Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/54640970/CNET-Limewire-Torrent-Freak-Report
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 06:41:39
Document Index: 224691978

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 106', '§ 505', '§ 502', '§ 106', '§ 505', '§ 502', '§ 106', '§ 505', '§ 502', 'arty 26']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin﻿_J « :zCD 0::: o -rl~ 19 ;\ ® __ ",\ 24 (jJ 25 26 27 28 7 8 9 10 Defendants. 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 ALKI DAVID, DETRON BENDROSS, JERONIE WOODS (P/K/ A ROME), 12 TRISCO SMITH-PEARSON, JEFFREY THOMPKINS (P/K/A JT 13 MONEY), JONATHAN SHINHOSTER (P/K/ A J-SHIN), 14 SPECTACULAR SMITH, DIAMOND SMITH (P/K/ A BABY BLUE), 15 COREYMATHIS (P/K/A SLtCK 'EM), EMMANlJEt RAMONE 16 DeANDA, ERIC JACKSON (P/K/A KAINE), DE' ANGELO HOLMES 17 (P/K/ A b-ROC), ANTHONY ROUND (P/K/A N.A.R.D.), DENNIS ROUND, 18 and COREY JOI-fNSON (P/K/A COLDHARD), Plaintiffs, 20 vs. 21 CBS INTERACTIVE INC., CNET 22 NETWORKS, INC., LINIE WIRE LLC, and LIME GROUP LLC, 23 - -<; I ! n n,·_ r ... ., r-J ::",.'1,) --I )0{ r-:-t:J",·,. ~ ~ : ... ~ ._ (/l r - ~",-~ 1 QUINN EMANUEL lJRQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 2 michaelzellerla>,qumnemanuel.com Adam B. Wolfson (Bar No. 262125) 3 adamwolfson@quinnemanu~l.com 865 South Figueroa Street, io' Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 5 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 I .;,_.,.'~.; '~l ..... , ~ '\ (~""I --of , () I :.0 i "-2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTi .";~J I -4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA :r: Pot -< , .." w - r- \) rrT =r 0 ~ w C> C V 11 03 8 07 nSf (lex) CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR: (1 ) INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT iNFRINGEMENT; (2) CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT iNFRINGENIENT; and (3) VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT iNFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 6 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs, for their Complaint against Defendants CBS Interactive Inc. ("CBS 2 Interactive") and CNET Networks, Inc. ("CNET," collectively with CBS 3 Interactive, the "CBS Defendants"), Lime Wire LLC ("L W"), and Lime Group LLC 4 ("Lime Group," collectively with L W, the "Lime Wire Defendants"), allege as 5 follows: 7 1. This action arises from Defendants' direct contribution to and 8 participation in massive copyright infringement of Plaintiffs' works on peer-to-peer 9 ("P2P") systems. Lime Wire is the most notorious of these systems in recent years. 1 0 Lime Wire and its principals were found liable for copyright infringement on a 11 virtually unprecedented scale in 2010 and enjoined from further infringing activities 12 by a federal Court. 13 2. The CBS Defendants have been the mam distributor of Lime Wire 14 software and have promoted this and other P2P systems in order to directly profit 15 from wide-scale copyright infringement. Internet users have downloaded more then 16 220 million copies of LimeWire software from the CBS Defendants' website, found 17 at Download.com, since 2008. This consisted 95 percent or more of all copies of 18 Lime Wire that were downloaded until Lime Wire was shut down by Court Order. 19 Download.com also was a major source for other P2P software applications, 20 including Morpheus (174 million downloads), iMesh (115 million downloads), and 21 FrostWire (32 million downloads). The CBS Defendants received massive amounts 22 of revenue from P2P providers on a "pay per download" basis and also from 23 advertising revenues generated by advertisements placed on the download screen for 24 P2P software. The CBS Defendants' business model has been so dependent upon 25 P2P and file sharing applications that entire pages of Download.com are designed 26 specifically to list and categorize these software offerings. In fact, the CBS 27 Defendants were well aware that these software applications were used 28 1 overwhelming to infringe when they first partnered with Lime Wire and other P2P 2 providers, but ignored it in exchange for a steady stream of income. 3 3. The CBS Defendants have not just distributed and profited from 4 software applications used to infringe copyrights on a massive scale. They also 5 furnished articles and other content that explained how users could use P2P software 6 to infringe. On cnet.com, Download.com, and other websites, the CBS Defendants 7 offered videos, articles and other media that instructed how to use P2P software to 8 locate pirated copies of copyrighted works and remove electronic protections placed 9 on digital music files in order to prevent infringement. 10 4. Plaintiffs are artists who work in the fields of music and film. They 11 wrote, produced, distributed, sold and/or licensed songs, movies and other 12 copyrighted works that have been infringed by Defendants, including without 13 limitation through Defendants' distribution and promotion of P2P software that has 14 been used to copy and distribute Plaintiffs' works. Defendants must compensate 15 Plaintiffs for the damages they caused and be ordered to cease future infringement. 16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 17 5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted 18 herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 19 6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each 20 resides and/or may be found in California, does systematic and continuous business 21 in California, and has performed acts directed at and causing harm in California 22 which give rise to this Complaint. 23 7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and 24 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a). COMPLAINT 25 26 PARTIES Plaintiffs are the legal and beneficial owners of copyrighted works that 8. 27 have been infringed by Defendants. 28 1 9. Plaintiff Alki David is a citizen of the United Kingdom and resident of 2 the State of California. 3 10. Plaintiff Detron Bendross is a member of the rap group 2 Live Crew 4 and a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 5 11. Plaintiff Jerome Woods, professionally known as "ROME," is a citizen 6 and resident of the State of California. 