracy dilemma – try to crush torrent sites like The Pirate Bay, or take a different approach?

“I would send the ISP of the websites an invoice for a small fee (say 5 dollars) for each torrent download to give to the rights holders. The ISP would have to collect from the customer or pay it themselves,” David concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

David, and a coalition of supportive recording artists, sued the companies for their role in distributing file-sharing software including uTorrent and LimeWire.

Their claim was that CNET had profited from the distribution of file-sharing software that could be used to download infringing material, and had also published software reviews on Download.com that included references to illegal downloads from the likes of Madonna, Lady GaGa and Rihanna.

In July this year CBS and CNET responded that the reviews were merely opinions and that being held liable for inducing infringement would amount to a violation of their right to free speech under the First Amendment.

A judge disagreed, ruling that inducement could be considered since Download.com also distributed the software they reviewed.

While there can be little doubt that LimeWire ended up with a serious black mark after it was shut down by the New York District Court in 2010, BitTorrent client creators and distributors have kept somewhat of a clean sheet. If Alki David gets his way, all that will soon change.

In a new filing in the case (thanks Techdirt), David and his artist coalition launch an attack on BitTorrent clients in general in the hope that a judge will grant an injunction to ban their distribution through Download.com.

The motion for preliminary injunction states that in the wake of the LimeWire shutdown, CBS and CNET “enthusiastically embraced” BitTorrent and distributed more than 65 million torrent clients such as uTorrent. The companies “shamelessly promoted” their use for infringing purposes, despite being aware that those clients were “used overwhelmingly” to infringe copyright, the plaintiffs argue.

CNET’s news reporting is also sucked into the lawsuit. One cited instance involves an article they published in May called “Download This Mr. Jones”, which was about the band Counting Crows distributing their music for free on BitTorrent. CNET included a link for people to download uTorrent to get the music, but why this should be a problem is far from clear.

Another cites CNET’s version of a TorrentFreak story that listed infringements at US universities. The publishing of this article confirms that CNET knows that infringement can happen on BitTorrent, David and the artists argue.

The plaintiffs go on to predict that torrent client makers (described in the filing as a “clear and present danger”) will soon be found secondarily liable for infringement just as LimeWire was before them. On that basis (and despite the software not being under threat in any court) the filing goes on to accuse CBS and CNET of being “intentionally lazy and under-reactive” in continuing to distribute torrent software.

The plaintiffs (referred to as Sugar Hill Music, et al) go on to claim that this distribution is causing infringement of their music “on a massive scale” and that unless it is stopped they will be caused irreparable harm.

An injunction forcing CBS to stop the distribution of uTorrent, Vuze, FrostWire plus any and all BitTorrent-enabled software is required as soon possible, they argue. A hearing is planned for February 2013.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

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.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

In July the lawsuit was pulled, but David promised to come back later in the year with an even bigger case. That day has now arrived.

Together with the “Justice for Artists Coalition” which includes Dough E Fresh, H-Town, Slick Rick and Ron Brows, David has filed a new lawsuit at a federal court in Los Angeles. In common with their previous case, the coalition claims that CBS and CNET profited heavily from distributing and popularizing file-sharing software such as LimeWire.

“CBS Interactive has quietly made billions by inducing the public to break the law, by providing them the file-sharing software and step-by-step guides, on exactly how to do it. No one has held Defendant accountable for this. Until now,” the complaint reads.

The artists point out that Download.com was one of the main distributors of LimeWire, and that CBS-owned sites promoted and profited from encouraging people to infringe copyrights.

“Defendants have been the main distributer of several of the most prominent P2P software platforms. Defendants promoted these P2P systems in order to directly profit from wide-scale copyright infringement. For example, Internet users downloaded more then [sic] 220 million copies from Defendants’ website, Download.com,” it adds.

Speaking with TorrentFreak, Alki David explains that the coalition wants to hold the bosses at CBS accountable for their alleged criminal behavior.

“The objective is to get CBS principals up on criminal charges for soliciting such widespread theft. These people have not joined the lawsuit because it’s a popularity contest and not because they are driven by greed or ignorance. Because their lives have been hammered by widespread piracy,” David told us.

“The CBS agenda is to control the Internet as an outlet for content distribution by any means possible. The future for creative and independent innovation is bleak if this is allowed to continue. The art in media enriches us all being exposed to the choices of a few affect all our lives,” he added.

The group of artists currently involved in the class action lawsuit is expected to expand in the coming weeks and months. According to Alki David there’s no shortage of interest.

“We have only scratched the surface. Many more rights-holders are coming forward representing tens of thousands of more intellectual properties but the verification process for identifying ownership is long and detailed, so we will keep on adding as we go,” David commented.

The allegations in the complaint lead the plaintiffs to conclude that CBS and CNET are guilty of inducing copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. In addition to receiving compensation they want the defendants to stop promoting P2P software altogether.

Do they have a chance? Time will tell.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.