for all LimeWire users or made the default setting “on.” The court further noted that LimeWire
had considered, but failed to implement, several other plans to block the availability of infringing
content through LimeWire, including a hybrid filtering system that would have combined hash-
based filtering and acoustic fingerprinting. The company also developed, but did not implement,
its conversion plan, which would have included a user education campaign designed to inform
users about the legal consequences of copyright infringement and to promote the purchase of
authorized music through the LimeWire online store. Under the conversion plan, LimeWire
eventually would have implemented hash-based filtering and acoustic fingerprinting to prevent
users from downloading unauthorized files. In addition, LimeWire used keyword-based filtering
to allow users to limit their receipt of adult content and active filtering technology to prevent
LimeWire users from sharing digital recordings purchased from the LimeWire online store, but
did not use any of the filtering technology to screen out copyrighted content from the file-sharing
activities of its users. The court found that this selective filtering further demonstrated
LimeWire’s knowledge of infringement-mitigating technologies and its intentional decision not
to employ them in a way that meaningfully deterred its users’ infringing activities.^2229 “Failure
to utilize existing technology to create meaningful barriers against infringement is a strong
indicator of intent to foster infringement.”^2230
Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on their claim of
inducement of infringement.^2231
The court, however, denied the plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment with respect to
their contributory infringement claim. Although the court found that LimeWire was aware of the
prevalence of its users’ infringing activities and made a material contribution to that
infringement by designing, distributing, supporting, and maintaining the software, the court
found material issues of fact as to whether the software was capable of substantial non-infringing
uses under the Sony case. In particular, LimeWire had presented evidence of some types of non-
infringing content that users share and download through LimeWire in the form of electronic
copies of books in the public domain or authorize for distribution, historical documents, archival
films and other public domain works, and digital music recordings produced by musicians
seeking to promote their work through free online distribution. The court found the record
before it insufficient to permit it to assess the technological feasibility or commercial viability of
LimeWire’s potential non-infringing uses.^2232
(^2229) Id. at 429-31. The court discounted LimeWire’s only step to address infringement – the posting of an electronic
notice that appeared when a user first downloaded the LimeWire client, stating that the software was for sharing
authorized files only and that downloading the software did not constitute a license for obtaining or distributing
unauthorized content. Id. at 431. The user was also required to choose, prior to download, from the following
statements: (1) “I will not use LimeWire for copyright infringement.” Or (2) I might use LimeWire for
copyright infringement.” Id. If the user selected the second option, LimeWire would not be downloaded. The
court ruled that the notice and statement of intent requirements did not, on their own, constitute meaningful
efforts to mitigate infringement. Id.
(^2230) Id.
(^2231) Id.
(^2232) Id. at 433-34.