We’ve written several posts on the DISH Hopper dust-up, but to recap: CBS owns the popular tech site CNET, whom it forced to retract an award given to the best product from the recent 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). Why? Because CNET granted the Best of CES award to the DISH Hopper product, a product that CBS and other networks were suing DISH over, on the grounds that its service constituted copyright infringement. As Rob described, initial reports implied this came from the legal division, which prompted a round of ‘typical lawyer nonsense’ eye-rolling. Subsequent developments indicated that the decision had not come from the Wet Blanket Department at all, however, but rather directly from CBS CEO Les Moonves.
DisCo has yet to give this kerfuffle any legal analysis, and this post admittedly only scratches the surface. At Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner previewed the questions that IP and tech watchers have been pondering: does CBS meddling in CNET reporting now undermine its ability to argue that it should not meddle in CNET reporting on other subjects?
The prime example, noted in Gardner’s article, involves Download.com. After CBS acquired CNET along with CNET’s website, Download.com, CBS was sued for making available peer-to-peer software, including BitTorrent applications. If you do not immediately grasp the connection between CBS and P2P apps, worry not.
In short, the allegations in the suit are:
- CBS controlled CNET, which ran the website Download.com. Download.com is a software distribution platform, ancient by Internet standards (1996), which reviews and makes available freeware, shareware, and trial versions of software.
- Among the thousands of applications that Download.com made available were file-sharing applications, and among the applications that Download.com editors reviewed were BitTorrent applications.
- Individuals downloaded and then allegedly used these BitTorrent applications to infringe copyright. And thus CBS should be held responsible, the theory goes, for those end-users’ infringement.
Presently, judge-made rules do allow for plaintiffs to hold non-infringers responsible for the acts of other infringers under certain circumstances: this is called “secondary liability.” In these special cases, judges have decided that it is in the broader interest of protecting copyright to penalize non-infringers for the misconduct of third parties. (Thus, this notion is sometimes confusingly referred to as “third party liability.”)
{ 0 comments }








