AfterDawn: News

CNET sued for distributing LimeWire

CNET has been sued this week for distributing 220 million copies of LimeWire over the years.

The record labels say CNET parent CBS Interactive profited from the free downloads, which accounted for 95 percent of all LimeWire downloads since 2008.



Reads the complaint:

The CBS defendants received massive amounts of revenue from P2P provders on a ‘pay per download’ basis and also from advertising revenues generated by advertisements placed on the download screen for P2P software.

The suit also claims CBS was "well aware" of LimeWire's infamy as an "infringement tool" yet continued to offer the client and "videos, articles and other media that instructed how to use P2P software to locate pirated copies of copyrighted works and remove electronic protections placed on digital music files."

LimeWire was shut down last year and had 50 million active users at its peak.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 5 May 2011 22:31

• Previous article

• Netflix call center worker fired for stealing credit card numbers

• Next article

• Facebook interested in buying Skype?

• 27 comments

• Deadrum33

  They should be sued because Limewire was filled with malware and viruses, not audio and video.
  

  
  
  http://www.myspace.com/livingdeadband

  5.5.2011 22:45 #1

• scorpNZ

  This oughta be interesting CNet has a massive budget let the fight begin,with any luck they'll knock the RIAA out with the first punch.
  

  5.5.2011 23:31 #2

• KSib

  I guess anyone hosting p2p software should be prosecuted then... =/
  

  5.5.2011 23:54 #3

• KillerBug

  No, anyone distributing audio or visual entertainment that is not completely free should be prosecuted...if no one can buy it, then no one can pirate it. You have to stop this problem at the source...there is no other way. If a music company does not like the fact that a certain website is making money from advertising while I use the site to listen to music, then that music company should steal the business model and do it better. It is well within the reach of these companies to compete directly with the piracy channels, not by scaring and suing people, but by actually competing...offering a high quality product with a fair number of ads. Just for an example, what if Warner Brothers pulled all their instant streaming stuff from netflix and then put every single thing they own online, on a website with lots of ad space? I bet they would make more there than they do on BluRay sales.
  

  
  

  6.5.2011 01:13 #4

• hglez86

  Quote: videos, articles and other media that instructed how to use P2P software to locate pirated copies of copyrighted works and remove electronic protections placed on digital music files If I understand correctly, specially the part that says:
  
  Quote:and remove electronic protections placed on digital music files then they are about to start suing many many more sites... because there are plenty of sites that offer tutorials about how to remove protection and that sort of stuff... see where I'm going here? I would hate it if they make it, because from what I understand, many trials are fought based on precedence formed in other trials, and if they do with these one set a base for law suits against making tutorials to use X software which removes protection, the outcome will be bloody...
  

  X_x

  6.5.2011 02:22 #5

• xboxdvl2

  Originally posted by KSib: I guess anyone hosting p2p software should be prosecuted then... =/ if the riaa has there way.all sites hosting p2p will be prosecuted.
  

  married to my car and computer.both of them have problems.

  6.5.2011 04:05 #6

• robertmro

  CNET used to be a good thing but since CBS bought them it has turned into monster.
  All the discussions a dominated by a small group of IT people who have a too much time on their hands and have turned it into their personal "FaceBook".
  CBS has lowered the quality of the articles. They use titles that bate readers to increase hits and feature fake experts that don't know their ass from their elbow.
  It's all about bottom line now.
  Don't trust them for one minute.
  
  A former CNET subscriber..........
  

  6.5.2011 08:32 #7

• Mez

  Originally posted by KillerBug: No, anyone distributing audio or visual entertainment that is not completely free should be prosecuted...if no one can buy it, then no one can pirate it. You have to stop this problem at the source...there is no other way. If a music company does not like the fact that a certain website is making money from advertising while I use the site to listen to music, then that music company should steal the business model and do it better. It is well within the reach of these companies to compete directly with the piracy channels, not by scaring and suing people, but by actually competing...offering a high quality product with a fair number of ads. Just for an example, what if Warner Brothers pulled all their instant streaming stuff from netflix and then put every single thing they own online, on a website with lots of ad space? I bet they would make more there than they do on BluRay sales. Too little much imagination too much greed. Pre 1980 music could be sold for 10/$ becaus e the copy rights were a fixed rate and LPs were sold for less than $5. They want to rate the rates because they don't make enough.
  