7 12. Plaintiff Trisco Smith-Pearson is a member of the R&B group The 8 Force MDs and a citizen and resident of the State of New York. 9 13. Plaintiff Jeffrey Thompkins, professionally known as "JT Money," is a 1 0 citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 11 14. Plaintiff Jonathan Shinhoster, professionally known as "f-Shin," is a 12 citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 13 15. Plaintiff Spectacular Smith is a member of the R&B group Pretty Ricky 14 and a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 15 16. Plaintiff Diamond Smith, professionally known as "Baby Blue," is a 16 member of the R&B group Pretty Ricky and a citizen and resident of the State of 17 Florida. 18 17. Plaintiff Corey Mathis, professionally known as "Slick 'Em," is a 19 member of the R&B group Pretty Ricky and a citizen and resident of the State of 20 Florida. 21 18. Plaintiff Emmanuel Ramone DeAnda is a member of the R&B group 22 Pretty Ricky and a citizen and resident of the State of Florida. 23 19. Plaintiff Eric Jackson, professionally known as "Kaine," is a member 24 of the hip hop group Ying Yang Twins and a citizen and resident of the State of 25 Georgia. 26 20. Plaintiff De' Angelo Holmes, professionally known as "D-Roc," is a 27 member of the hip hop group Ying Yang Twins and a citizen and resident of the 28 State of Georgia. COMPLAINT COMPLAINT 1 21. Plaintiff Anthony Round, professionally known as "N.A.R.D.," IS a 2 member of the hip hop group Do Or Die and a citizen and resident of the State of 3 Illinois. 4 22. Plaintiff Dennis Round is a member of the hip hop group Do Or Die 5 and a citizen and resident of the State of Illinois. 6 23. Plaintiff Corey Johnson, professionally known as "Coldhard," is a 7 member of the hip hop group Crucial Conflict and a citizen and resident of the State 8 of Illinois. 9 24. Defendant CBS Interactive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its 10 principal place of business at 235 Second Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 11 25. Defendant CNET Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a fully- 12 owned subsidiary of CBS Interactive. CNET's principal place of business is 235 13 Second Street, San Francisco, California 94105. 14 26. Defendant Lime Group LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 15 with its principal place of business at 377 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, New 16 York 10013. 17 27. Defendant Lime Wire LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 18 with its principal place of business at 377 Broadway, l lth Floor, New York, New 19 York, 10013, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Lime Group LLC, 20 with which it shares offices and officers/employees. Lime Wire LLC and Lime 21 Group LLC directly and indirectly designed Lime Wire and updated, improved, 22 promoted, distributed and marketed Lime Wire. 23 28. Each Defendant acted in concert with each other and as the principal, 24 agent, or joint venture of, or for, other Defendants with respect to the acts, 25 violations, and common course of copyright infringement alleged by Plaintiffs. 26 27 28 1 FACTS COMPLAINT 2 P2P File Sharing Systems, Including LimeWire 3 29. P2P file sharing networks are systems which allow users to connect to 4 one another and transfer files located on each other's hard drives. In order to 5 participate in these networks, each user must download and install on the user's 6 computer a software program---commonly known as a "client"-that facilitates the 7 file transfers. Examples of P2P clients include Napster, Aimster, KaZaA, Grokster 8 and Lime Wire. 9 30. P2P clients provide an interface for users to search and obtain copies of 10 files located on their respective file sharing networks. Depending on which P2P 11 client is employed, users can filter results by type of file (e.g., audio or video), file 12 name, artist and other identifying information. Many P2P clients, including those 13 found liable in some of the most infamous copyright infringement cases of the past 14 decade, are (or were) specifically designed to locate music files by name of the song 15 or artist and are (or were) targeted at audiences well-known for their desire to 16 infringe copyrights. 17 31. File sharing networks depend on users to actually "share" their files. 18 P2P clients are specifically designed to facilitate this process. In most cases, the 19 client automatically searches a user's computer for "shareable" files, typically audio 20 and video files. Clients also often penalize users with slower download speeds or 21 other decreased functionality if they do not share "enough" files with other users on 22 the network. The purpose of this functionality is clear: users must share files if they 23 wish to enjoy the full benefits of the P2P network, and the client will make all files 24 available for sharing unless the user specifically opts out of this option. 25 32. As Napster's one-time success proved, there is a large demographic of 26 internet users who seek to obtain free copies of their favorite music regardless of 27 copyrights. The sheer size of this group demonstrated that P2P clients could 28 generate massive revenues if they designed a user experience that expressly catered 1 to copyright infringement, thereby drawing users to their advertisements and pay 2 services. When Napster was shut down due to court-ordered injunction, numerous 3 P2P clients stepped in to fill the void. These P2P clients, including but not limited 4 to Aimster, Grokster, KaZaA, Morpheus and Lime Wire, actively marketed 5 themselves to Napster's former customers. 6 33. To use just the most recent P2P client found liable for copyright 7 infringement, the Lime Wire Defendants began providing their P2P network in or 8 around August 2000. In order to attract users to their service, the Lime Wire 9 Defendants advertised on other P2P networks and made statements comparing 10 Lime Wire's user experience to other file sharing clients. Above and beyond mere 11 advertisements, the Lime Wire Defendants specifically designed their client to be 12 highly efficient at finding and downloading copies of copyrighted sound recordings. 