Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47455
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Thirteen major record companies sue Lime Wire LLC, Lime Group, Mark Gorton, and related entities for secondary copyright infringement based on LimeWire file-sharing software.
- Plaintiffs allege LimeWire users shared unauthorized copies of Recordings; Defendants allegedly distributed and maintained LimeWire.
- Plaintiffs assert inducement, contributory, and vicarious infringement, plus state-law claims of common law infringement and unfair competition; additional claims include fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment.
- Defendants move to exclude evidence; parties move for summary judgment on multiple infringement theories and related claims.
- Court grants some summary judgments (inducement against LW; common law infringement and unfair competition against LW; inducement and common law/fairness against Gorton and Lime Group) and denies others (contributory and vicarious against LW; some liability claims against LW ties and related entities).
- Court also imposes procedural safeguards on Bildson declaration and rules on evidentiary motions prior to ruling on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inducement of infringement against LW | LW knowingly induced infringement | LW contends no inducement | LW liable; Plaintiffs granted summary judgment on inducement against LW |
| Contributory infringement against LW | LW contributed to infringement by users | Question of whether LimeWire has substantial noninfringing uses | Denied cross-motions; issue reserved for trial on noninfringing-use question |
| Vicarious infringement against LW | LW had right/ability to control and financial interest | No liability due to Sony-Betamax rule applicability | Denied LW’s vicarious infringement summary judgment; fact-intensive |
| Common law copyright infringement and unfair competition against LW | LW induced infringement; common law applies | Limitations of common law claims | Granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on common law infringement and unfair competition against LW |
| Inducement, contributory, common law infringement, and unfair competition against Gorton and Lime Group | Gorton/Lime Group directed/benefited from LW actions; liable | Arguments against individual and corporate liability | Inducement, common law infringement, and unfair competition against Lime Group and Gorton granted; contributory and vicarious denied; fraudulent conveyance/unjust enrichment reserved/denied on related claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Grokster, Ltd. v. SGI, 545 U.S. 913, 125 S. Ct. 2764 (U.S. 2005) (inducement liability for distributing infringement-facilitating product)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (Supreme Court, 1984) (Sony-Betamax rule for contributory liability; substantial noninfringing use considerations)
- Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (U.S. 1911) (common-law basis for indirect infringement liability)
- Napster, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (early secondary liability for file-sharing platforms; informed by Grokster remand)
- Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 124 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (court relied on expert and context in evaluating infringement and liability)