  It is not anyone's fault that software a moron can use has so much risk. That is a banaza for any hacker. They can steal all their info then use 80% of their band width and no ones the wiser. My brother inlaw is that stupid. He had so little band width they copuldn't do anything. I offered to check out his computer and he said no. He couldn't have any problems like that for no good reason other than he is a moron. He is a successful archetect so he isn't a total moron but he is a comnputer moron.

  6.5.2011 09:10 #8

• editmon

  Originally posted by KillerBug: No, anyone distributing audio or visual entertainment that is not completely free should be prosecuted...if no one can buy it, then no one can pirate it. You have to stop this problem at the source...there is no other way. If a music company does not like the fact that a certain website is making money from advertising while I use the site to listen to music, then that music company should steal the business model and do it better. It is well within the reach of these companies to compete directly with the piracy channels, not by scaring and suing people, but by actually competing...offering a high quality product with a fair number of ads. Just for an example, what if Warner Brothers pulled all their instant streaming stuff from netflix and then put every single thing they own online, on a website with lots of ad space? I bet they would make more there than they do on BluRay sales. It's good argument but a bit of a stretch. What you are proposing would require intelligence and a marketing plan.
  We are talking about the RIAA and Labels. Need I say more?

  6.5.2011 11:52 #9

• Mez

  Originally posted by editmon: Originally posted by KillerBug: No, anyone distributing audio or visual entertainment that is not completely free should be prosecuted...if no one can buy it, then no one can pirate it. You have to stop this problem at the source...there is no other way. If a music company does not like the fact that a certain website is making money from advertising while I use the site to listen to music, then that music company should steal the business model and do it better. It is well within the reach of these companies to compete directly with the piracy channels, not by scaring and suing people, but by actually competing...offering a high quality product with a fair number of ads. Just for an example, what if Warner Brothers pulled all their instant streaming stuff from netflix and then put every single thing they own online, on a website with lots of ad space? I bet they would make more there than they do on BluRay sales. It's good argument but a bit of a stretch. What you are proposing would require intelligence and a marketing plan.
  We are talking about the RIAA and Labels. Need I say more? Oh they have a plan just no intelligence. Their plan came from a 'pipe dream'.

  6.5.2011 12:06 #10

• editmon

  Originally posted by Mez: Originally posted by editmon: Originally posted by KillerBug: No, anyone distributing audio or visual entertainment that is not completely free should be prosecuted...if no one can buy it, then no one can pirate it. You have to stop this problem at the source...there is no other way. If a music company does not like the fact that a certain website is making money from advertising while I use the site to listen to music, then that music company should steal the business model and do it better. It is well within the reach of these companies to compete directly with the piracy channels, not by scaring and suing people, but by actually competing...offering a high quality product with a fair number of ads. Just for an example, what if Warner Brothers pulled all their instant streaming stuff from netflix and then put every single thing they own online, on a website with lots of ad space? I bet they would make more there than they do on BluRay sales. It's good argument but a bit of a stretch. What you are proposing would require intelligence and a marketing plan.
  We are talking about the RIAA and Labels. Need I say more? Oh they have a plan just no intelligence. Their plan came from a 'pipe dream'. ;)

  6.5.2011 12:12 #11

• Dmite30

  Originally posted by Deadrum33: They should be sued because Limewire was filled with malware and viruses, not audio and video. It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. i dont even know y people are still being sued most bands and singers could care less (besides Metallica) if people download there music , bc they make most of there money at concerts.
  

