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.

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.

“The CBS Defendants have been the main distributor of LimeWire software and have promoted this and other P2P systems in order to directly profit from wide-scale copyright infringement. Internet users have downloaded more then [sic] 220 million copies from Defendants’ website, found at Download.com, since 2008,” the original complaint read.

The complaint further noted that Download.com is still promoting various other P2P-applications which the majority of people use to infringe copyrights. By promoting this software in return for money and by showing users how to download, the CBS defendants are willingly contributing to copyright infringement, the plaintiffs claimed.

FilmOn’s Alki David, the driving force behind the suit who himself was sued by CBS Interactive for copyright infringement, seemed determined to put up a fight. Nonetheless, the suing parties decided to voluntarily dismiss the case yesterday, as Wired reports.

On the surface this appears to be good news for CNET and the other defendants, but the opposite is true. As it turns out many copyright holders have approached Alki David with a request to be added to the lawsuit.

“Since the time of the filing of the original Complaint by plaintiffs in this case, numerous artists and other copyright owners have approached plaintiff Alki David about potentially joining this lawsuit as plaintiffs,” the plaintiff’s attorney’s write to the District Court judge.

“As a result, the current plaintiffs intend to amend and are in the process of working to amend this suit to add further plaintiffs and additional copyrighted works,” the notice adds.

Since it takes quite a bit of time to add the new parties and potentially thousands of copyrighted works to the complaint, the plaintiffs decided to dismiss the current case for now. They expect to file a broader complaint on behalf of many more copyright holders in the near future.

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

“The CBS Defendants have been the main distributor of LimeWire software and have promoted this and other P2P systems in order to directly profit from wide-scale copyright infringement. Internet users have downloaded more then [sic] 220 million copies from Defendants’ website, found at Download.com, since 2008,” the complaint reads.

As the case moves on some interesting arguments are appearing on the table. One of the most controversial items overlooked thus far concerns current Warner Music director and CNET co-founder Shelby Bonnie. Believe it or not, Bonnie served on the board of directors at Warner Music and was also the CEO of CNET, all at the time LimeWire was being sued.

As The Music Void points out, Bonnie was invited to join the Warner Music board in November 2005, just 4 months after the landmark Grokster ruling. At that time Bonnie was still CNET’s CEO, a position he gave up during the fall of 2006. After that, he continued to serve on CNET’s board of directors until March 2007.

Since it’s no secret that CNET made a healthy profit from the millions of LimeWire clients that were downloaded from its site every month, this could lead to the awkward conclusion that a prominent Warner Music director profited from piracy.

While it should be noted that LimeWire hadn’t been convicted of doing anything illegal at the time, it is quite unusual that the CEO of LimeWire’s main distribution platform was simultaneously a director of one of the record labels going after LimeWire in court (and launching numerous individual file-sharers).

It would definitely be interesting to hear the thoughts of the former CNET CEO on the issue, should he be called as a witness. Perhaps Bonnie opted to keep the healthy revenue stream alive until the court banned it, despite the massive losses Warner Music was claiming?

Whatever the case, the above must have been the topic of some heated discussions at the Warner Music board of directors. After all, it wouldn’t really be far-fetched to compare it to a Universal Pictures director who also serves on the board of The Pirate Bay’s hosting company.

Indeed, that would be quite unbelievable.

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