If fans can’t get a show through legal channels they often turn to pirated alternatives.

So when Time Warner Cable dropped CBS last Friday after the companies failed to reach a broadcasting agreement, there was a good chance that many of the blacked-out subscribers would turn to file-sharing networks to get their fix.

Data gathered by TorrentFreak shows that this is indeed the case for the popular show “Under The Dome.”

To find out whether download rates in the affected markets increased, we monitored U.S. BitTorrent downloads of last week’s episode as well as the one that aired this Monday following the blackout.

The data from these two samples show that in Los Angeles, New York City, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Pittsburgh, relatively more people downloaded the latest episode, an indication that customers are turning to unauthorized channels to get the show.

With hundreds of thousands of downloads Under The Dome is one of the most pirated TV-shows at the moment. Of all sampled downloaders in the U.S. 10.9% came from the blackout regions for last week’s episode, and this increased to 14.6% for Monday’s episode, a 34% increase.

In New York City, one of the largest affected markets, the relative piracy rate more than doubled from 1.3% of all U.S. downloads last week to 3% for the episode that aired after the blackout.

Worldwide, the latest Under The Dome episode was downloaded slightly more than previous episodes. This means that the relative increase in piracy rates also resulted in more downloads. More tracking is required to show a long-term effect, and whether the results are the same for other CBS shows.

While one should always be careful of drawing strong conclusions from city-based data, especially when we don’t know how many downloaders are Time Warner Cable subscribers, these initial results do suggest that the blackout resulted in a local piracy surge.

At the same time that piracy spiked, the official ratings took a large hit. On Monday, Under The Dome reached its season low ranking with only 10.49 million viewers compared to 11.41 million the week before.

Meanwhile, Time Warner and CBS are still unable to reach an agreement. Yesterday Time Warner’s Chief Executive Glenn Britt offered to include CBS as an “a la carte” option for its subscribers but CBS dismissed the proposal as “a sham.”

As long as this standoff continues it’s expected that more and more TV fans will turn to unauthorized channels to watch their favorite shows, with the risk that some may never come back.

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

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.

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

The artists claim 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 the original complaint the artists pointed out several examples where CNET editors posted videos and screenshots of infringing materials.

After a judge ruled last summer that inducement of copyright infringement could indeed be considered due to Download.com also distributing the software they reviewed, the artists moved forward. Last November they asked the court to issue a sweeping injunction, one that would ban all BitTorrent client downloads from the popular software download portal Download.com.

Last month CBS and CNET responded to the proposed preliminary injunction, asking the court to deny the plaintiff’s request. The companies used a wide variety of arguments to back up their motion, and noted that the artists can’t prove that software distributed by Download.com can be traced back to specific infringements.

However, in a new filing the artists wave these arguments away. The plaintiffs argue that direct infringement doesn’t have to be proven according to the established file-sharing doctrine including the Grokster and LimeWire cases.

“Because CBSI distributed several torrent software programs and encouraged infringement on torrent networks, CBSI is liable for all infringement on the torrent network,” the plaintiffs write.

“The fact that other entities such as the torrent publisher or a torrent website like the Pirate Bay might be jointly and severally liable for this infringement does not affect CBSI’s inducement.”

The artists further contend CBS and CNET’s argument that BitTorrent is also used to distribute legal content. They note that the legal use of BitTorrent is irrelevant and are confident that they can prove that CBS and CNET intended to induce infringement.

Among other things, the artists point to a video tutorial where CNET editors show how Nine Inch Nail’s complete discography can be downloaded.

“The video demonstrates how to use uTorrent to find a torrent file capable of downloading all of Nine Inch Nails musical catalog in one fell swoop. Significant portions of Nine Inch Nails discography, of course, are protected by copyright,” they write.

The artists further refute the argument that the creators of the software are ultimately responsible for potential infringements.

