Can Download Sites Be Held Responsible for the Software They List?

[app103]

There is a group of rappers that think they should, suing CNET for having listed Limewire on downloads.com, along with review and tutorial content on how to use it.

CBS Interactive, CNET and Lime Wire have been named as defendants in a copyright infringement complaint filed this past Tuesday by a group of  fifteen people, a vast majority of whom are rappers. While Lime Wire is no stranger to copyright infringement claims, the current lawsuit must have certainly come as a surprise to the other defendants, who are being accused of distributing and profiting from “software applications used to infringe copyrights on a massive scale.”

http://www.maximumpc...imewire_distribution

[Renegade]

Gun dealers aren't subject to the same standard, so why should download sites?

Why not sue Microsoft because you can write viruses with Visual Studio?

Sue tech sites for posting information about how to use key hooks?

Sue vBulletin because there are 10k Al Quaida sites using it? (interesting article here - check last line for hypocrisy)

What about Tim Berners Lee? It's his fault we have the Internet in the first place! He created the infrastructure for piracy! Sue him!

I think it's a bad path to go down.

[Shades]

Sue everybody for having ears to (being forced to) listen to rap. 

[Stoic Joker]

Sue everybody for having ears to (being forced to) listen to rap. 

-Shades (May 06, 2011, 11:50 PM)

+500 

tehehe

[KynloStephen66515]

Im supposed to be boycotting atm, but I couldnt pass this one up after noticing you all miss a rather crappy joke here...

This whole "Sue for linking" is a giant ton of (c)rap

<resume boycott>

[Deozaan]

As long as the software they host isn't illegal, then they shouldn't be held responsible for what's done with it. If the software can be used to do illegal things, but is itself completely legal, then they still shouldn't be held responsible.

Punish the people who break the law. Not the tools (or people who provide the tools) which can be used both "properly" (legally) or improperly (illegally).

That's my opinion.

[Renegade]

As long as the software they host isn't illegal, then they shouldn't be held responsible for what's done with it. If the software can be used to do illegal things, but is itself completely legal, then they still shouldn't be held responsible.

Punish the people who break the law. Not the tools (or people who provide the tools) which can be used both "properly" (legally) or improperly (illegally).

That's my opinion.

-Deozaan (May 08, 2011, 11:41 PM)

+1

e.g. There's nothing wrong with tools like LOIC.

[40hz]

Not to fret. Getting sued is no big deal any more. This is more a publicity stunt than anything else. There's been enough legal precedent in court cases that the 'safe harbor' provisions protecting web hosts has been prerty well established by now. I doubt it will go to full trial. And if it does, it won't go anywhere. The real target is Limewire. All the other co-defendants are in there just for show, and maybe with the hopes they'll gang up on Limewire and try to cut some sort of deal with the plaintiff. Dint hold your breath for that one either.

In the United State, anybody can file a lawsuit at any time for any reason. As long as the necessary paperwork and filing fees are received, it will be placed on the docket. The court's clerks (by law) are not allowed to exercise any judicial review of a filing. That's for a judge to decide once it goes to an initial hearing in court.

Many stupid and frivolous cases are summarily dismissed without going to trial by the judge who gets the case. Occasionally one makes it through if the governing laws are vague, or if there are extraordinary factor in the case such that a judge feels it necessary for the court to weigh in on. And the courts are busy enough that they tend not to suffer fools gladly.

The real problem is the useless attorney who files because he's been asked to even though he's totally ignorant of the relevant law or the legal precedents for a suit he's filing. Even worse are the ones who knowingly bring a lawsuit they know has no legal merit. These are the parties most responsible for clogging up the court docket. And as long as 'frivolous' filing is dealt with so leniently, there's little downside to going in with a bogus lawsuit.

Either way, the attorney gets paid. And the press sends in some coverage.

And that's what it's really all about.

[Renegade]

And the courts are busy enough that they tend not to suffer fools gladly.

-40hz (May 09, 2011, 07:07 AM)

Are these the same people involved in granting/enforcing patents?

[40hz]

And the courts are busy enough that they tend not to suffer fools gladly.

-40hz (May 09, 2011, 07:07 AM)

Are these the same people involved in granting/enforcing patents?

-Renegade (May 09, 2011, 07:20 AM)

Nope. Not in the USA. Patents are issued by the Patent Office. Part of the executive branch. Enforcement of a patent is the responsibility of the patent holder. The owner of the patent has to monitor for violations and file a suit to obtain protection when one is found. You can't go to the police and complain somebody's illegally using your patent and expect them to take action. They don't have the authority to do that. YOU have to sue. All the court does is hear the case and issue a ruling. Once a ruling is issued, it's also your responsibilty to make sure you get your settlement - although the police and courts offer a little more help with that since not obeying a court order falls under the heading of 'contempt,' which is a criminal act.