  ##Im here now. Now lets get the Party Going##

  6.5.2011 14:37 #12

• Mez

  Originally posted by Dmite30: Originally posted by Deadrum33: They should be sued because Limewire was filled with malware and viruses, not audio and video. It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. i dont even know y people are still being sued most bands and singers could care less (besides Metallica) if people download there music , bc they make most of there money at concerts. The artists don't own their own music rights. They sell it to blood suckers. They do have some control. Some blood sucker sued a bar that had a band that played some Springsteen music. Bruce was able to yank their chain but usually the blood suckers are left to such what ever they can.
  
  As far as LW... That would be the same as suing TV manufactors because of a show that was aired on TV. Persons have tried to sue gun manufactorers so anything is possible.

  6.5.2011 15:37 #13

• Dmite30

  Originally posted by Mez: Originally posted by Dmite30: Originally posted by Deadrum33: They should be sued because Limewire was filled with malware and viruses, not audio and video. It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. i dont even know y people are still being sued most bands and singers could care less (besides Metallica) if people download there music , bc they make most of there money at concerts. The artists don't own their own music rights. They sell it to blood suckers. They do have some control. Some blood sucker sued a bar that had a band that played some Springsteen music. Bruce was able to yank their chain but usually the blood suckers are left to such what ever they can.
  
  As far as LW... That would be the same as suing TV manufactors because of a show that was aired on TV. Persons have tried to sue gun manufactorers so anything is possible. im aware of that but im saying i have heard many bands tell u to download there music illegally. I fit was up to them they wouldnt sue. and i agree with u the blood suckers just wont money they dont care bout the bands themselves they just care bout him/her selves
  

  ##Im here now. Now lets get the Party Going##

  6.5.2011 15:43 #14

• Deadrum33

  Originally posted by Dmite30: It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. In my eyes, the only thing Limewire was good for was a virus delivery system and whoever ran it should be held just as accountable as the person who uploaded the virus. if you knowingly run a whorehouse, you can get in trouble too even if you yourself never turn a trick. Limewire enabled all this crap to flourish therefore are also held responsible.
  

  
  
  http://www.myspace.com/livingdeadband

  6.5.2011 15:53 #15

• toked

  GET YOUR HANDS OF CNET! NERD RAAAGEEE
  

  6.5.2011 17:47 #16

• XENON

  riaa should be sued for allowing the distribution of such sh!*ty music like what comes from the empty head of Miley Cyrus!!
  

  The Problem With The Genepool Is That There Are No Lifeguards! ;-)

  6.5.2011 20:21 #17

• bluedogs

  As well as Rebecca Black. Who in their right mind would pirate it or defend it.
  
  Go get 'em CNET. Now you actualy have something to do now.

  6.5.2011 21:11 #18

• xboxdvl2

  Originally posted by Deadrum33: Originally posted by Dmite30: It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. In my eyes, the only thing Limewire was good for was a virus delivery system and whoever ran it should be held just as accountable as the person who uploaded the virus. if you knowingly run a whorehouse, you can get in trouble too even if you yourself never turn a trick. Limewire enabled all this crap to flourish therefore are also held responsible. if you own a rental property and you rent it to someone and they pay the rent on time.they could be using it as a brothel.It wouldnt be your fault unless you knowingly let them use it for that purpose.limewire was made so people coulds share files off each othes computer.the users abused it by uploading virus,spyware ridden files.
  

  married to my car and computer.both of them have problems.

  6.5.2011 23:35 #19

• Dmite30

  Originally posted by xboxdvl2: Originally posted by Deadrum33: Originally posted by Dmite30: It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. In my eyes, the only thing Limewire was good for was a virus delivery system and whoever ran it should be held just as accountable as the person who uploaded the virus. if you knowingly run a whorehouse, you can get in trouble too even if you yourself never turn a trick. Limewire enabled all this crap to flourish therefore are also held responsible. if you own a rental property and you rent it to someone and they pay the rent on time.they could be using it as a brothel.It wouldnt be your fault unless you knowingly let them use it for that purpose.limewire was made so people coulds share files off each othes computer.the users abused it by uploading virus,spyware ridden files. THANK YOU ..haha i try to say something around that but i have a bad way of trying to explain myself :D
  

  ##Im here now. Now lets get the Party Going##

  6.5.2011 23:38 #20

• seegee

  First sony then the riaa. If they both go down, it will be a better world.
  

