(d) Arista Records v. Lime GroupIn Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC,^2219 the defendants distributed the peer-to-
peer software client known as LimeWire that enabled users to share digital files across the
Gnutella network. The LimeWire client contained a search function in its user interface that
enabled the entry of search criteria. LimeWire would then scan the computers of other
LimeWire users to locate files matching the search criteria, which could then be downloaded to
the searching user’s computer. The plaintiffs, owners of copyrights in various sound recordings
that were shared without authorization by LimeWire users, brought claims of inducement,
contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement against the defendants.^2220
With respect to the claim of inducement, the court granted summary judgment to the
plaintiffs. The court noted that under the Supreme Court’s Grokster case, inducement constitutes
a distinct cause of action from contributory infringement, and requires a showing that the
defendant engaged in purposeful conduct that encouraged copyright infringement with the intent
to encourage such infringement. The court found purposeful conduct to encourage infringement
in the form of distribution of the LimeWire client, which users employed to commit a substantial
amount of infringement.^2221
The court found intent on the part of the defendants to encourage infringement from a
combination of five factors taken together:
- The defendants’ awareness of substantial infringement by LimeWire users: The
plaintiffs submitted an expert report showing that LimeWire was overwhelming used for
infringement. In particular, the expert estimated that 98.8% of the files requested for download
through LimeWire were copyright protected or highly likely copyright protected, which made it
nearly certain that most actual downloads involved unauthorized content. Internal memoranda at
LimeWire regularly discussed the fact that LimeWire users downloaded copyrighted recordings.^
(^2222) For example, a 2001 draft of an offering memorandum in connection with a financing stated
that LimeWire “allows people to exchange copyrighted mp3 files” and a 2002 statement of the
(^2219) 784 F. Supp. 2d 298 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). This opinion amended and replaced a prior opinion issued by the court,
reported at 715 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
(^2220) 784 F. Supp. 2d at 409, 410-11.
(^2221) Id. at 424-26. The court found the evidence clearly established direct infringement on the part of LimeWire
users, since it demonstrated through documentation and electronic storage media that LimeWire users employed
LimeWire to share and download the plaintiffs’ copyrighted recordings without authorization. In one
interesting side ruling, the court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether hash-based
analysis could independently support a finding of direct infringement. The plaintiffs’ expert argued that if two
files have the same hash, they are identical, and if two users possess a file with identical hashes, one user’s file
is a copy of the other. The defendants’ expert disputed this conclusion. He agreed that the fact that two users
have a file with the same hash implies that the two users possess a file with likely the same content, but it does
not imply that those two users shared the file with each other, or that one copied the file from the other. He
argued that there are many different ways that the two users could have ended up with the same, identical file,
such as by obtaining the file from the same, non-peer-to -peer source such as a web site, or from some non-
gnutella-peer-to -peer network, or from some non-LimeWire Gnutella peer. Id. at 424 n.21.
(^2222) Id. at 411-12, 426.