Judge Kimba Wood has just granted summary judgment against LimeWire, agreeing with the labels that the peer-to-peer company was liable for inducing copyright infringement. Turns out that asking LimeWire downloaders to check a box marked “I will not use LimeWire for copyright infringement” before proceeding doesn’t count as “meaningful efforts to mitigate infringement.”
Ars Technica spoke to a few legal experts who chimed in that after this ruling, it should be fairly easy to paint LimeWire as having adequate knowledge that illegal behavior was happening on their network, but having not taken adequate steps to stop or discourage it. Apparently the court dredged up some communications between LimeWire employees that indicate that they knew perfectly well what their service was being used for–something that’s obvious but without evidence is difficult to prove.
With this knowledge of infringement, LimeWire still might have been okay if it had taken steps to mitigate the problem. But “the evidence reveals that LW has not implemented in a meaningful way any of the technological barriers and design choices that are available to diminish infringement through file-sharing programs, such as hash-based filtering, acoustic fingerprinting, filtering based on other digital metadata, and aggressive user education.”
Limewire, for what it’s worth, said they “strongly oppose” the court’s decision, and will attempt to defend themselves further as the case proceeds. But summary judgment is a major blow for LimeWire–this isn’t looking good for them.