13 34. There were two forms of the LimeWire software (updated in several 14 versions over the years). The first was "Lime Wire Basic," a free version of the P2P 15 client. The second was "Lime Wire PRO," which sold for approximately $19 and 16 ostensibly offered purchasers faster downloads. Both forms of Lime Wire were 17 compatible with each other, and users could share files with each other no matter 18 with form of Lime Wire they possessed. 19 35. When a user first installed LimeWire, the program automatically 20 searched their hard drive for media files and made them available for other users to 21 download via the P2P network. In order to ensure that the maximum number of 22 files were "shareable" at any given time, Lime Wire was designed to automatically 23 open when a user started their computer. This meant that turning on one's computer 24 automatically logged the user into the P2P network and made the selection of files 25 across that network as vast as possible. 26 36. Another method that the LimeWire Defendants employed to ensure the 27 maximum amount of available files-thereby increasing LimeWire's reputation as a 28 desirable copyright infringement tool-was to maximize the number of available COMPLAINT 5 sharing with freeloaders. The Lime Wire Defendants actively discouraged COMPLAINT 1 shared files by automatically saving them in a "shared" folder on the user's hard 2 drive. If a user turned off this feature or opted to have their files saved in a non- 3 shared folder, they were labeled a "freeloader" by the Lime Wire software and ran 4 the risk of being refused future downloads by other users who could choose to block 6 freeloaders on their website, stating, for example, "If you're not sharing enough 7 files, users with certain connection preferences won't let you connect to them for 8 downloading. For this reason, we recommend all Lime Wire users share generously 9 with one another." In other words, share files or you will not be able to infringe as 10 easily. 11 37. The Lime Wire Defendants also designed Lime Wire's interface to 12 maximize users' ability to quickly locate and obtain copies of copyrighted materials. 13 Users could search by music genre, song name, artist name or album name. When 14 searches yielded multiple sources for the same copyrighted materials, Lime Wire 15 displayed the connection speed of each source (i. e., how fast that user's internet 16 connection was) so that the searching user could choose the fastest download option. 17 Using these features in combination, Lime Wire users were able to locate and 18 download copyrighted sound recordings in the shortest amount of time possible. 19 38. On May 25, 2010, United States District Judge Kimba Wood found 20 Lime Wire liable for massive copyright infringement. Later that same year, Judge 21 Wood permanently enjoined LimeWire from all further infringement activities. In 22 doing so, the Court found that, among other things: 23 • Lime Wire "intentionally encouraged direct infringement" by its users; 24 • the Lime Wire software application was used "overwhelmingly for 25 infringement" and allowed for infringement on a "massive scale"; 26 • Lime Wire and its principals knew about "the substantial infringement 27 being committed" by Lime Wire users; 28 1 • Lime Wire marketed itself to Napster users, who were known copyright COMPLAINT 2 infringers, and promoted LimeWire's infringing capabilities to those users; 3 • Lime Wire employed a business model that depended on mass 4 infringement, relying on "massive user population generated by" the 5 Lime Wire software's "infringement-enabling features"; and 6 • Lime Wire "actively assisted infringing users" in their infringement 7 efforts and tested the Lime Wire client software by searching for copyrighted 8 material. 9 39. Of the many P2P clients that remain in existence, most include features 10 nearly identical or identical to those found in Lime Wire. FrostWire, as just one 11 example, is an open source P2P client developed from the Lime Wire developmental 12 source code by a group of "concerned [members] of LimeWire's open source 13 community" who first sought to "protect" the Lime Wire code in 2005, after the 14 Supreme Court's Grokster opinion. The CBS Defendants call FrostWire a "fork of 15 the Lime Wire source code" that is "practically indistinguishable" from Lime Wire. 16 Commenters on the CBS Defendants' website, Download.com, further describe 17 FrostWire as "Like An Updated Version Of LimeWire," a "Great program to 18 replace LimeWire," and "just as good as LimeWire, maybe better." 19 The CBS Defendants' Participation In And Profiteering From Infringement 20 40. Download.com, found at http://download.cnet.com, is one of the CBS 21 Defendants' stable of websites. As the name implies, Download.com offers 22 programs and applications for download. In addition to this service, the site also 23 provides reviews written by CNET editors, allows program-specific comments from 24 users, and is organized in such a way as to maximize a user's ability to find and 25 obtain copies of the program or application they desire. 26 41. Software publishers must be approved to have their software listed on 27 Download.com. In order to do so, they first go through an application process on 28 Upload.com, found at https:llupload.cnet.com. On this site, the CBS Defendants 1 advertise that software publishers should "[p Jromote your software on the largest 2 distribution network in the world." As they further state, "Upload.com is the central 3 destination to submit and promote your software on CNET Download.com and other 4 sites in our growing distribution network." 5 42. After a software publisher creates a developer account, which requires 6 Download.com staff approval, they may submit their program for review. In this 7 application, the publisher categorizes the program and fills out a detailed 8 explanation of its features and purpose. After reviewing this application, 9 Download.com's staff decides whether to permit the program on Download.com and 10 where to place it on the website. 