The Stupidest Copyright Suit Ever Complains That Hosts BitTorrent Clients

Illustration for article titled The Stupidest Copyright Suit Ever Complains That Hosts BitTorrent Clients

A group of musicians, producers, and labels is going after CBS-owned for hosting BitTorrent clients like uTorrent. This, after the same group has been trying to sue the company for profiting from the distribution of LimeWire. Ugh, why, absolute foolishness.


TechDirt reports that a group of music industry interests is trying to get an injunction against distributing BitTorrent clients while the LimeWire-related case is considered. The details of the are pretty ridiculous. The argument is that because LimeWire was shut down for "intentionally encouraging infringement" in 2010, CBS,, and CNET (which runs are partially responsible for these ill deeds.

The allegations are preposterous, but at least LimeWire has been found in violation of something ever. Why go after BitTorrent? Because, according to the plaintiffs, CNET and have "enthusiastically embraced this new engine of piracy." The filing refers to the reporting of CNET as a news organization as marketing for BitTorrent, and says that as with LimeWire, parent company CBS is profiting from the whole charade.

First of all, CNET is a legitimate news gathering organization. Second, simply hosting some software doesn't encourage its use when you're a site like, which hosts a metric giga-shit-ton of software by all sorts of developers.

There's some backstory to all this: The lawsuit against CBS is supposedly the work of billionaire Alki David, who has a vendetta against CBS for suing his online TV company FilmOn a few years ago. Red flags! A similar case filed by film-type people against CBS was tossed out for encroaching on first amendment rights. This case will likewise be tossed out, and this whole BitTorrent injunction nonsense is just a distraction. Music people, kindly go back to creativity and skip this frivolous crap. [TechDirt and TorrentFreak]



In fact, it is a pretty legitimate question. How liable are and and all other site for exchanging and hosting all the bit torrent clients and sharing plateform like limewire and napster back in the days.

They knew those softwares were going to be used for piracy.

If you can sue a 15 yo teens for exchanging 4 songs over the internet ( even if those songs are played daily on the radio for free and that anybody can record them from that source without penalty ), you should be able to sue website and companies that willingly hosted tool helping piracy ( and willingly promoted them ) and used that at their advantage; i.e in order to bring more traffic to their website.

Basically, one could say that Cnet or Download took advantage of the piracy thing in order to bring more traffic to their site, even tho they knew that the files being download would most likely be used to exchanged copyrighted material for free.