  7.5.2011 01:56 #21

• pmshah

  As an analogy every knife manufacturer should be sued for stabbing deaths and so should all the gun manufacturers.
  
  For any thing and every thing people will find some way of misusing a tool. The tool manufacturer is not responsible.
  
  How about prosecuting the electricity company if someone purposely electrocutes another person to death.

  7.5.2011 08:46 #22

• phobet

  I remember when the riaa was a respectable organization, seemingly run by engineers that embraced technology, and practiced innovation as a business model. Now it seems it has changed its model to stifle innovation, shun new technology, and invent new ways to drag people into court. Ei: run by lawyers. It also seems to me, if they don't join the technology revolution, the revolution will surpass them, and in the process, make them irrelevant.

  8.5.2011 22:13 #23

• Mez

  Originally posted by phobet: I remember when the riaa was a respectable organization, seemingly run by engineers that embraced technology, and practiced innovation as a business model. Now it seems it has changed its model to stifle innovation, shun new technology, and invent new ways to drag people into court. Ei: run by lawyers. It also seems to me, if they don't join the technology revolution, the revolution will surpass them, and in the process, make them irrelevant. That is when they were fairly 'new' and they were growing and creating, only the smartest and best survived. What is left are carrion eaters, best at back stabbing and squeezing blood out of a stone. They have none of the attributes of their predecessors.

  9.5.2011 09:05 #24

• Deadrum33

  Originally posted by Dmite30: It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. Originally posted by xboxdvl2: limewire was made so people coulds share files off each othes computer. the users abused it by uploading virus,spyware ridden files. In the first month of the programs creation, or the first 6 months, i would agree. But Limewire kept my repair business running for years. If you know it was a pit of malware, and i know it, don't you think the creators would know it? If they cared, and it wasnt being used for their original intent they'd say say "Oh look what happened, look what we did lets fix it" I mean there are a number of websites you can upload a file and they tell you if its dirty or not. If LW cared, they could make that part of the up/download process. They dont care. They make money off ads and tell all those with viruses to suck it.
  

  
  
  http://www.myspace.com/livingdeadband

  9.5.2011 12:08 #25

• phobet

  Originally posted by Deadrum33: Originally posted by Dmite30: It wasnt limewire filled with virus it was the people that u downloaded it from.. In my eyes, the only thing Limewire was good for was a virus delivery system and whoever ran it should be held just as accountable as the person who uploaded the virus. if you knowingly run a whorehouse, you can get in trouble too even if you yourself never turn a trick. Limewire enabled all this crap to flourish therefore are also held responsible. I imagine they were going for "common carrier" status. Ei: They are not responsible for the data that traverses their network. Telco has it, and ISPs have it, in some fashion. We definately don't want them to lose that status. If this were to happen, then the cost of Internet bandwidth would increase, as the providers would have to invest in new network monitoring equipment and staffing. All this to protect the outdated business model of the riaa.
  
  As far as viruses go, again you can't blame Limewire. The people that write and monitize malware will leverage any infection vector they can. It's up to the end user to take an active role in the protection of their computer asset. That includes knowing what you're downloading, and where you're downloading it from.

  9.5.2011 18:45 #26

• pmshah

  Why blame Limewire as malware/virus delivery system? Blame the end user for being stupid. That is one reason why I depend on torrent downloads. I am absolutely assured that the file I am getting is absolutely identical to the original from the creator. Hashcheck system makes sure of this.
  
  Now if you get a torrent itself from a dubious source it is a different story. If you get them from any verified source you won't have any problems.
  
  Today due to cost of bandwidth majority of the Linux distros are made available only through torrent for the free / non-donating downloaders. I have NEVER had problems with this system EVER !

  9.5.2011 23:10 #27