11 43. As developers release new versions of their software, they must also 12 update their application to Download.com. Included in this update are explanations 13 of new features, new functionality, improvements in user interface and experience, 14 and any other difference between the new and previous version. As with the initial 15 application, the Download.com staff reviews and decides whether to allow the 16 listing. 17 44. At each step in the initial application and subsequent update process, 18 Download.com possessed the ability to refuse to list the publisher's software, 19 thereby conferring upon Download.com the ability to supervise and control any 20 infringing activity taking place on its website. If Download.com staff did not 21 believe the software should be accepted, they could either outright refuse to list it or 22 suggest changes to the program itself. At no point was Download.com obligated to 23 list programs submitted for approval to Upload. com. Further, Download.com was 24 within its full rights to remove listings at its discretion. 25 45. The CBS Defendants generate revenue from Download.com in several 26 ways. First, software publishers have the option to pay for a "Basic" and 27 "Premium" account on Upload.com. Although there is also a "Free" account, the 28 former two types of account offer increased benefits for a monthly subscription fee. COMPLAINT 1 Second, companies may advertise directly with Download.com and seek to place 2 their ads on popular download listings. Third, the CBS Defendants advertise their 3 other websites on Download.com, driving traffic and revenue to those sites. Fourth, 4 the CBS Defendants offer a program called Pay-Per-Download ("PPD"), which they 5 push heavily on Upload.com and which offers several unique options. 6 46. PPD is described as a "performance-based program that allows you to 7 increase downloads by up to 150 percent, while maintaining control of your costs." 8 Participants in the program obtain a "top-five 'sponsored' listing" for their product 9 in their respective Download.com category, out-of-category promotional rotation on 10 Download.com pages, including on "post-download pages and other placements in 11 [Defendants'] network," and 10 additional keywords to enable Download.com users 12 to find the publisher'S program. Participants also have the option to pay only for 13 initiated downloads from unique users and the ability to choose "the bid amount and 14 monthly spending cap for your campaign." 15 47. PPD is designed to offer adaptable advertising options for software 16 publishers and generate strong cash flow for the CBS Defendants. On information 17 and belief, several P2P client publishers, including the Lime Wire Defendants, used 18 and use the PPD program and generated substantial revenues for the CBS 19 Defendants. In addition, due to P2P clients' popularity, publishers of other types of 20 software advertised heavily on P2P download screens, thus generating additional 21 revenue streams for the CBS Defendants due to P2P client listings on 22 Download.com. 23 48. Download.com hosted copies of Lime Wire for download on its servers. 24 It also has variously hosted other such notorious infringers as Napster, Morpheus, 25 KaZaA, BearShare, and iMesh. Today, even after the United States District Court's 26 recent infringement findings and permanent injunction against Lime Wire, 27 Download.com still hosts download links for several P2P clients. Upon information 28 and belief, the CBS Defendants have generated and continue to continue to generate COMPLAINT COMPLAINT 1 substantial fees from the P2P client publishers themselves and advertisers who wish 2 to have their programs listed on P2P client download screens. The CBS Defendants 3 also generate revenues by cross-promoting their websites on P2P client download 4 screens. 5 49. Because the CBS Defendants own the "largest [download] distribution 6 network in the world," they were particularly valuable partners in the dissemination 7 and popularity of various P2P client infringers. Lime Wire, which was one of 8 Download.com's top downloaded programs, owed its success to the distribution it 9 received through Download.com. Upon information and belief, approximately 95 10 percent of LimeWire downloads occurred via Download.com. In fact, LimeWire's 11 own website redirected users to Download.com when they attempted to download 12 the client. Other infamous P2P client publishers included similar redirects from 13 their home websites for downloads of their programs. 14 50. The CBS Defendants also worked with LimeWire and other P2P 15 publishers to provide software that maximized infringement. F or each version of 16 Lime Wire, for example, Download.com staff corresponded with the Lime Wire 17 Defendants' representatives regarding the features in the client program. These 18 features demonstrated that Lime Wire was explicitly designed for copyright 19 infringement. For example, Lime Wire (a) included search capabilities that focused 20 on music title, artist, music genre, and other identifying factors of copyrighted sound 21 recordings; (b) provided a "preview" function for the audio player so users could 22 confirm that audio files they wished to download were the actual files they were 23 searching for; (c) punished users who did not share enough files; and (d) in later 24 versions, included a copyright filter but set the default upon installation to "off." 25 Nevertheless, Download.com did not refuse to list Lime Wire on its site and did not 26 require that the Lime Wire Defendants include filters or other protections against 27 copyright infringement. Other P2P clients underwent a similarly-streamlined 28 approval process for their infringement software. 1 51. Although the CBS Defendants' distribution was critical to the 2 infringing P2P systems' success, that was not the extent of their involvement. 3 Defendants also actively promoted the P2P clients on Download.com and explained 4 how users could infringe copyrights to the greatest degree possible. 5 52. One way that the CBS Defendants promoted copyright infringing P2Ps 6 was to write "reviews" of the program and apply a rating on a five star scale. These 7 reviews discussed the program's functionality, features, strengths, and weaknesses. 