“CBSI does not deny having commercial relationships with peer-to-peer software publishers or profiting in some way from its distribution of P2P software. CBSI’s suggestion that only the creator of P2P software is liable for inducement completely ignores Grokster.”

“Following CBSI’s logic, a third-party entity like CBSI could freely promote copyright infringement while avoiding all liability simply because its users linked to another website to obtain the software. That is not the law,” the filing reads.

A loss for CBS and CNET doesn’t automatically mean that file-sharing may be help liable for infringements. Alki David told TorrentFreak previously that software makers have little to fear as long as they don’t promote copyright infringement.

“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,” David told us.

Having heard both sides of the argument, the District Court now has to decide whether or not CNET will be banned from distributing BitTorrent software and other file-sharing clients.

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

The artists claimed that CNET profits 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.

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.

This prompted Alki David and the artists to move forward and last November they asked the court to issue a sweeping injunction, one that would ban all BitTorrent client downloads from the popular software download portal Download.com.

Late last week CBS and CNET responded to the proposed preliminary injunction, asking the court to deny the plaintiff’s request. The companies use a wide variety of arguments to back up their motion, and among other things they emphasize the legal use of BitTorrent clients.

“BitTorrent is not limited to any particular file type This gives it many significant non-infringing uses—above and beyond the artists who have chosen to release works for free distribution,” they write in their motion.

“Among the many non-profit organizations that use BitTorrent for the distribution of educational content, the TED Conferences make their talks available using BitTorrent, enabling distribution around the world at a low cost and to audiences where censorship restrictions might otherwise hinder dissemination.”

CBS and CNET also bring in several expert witnesses to back up these claims including Glenn Reinman, Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the University of California Los Angeles.

Reinman mentions that one of the main benefits of BitTorrent is that it enables freedom of information in regimes where the Internet is censored.

“BitTorrent Technology is a valuable tool to combat censorship by repressive regimes. Repressive countries are able to block access to specific Web sites using firewalls and other technologies. Where information is hosted on a single Web site or server it can be effectively blocked by governments,” he writes in his declaration.

The Professor further sums up the many other legitimate uses of BitTorrent. His list includes software such as Apache, Linux and OpenOffice, large datasets that are shared by researchers, game patches, music and video.

Legal uses aside, CBS and CNET also believe that the basic requirements for proving inducement are absent in this case.

Addressing the copyright infringement claims, CBS and CNET argue that the artists give no solid evidence that the work they own are at stake, or that any direct infringements took place. They further inform the court that they are not hosting any BitTorrent clients, but merely link to it.

It is now up to the judge to decide in whose favor the scale tips and whether CBS and CNET should still be allowed to link to BitTorrent clients and other file-sharing software.

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.

Apparently the take-down team at the major US television network CBS have taken drastic measures to take infringing videos offline, including a video on the CBS website.

WTF? … check.

FAIL? … check.

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

Jeff Braverman, one of the most loyal fans, even went as far as dumping 5,000 pounds of nuts at the CBS offices in New York. CBS’s Vice President of Communications, Chris Ender said that the Jericho protests were the biggest they’d ever seen: “It’s been an impressive display of passion from a loyal audience. You have to tip your hat to their ability to get attention and make some noise.”

Initially CBS, who donated the nuts to charities, wasn’t planning on reviving the show, but after more fans went nuts they eventually did. The official premiere date of the second season was set for February 12, 2008, but today, several weeks before the planned return, the first three episodes of season 2 (ripped from a promotional DVDscreener) are already uploaded to several BitTorrent sites. Perhaps the recent leaks are a gift to the dedicated fans of the show?

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that TV-shows were leaked on purpose. Last fall an unusually large number of pre-air TV shows appeared on BitTorrent sites, in some cases several months before their scheduled air dates. Many of those leaks appear to be inside jobs, and TV executives are starting to realize that leaking shows to BitTorrent can help promote them.

Whether Jericho was leaked on purpose remains unclear, but I guess the thousands of fans who already downloaded the show today don’t really care where it came from.

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