The Legal Infrastructure of Business: Applications of the Grokster ...

Deadline Hollywood wrote a quick discussion the other day regarding the legal battles of LimeWire, a P2P?program for file sharing.?Paramount, 20^th Century Fox, Viacom, Disney, Comedy Partners and Warner Brothers are now suing LimeWire for copyright infringement. In the case of LimeWire, the studios seem to have an even more obvious precedent to stand on than MGM had against Grokster, since LimeWire has already lost a similar legal battle with record labels in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC.?

The contentions below were some of the accusations leveled by Arista Records and the studios; I?m interested in discussing the application of the Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster?decision in both cases. Specifically, I'm curious about how evidence of inducement was discovered and how broadly this will be applied in the future- in LimeWire and Grokster evidence of inducement and encouragement of illegal activities was a clear sign of liability for infringement, but then so was, to some degree, the fact that the defendant did not actively protect existing copywrights.

Should the burden of protection lie with the copyright holder? Or, much like in the world of patents in which the economically viable model of patent trolls manages to provide enforcement, should copyright enforcement be protected by those with economic interest in that right? If LimeWire was not actively encouraging infringement in its advertising and communications to users, would it still be liable because it did not build filters and actively enforce rights?

The relevant claim from the motion filed by the studios on 10/08/2012 relating to LimeWire's responsibility to actively protect copyrights-?

1. That LimeWire developed a hash-content based filter that would have prevented downloading infringing files, but amusingly made it optional for users to turn it on
2. That LimeWire considered a filter that used "acoustic fingerprinting" to identify copyrighted files, but never implemented it
3. That LimeWire was aware of other filtering mechanisms and chose not to use them
4. That the only time LimeWire did adopt a filter was to limit infringing of recordings purchased from the LimeWire store- i.e. to protect their own rights
5. That although LimeWire made users check a box to say they did not intend to use LimeWire unlawfully, this did not constitute a meaningful effort

Generally, from the Arista decision- the defendants never "implemented in a meaningful way?any of the technological barriers and design choices that were available to diminish infringement through file sharing programs." ?

Should LimeWire have been responsible for those filters and protections? What amount of effort on their part would have been enough / "meaningful"?

Sources:

http://www-deadline-com.vimg.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LimeWire_Hollywood_Studios_Motion_For_Summary_Judgment__121009231322.pdf

http://www.skadden.com/insights/iarista-records-v-lime-groupi-summary

http://www.deadline.com/tag/limewire/

Source: http://picker.typepad.com/legalinfrastructure/2012/10/applications-of-the-grokster-decision-and-where-does-the-burden-of-copyright-protection-lie.html

breaking news whitney houston carmen whitney houston last performance cpac straw poll breaking dawn part 2 breaking dawn part 2 whitney cummings