8 In many instances, they also discussed the purpose of the program. The Lime Wire 9 Defendants similarly posted self-serving explanations of Lime Wire on 10 Download.com in order to promote the product 11 53. For example, the CBS Defendants posted a "CNET Editors' Review" 12 on Lime Wire on February 12, 2009. CNET editor Seth Rosenblatt noted from the 13 start that LimeWire was a "post-Napster clone" that had evolved into a "leading role 14 as the quintessential Gnutella [protocol] client." He also noted that "Lime Wire is 15 the highest-profile P2P application." At the time the CBS Defendants posted this 16 review, they knew that LimeWire was embroiled in a lawsuit accusing it of massive 17 copyright infringement, and that several other P2P clients had already been shut 18 down for their own infringement. Nevertheless, the CBS Defendants did not issue a 19 warning that users should refrain from using Lime Wire to infringe copyrights. 20 Instead, they pointed out that it was a useful Napster replacement and gave it four- 21 and-a-half stars out of five. 22 54. As part of their review process, the CBS Defendants tested the software 23 that they reviewed and, in the case ofP2P clients, infringed copyrights to do so. In a 24 video that Download.com posted to its website, the CBS Defendants again reviewed 25 Lime Wire, but this time demonstrated how it worked to Download.com users. As 26 the viewer looks at the screen demonstrating a sample search, they see a list of 27 copyrighted works, including those from several well-known musical artists. In this 28 same video, Defendants admit that they downloaded files generated by these COMPLAINT COMPLAINT 1 searches to test the speeds Lime Wire could deliver for users. The message of the 2 video is clear: Lime Wire is really great at infringing copyrights. 3 55. Download.com staff also acknowledged in public interviews that they 4 knew P2P clients hosted on their site were intended for copyright infringement. In 5 an interview discussing Lime Wire, for example, Mr. Rosenblatt, the editor who 6 wrote the previously-mentioned LimeWire review, noted that file sharing is 7 primarily used for copyright infringement. 8 56. To this day, Download.com still hosts and promotes P2P clients that 9 have been specifically designed for copyright infringement. For example, as noted 10 previously, the CBS Defendants continue to provide a download for FrostWire, the 11 open source version of Lime Wire that is "practically indistinguishable" from its 12 infringing cousin. As Download.com' s users point out on the website, "Frostwire is 13 basically Limewire replaced! ... I'm glad that this is a lot like Limewire because 14 then I don't have to learn anything new." Although the CBS Defendants now 15 include a belated, stock warning against copyright infringement on their website, 16 this does not stop them from continuing their support of known infringers. 17 57. Plaintiffs' copyrighted works were and are available on P2P file 18 sharing networks developed, distributed, and promoted by Defendants. Defendants 19 accordingly are liable for copyright infringement. 20 COUNT 1 INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 21 22 58. Plaintiffs incorporate as if set forth herein the allegations made m 23 Paragraphs 1 through 57. 24 59. Individuals using P2P client software that Defendants created, 25 distributed and promoted, including Lime Wire and others, have directly infringed 26 and are directly infringing Plaintiffs' copyrights by, for example, creating 27 unauthorized reproductions of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and distributing copies 28 1 of such works to the public in violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the 2 Copyright Act, 17U.S.C. §§ 106,501. 3 60. Defendants are liable for inducing the copyright infringement of 4 Download.com users. The CBS Defendants distribute and promote several P2P 5 clients, including but not limited to the Lime Wire client and current offerings such 6 as FrostWire and iMesh. In distributing and promoting these P2P clients, the CBS 7 Defendants inform and informed their users that the clients were optimized for the 8 unauthorized copying and transmission of copyrighted sound recordings, thereby 9 actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing Download.com users to engage in the 10 infringement. 11 61. Defendants have induced and continue to induce infringement by, for 12 example, aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, 13 including the market comprising users of other infringing services that were shut 14 down or compelled to block access to Plaintiffs copyrighted works, such as Napster, 15 Morpheus, Grokster, KaZaA, and now Lime Wire. 16 62. Defendants further have induced and continue to induce infringement 17 by, for example, continuing to provide downloads for P2P that clients that fail to 18 block or diminish access to infringing material even though there are technological 19 means to do so - means that are known to Defendants and the P2P client publishers, 20 and some of which have been employed by P2P clients who operate legally. 21 63. Defendants further have induced and continue to induce infringement 22 by, for example, building and maintaining a business model to profit directly from 23 the demand for infringing P2P clients. 24 64. Defendants' infringement IS and has been willful, intentional, 25 purposeful, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and has caused substantial 26 damage to Plaintiffs. 27 65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' infringement, Plaintiffs 28 are entitled to damages and their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, COMPLAINT COMPLAINT 7 CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Defendants' conduct has caused, and unless enjoined 2 by the Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that 3 cannot be fully compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate 4 remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs therefore also are entitled to 5 injunctive relief to prohibit further infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights. 6 COUNT 2 8 66. Plaintiffs incorporate as if set forth herein the allegations made III 9 Paragraphs 1 through 65. 10 67. Individuals using P2P client software that Defendants created, 11 distributed and promoted, including Lime Wire and others, have directly infringed 12 and are directly infringing Plaintiffs' copyrights by, for example, creating 13 unauthorized reproductions of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works and distributing copies 14 of such works to the public in violation of Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the 15 Copyright Act, l7U.S.C. §§ 106,501. 16 68. Defendants are liable as contributory infringers for the copyright 17 infringement committed via P2P client software that Defendants distributed, 18 including Lime Wire and others. Defendants have knowledge of the massive 19 infringement that has occurred and continues to occur through P2P client software 20 that they created, distributed and promoted, and Defendants have caused, enabled, 21 facilitated, and materially contributed to that infringement. 22 69. Defendants' knowledge of infringement is both actual and constructive. 23 Examples of this knowledge include written and oral statements by Defendants and 24 user comments posted on Download.com; express comparisons of P2P clients to 25 other notorious and illegally-operated P2P systems; and features of P2P clients 26 Defendants discussed with the software publishers that demonstrated the client was 27 optimized for finding and distributing popular sound recordings. All of these facts 28 directly and circumstantially exhibit Defendants' awareness that the overarching 1 purpose and use of P2P clients they distributed and continue to distribute is to 2 infringe Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. 3 70. Defendants have caused, enabled, facilitated and materially contributed 4 to the infringement complained of herein. Defendants have, in addition to the 5 actions detailed above, provided the tools and instruction for infringement via P2P 6 clients they distribute; directly and indirectly promoted the infringement via P2P 7 clients they distribute; directly profited from their distribution of P2P clients; and 8 refused to exercise their ability to stop the infringement made possible by their 9 distribution. 10 71. Defendants' infringement is and has been willful, intentional, 11 purposeful, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and has caused substantial 12 damage to Plaintiffs. 13 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' infringement, Plaintiffs 14 are entitled to damages and their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, 15 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Defendants' conduct has caused, and unless enjoined 16 by the Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that 17 cannot be fully compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate 18 remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U. S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs therefore also are entitled to 19 injunctive relief to prohibit further infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights. 20 COUNT 3 21 VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT 22 73. Plaintiffs incorporate as if set forth herein the allegations made III 23 Paragraphs 1 through 72. 24 74. Individuals using P2P client software that Defendants distributed, 25 including Lime Wire and others, have directly infringed and are directly infringing 26 Plaintiffs' copyrights by, for example, creating unauthorized reproductions of 27 Plaintiffs' works and distributing copies of such works to the public in violation of 28 Plaintiffs' exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,501. COMPLAINT 1 75. Defendants are liable as vicarious infringers for the copyright 2 infringement committed via P2P client software that Defendants created, distributed 3 and promoted, including Lime Wire and others. At all times relevant to this action, 4 Defendants (i) have had the right and ability to control and/or supervise the 5 infringing conduct of P2P client users, including without limitation through their 6 ability to cut off distribution of P2P clients and listing on Download.com any and all 7 versions of the software; and (ii) have had a direct financial interest in, and derived 8 substantial financial benefit from, the infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works 9 via P2P clients that Defendants distributed. 10 76. Defendants have derived direct and substantial benefit from 11 infringement in several ways, including without limitation (i) fees paid to 12 Defendants by P2P client publishers through the PPD program and general 13 Upload.com account registrations, (ii) advertisements P2P clients bought to run on 14 Download.com for their software, (iii) advertisements other software publishers 15 bought to run on P2P client download pages due to the popularity of the P2P clients, 16 (iv) cross-promotion on P2P client download pages for other sites in the CBS 17 Defendants' stable of web sites. 18 77. Defendants' infringement IS and has been willful, intentional, 19 purposeful, and in disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs, and has caused substantial 20 damage to Plaintiffs. 21 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' infringement, Plaintiffs 22 are entitled to damages and their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, 23 pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. Defendants' conduct has caused, and unless enjoined 24 by the Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that 25 cannot be fully compensated or measured in money. Plaintiffs have no adequate 26 remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs therefore also are entitled to 27 injunctive relief to prohibit further infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights. 28 COMPLAINT 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF COMPLAINT 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the following relief: 3 a. For damages, including without limitation, actual and statutory 4 damages, for Defendants' infringements of Plaintiffs' copyrights; 5 b. For injunctive relief requiring that Defendants and Defendants' agents, 6 servants, employees, officers, attorneys, successors, licensees, partners, and assigns, 7 and all persons acting in concert or participation with each or any of them, cease 8 infringing, whether directly or indirectly, and cease causing, enabling, facilitating, 9 encouraging, promoting, inducing, contributing to, and participating in the 10 infringement of, any of Plaintiffs' respective copyrights; 11 12 c. For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; For Plaintiffs' costs and disbursements in this action, including d. 13 reasonable attorneys' fees; and F or such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just. 14 e. 15 16 May 3,2011 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1 COMPLAINT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by 3 JUry. 4 May 3, 2011 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, By~~~~~~~~ ___ Michael T. Zell Adam B. Wolf: on QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 443-3000 (213) 443-31 00 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiffs · -. \. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: CENTRAL DJSTR~ OF CALJFORNJ~ CIVIL COVER SHEET (b) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address and Telephone Number. If you arc representing yourself. provide same.) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. LLP 865 S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 443-3000 \ I (a) PLAINTIFFS (Check box if you arc representing yourself D) Sec attached caption DEFENDANTS Attorneys (If Known) o I U.S. Government Plaintiff fi 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State PTF nEF PTF DEF 01 01 Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04 of Business in this State 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 05 05 of Business in Another State II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in onc box only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES - For Diversity Cases Only (Place an X in one box lor plaintiff and one for dcfendant.) 02 U.S. Government Defendant 04 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship Citizen of Another State of Parties in Item III) Citizen or SUbject of a Foreign Country 03 03 Foreign Nation 06 06 IV. ORIGIN (Place an X in one box only.) MI Original Proceeding o 2 Removed from State Court o 3 Remanded from Appellate Court o 4 Reinstated or Reopened 05 Transferred from another district (specify): 06 Multi- 07 Appeal to District District Judge from Litigation Magistrate Judge V. REQUESTED 1:"1 COMPLAINT: JURY DEMAND: fiYes 0 No (Check 'Yes' only if demanded in complaint.) CLASS ACTION under F.R.C.P. 23: 0 Yes r:$No 0 MONEY DEMANDEn IN COMPLAINT: s VI. CAUSE OF ACTlO:"l (Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you arc filing and write a brief statement of cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity.) 17 U.S.c. §~ 101 ct scq., 501 et seq, VII. :"IATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in one box only.) OTHER STATUTES CONTRACT TORTS TORTS PRISONER LABOR o .tOO State Reapportionment 0110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL PETITIONS 0710 Fair Labor Standards 0410 Antitrust 0120 Marine 0310 Airplane PROPERTY 0510 Motions to Act 0430 Banks and Banking 0130 Miller Act 0315 Airplane Product 0370 Other Fraud Vacate Sentence 0720 Labor/Mgmt. 0450 Commerce/K'C 0140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0371 Truth in Lending Habeas Corpus Relations Rates/etc. 0150 Recovery of 0320 Assault. Libel & 0380 Other Personal 0530 General 0730 Labor/Mgmt. o .t60 Deportation Overpayment & Slander Property Damage 0535 Death Penalty Reporting & 0470 Racketeer influenced Enforcement of 0330 Fed. Employers 0385 Properly Damage 0540 Mandamus! Disclosure Act and Corrupt Judgment Liability Product Liability Other 0740 Railway Labor Act Organizations 0151 Medicare Act 0340 Marine BANKRUPTCY 0550 Civil Rights 0790 Other Labor 0345 Marinc Product 0480 Consumer Credit 0152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0422 Appeal 28 USC 0555 Prison Condition Litigation 0490 Cubic/Sat TV Student Loan (Excl, 0350 Motor Vehicle 158 FORFEITURE ! 0791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 0810 Selective Service Veterans) 0355 Motor Vehicle 0423 Withdrawal 28 PENALTY Security Act 0850 Sccuritics/Comrnoditics/ 0153 Recovery of Product Liability USC 157 0610 Agriculture PROPERTY RIGHTS Exchange Overpayment of 0%0 Other Personal CIVIL RIGHTS 0620 Other Food & r:$820 Copyrights 0875 Customer Challenge 12 Veteran's Benefits Injury 0441 Voting Drug 0830 Patent USC 3410 0160 Stockholders' Suits 0362 Personal Injury- 0442 Employment 0625 Drug Related 0840 Trademark 0890 Other Statutory Actions 0190 Other Contract Mcd Malpractice 0443 Housing/Acco- Seizure of SOCIAL SECURITY 0891 Agricultural Act 0195 Contract Product 0365 Personal Injury- mmodations Property 21 USC 0861 HIA (13951'1) 0892 Economic Stabilization Liability Product Liability 0444 Welfare 881 0862 Black Lung (923) Act 0196 Franchise 0368 Asbestos Personal 0445 American with 0630 Liquor Laws 0863 DIWC/DIWW 0893 Environmental Matters REAL PROPERTY Injury Product Disabilities - 0640 R.R. & Truck (405(g» 0894 Energy Allocation Act 0210 Land Condemnation Liability Employment 0650 Airline Regs 0864 SSID Title XVI 0895 Freedom of Info. Act 0220 Foreclosure IMMIGRA nON 0446 American with 0660 Occupational 0865 RSI (405(g) 0900 Appeal of Fcc Determi- 0230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0462 Naturalization Disabilities - Safety IHealth FEDERAL TAX SUITS nation Under Equal o 2.tO T orts to Land Application Other 0690 Other 0870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Access to Justice 0245 Tort Product Liability 0463 Habeas Corpus- 0440 Other Civil or Defendant) 0950 Constitutionality of 0290 All Other Real Property Alien Detainee Rights 0871 I RS- Third Party 26 State Statutes 0465 Other Immigration USC 7609 Actions FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Cas,' Number: _ eVil 03807 AFTER COMPLETING THE FRONT SmE OF FORM CV-71. COMPLETE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW. CV-71 (05/08) CIVIL COVER SHEET Page I 01'2 \., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT; CENTRAL DISTR~T OF CALIFORNI~ CIVIL COVE~ SHEET VI.II(a). IDENTICAL CASES: Has this action been previously filed in this court and dismissed. remanded or closed') Ii'No 0 Yes If yes. list case numberls): _ VIII(b). RELATED CASES: Have any cases been previously filed in this court that are related to the present case? tiNo 0 Yes If yes, list case numberis): _ Civil cases are deemed related if a previously filed case and the present case: (Check all boxes that apply) 0 A. Arise from the same or closely related transactions, happenings, or events; or o B. Call for determination of the same or substantially related or similar questions of law and fact; or o C. For other reasons would entail substantial duplication of labor ifheard by different judges; or o D. Involve the same patent. trademark or copyright, and one of the factors identified above in a, b or c also is present. IX. VE:\UE: (When completing the following information. use an additional sheet ifnecessary.) (a) List the County in this District: California County outside of this District: State if other than California; or Foreign Country, in which EACH named plaintitT resides. ~ Ch k If I .. I . d I intiff If h b . h k d . (b) ec iere 1 t 1C government, Its agencies or empioyees IS a name, piamu t IS ox IS C ec e . go to Item County in this District- California County outside of this District: State, if other than California: or Foreign Country Los Angeles County Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New York County in this District:" (b) List the County in this District: California County outside of this District: State ilurhcr than California: or Foreign Country, in which EACH named defendant resides. r;J Check here if the j!ovcrnment. its agencies or employees is a named defendant. I f this box is checked. go to item (c). California County outside of this District; State. if other than California; or Foreign Country San Francisco County, Delaware, New York (c) l.ist the County in this District; California County outside of this District; State ifother than California; or Foreign Country. in which EACH claim arose. Note: In land condemnation cases use the location of the tract of land involved ., County in this District:" California County outside of this District: State, if other than California; or Foreign Country Los Angeles San Francisco County, Delaware, Florida. Georgia, lllinois. New York * Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa arbara, or San Luis Obispo Counties Note: In land condemnation cases use the location of the tr ct of land in 'ed Date _____.::5--'--~..L.!.,_1I:..__ _ Notice to Counsel/Parties: The CV-71 (JS-44) Civil Cover Shee a or other papers as required by law. This form. approved by the Judie al but is used by the Clerk of the Court for the purpose of statistics. ve u the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings 'onference of the United States in September 1974, is required pursuant to Local Rule 3-1 is not filed and initiating the civil docket sheet. (For more detailed instructions. see separate instructions sheet.) Nature of Suit Code Abbreviation Substantive Statement of Cause of Action Key to Statist ira I cedes relating to Social Security Cases: 861 HIA 862 BL 863 DIWC 863 DIWW 864 SSID 865 RSI All claims for health insurance benefits (Medicare) under Title 18. Part A. of the Social Security Act, as amended. Also. include claims by hospitals. skilled nursing facilities. etc., for certification as providers of services under the program. (42 U.s.C. 1935FF(b)) All claims for "Black Lung" benefits under Title 4. Part B, of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. (30 U .s.c. 923) All claims filed by insured workers for disability insurance benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act. as amended; plus all claims filed for child's insurance benefits based on disability. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) All claims filed for widows or widowers insurance benefits based on disability under Title 2 of the Social Security Act. as amended. (42 U.S.C. 405(g)) All claims for supplemental security income payments based upon disability filed under Title 16 of the Social Security Act, as amended. All claims for retirement (old age) and survivors benefits under Title 2 of the Social Security Act, as amended. (42 U.S.C. (g)) CV-71 (05/08) Page 2 of2 CIVIL COVER SHEET · . 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 2 michaelzellengjquinnemanuel.corn Adam B. Wolfson (Bar No. 262125) 3 adamwolfson@quinnemanu~1.com 865 South Figueroa Street, to' Floor 4 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 5 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 8 9 10 11 ALKI DAVID, DETRON BENDROSS, JEROME WOODS (P/K/ A ROME), 12 TRISCO SMITH-PEARSON, JEFFREY THOMPKINS (PIKIA JT 13 MONEY) JONATHAN SHINHOSTER (P/K/ A J-SHIN), 14 SPECTACULAR S~·nTH, DIAMOND SMITH (PIKIA BABY BLUE), 15 COREY'MATHIS (P/K/A SL1CK 'EM), EMMANUEL RAMONE 16 DeANDA, ERIC JACKSON (P/K/ A KAINE), DE' ANGELO HOLMES 17 (P/K/A D-ROC), ANTHONY ROUND (P/K/A N.A.R.D.), DENNIS ROUND, 18 and COREY JOHNSON (P/K/A COLDHARD), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 Plaintiffs, vs. 21 CBS INTERACTIVE INC., CNET 22 NETWORKS, INC., LIME WIRE LLC, and LIME GROUP LLC, 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR: (1 ) INDUCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; (2) CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT; and (3) VICARIOUS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT More From This UserGodaddy SteeleExpert AffidavitSyfert FilingPirat AgeZemPirat AgeEHCR-Neij-Sundecbs-rep2cbs-repThe Speculative Invoicing Handbook - Second EditionKantar MediaAlki BittorrentJudgementUnseal WarrantMega Renewed Dismissal109314116-Baylsons-Order-20121003Warner Response to EffCopyright MessFlava ComplaintcounterclaimMega RebuttMega MotionBeatz MegaFilmon Cnet MemoLetter CopyrightLabs
CNET Limewire Torrent Freak Report by TorrentFreak_7.4K viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less