## Facts

- Major record labels owned copyrights in numerous sound recordings widely shared through LimeWire’s peer-to-peer (P2P) software.
- LimeWire distributed and maintained a P2P client on the Gnutella network that enabled users to search for and download files from other users’ computers.
- Evidence indicated LimeWire use was overwhelmingly infringing; an expert sampling estimated approximately 93% of files available on LimeWire were copyrighted works.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that LimeWire knew of widespread infringement, including internal materials referencing infringement knowledge and ongoing monitoring of public reports about infringing uses.
- Plaintiffs also presented evidence of affirmative conduct encouraging infringement, including marketing to users seeking free music, technical modifications to improve locating and downloading copyrighted music, and continued operation without meaningful filtering.
- LimeWire earned revenue tied to a large user base and argued its software had lawful uses (e.g., public-domain works and licensed content) and potential future noninfringing uses.
- After an earlier ruling establishing inducement liability and issuing injunctive relief, the court addressed further summary-judgment disputes concerning the scope of secondary liability and remaining defenses.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were also liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement based on their knowledge, material contribution, ability to control infringement, and financial benefit.
2. To what extent summary judgment was appropriate on contributory and vicarious infringement given asserted noninfringing uses.
3. Whether Sony-based arguments about substantial noninfringing uses limited or barred secondary liability where plaintiffs offered evidence of intentional encouragement of infringement.

## Decision

- The court reaffirmed defendants’ secondary liability and granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on claims including inducement and related infringement theories against LimeWire LLC.
- The court found substantial evidence supporting contributory infringement (knowledge and material contribution) and vicarious infringement (ability to control and direct financial benefit).
- The court rejected the contention that the mere existence or possibility of noninfringing uses insulated defendants where the record showed pervasive infringement coupled with purposeful encouragement.
- The court did not award complete summary judgment on every aspect of contributory infringement, recognizing that some questions about the extent and significance of noninfringing uses could remain for further proceedings.
- The rulings supported continued injunctive relief shutting down LimeWire’s infringing file-sharing operations and set the case on a path toward damages proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A service may be liable for inducement when it intentionally encourages infringement through affirmative steps, particularly when combined with knowledge of pervasive infringing use and failure to take meaningful preventative measures.
- Contributory infringement may be established by showing knowledge of infringement and material contribution through continued distribution, maintenance, updates, and user assistance that enable infringement.
- Vicarious liability may be established where a defendant has the right and ability to control or supervise infringing conduct and receives a direct financial benefit from infringement-driven use.
- Sony’s substantial-noninfringing-use concept does not preclude liability where inducement is shown; intentional encouragement of infringement can support secondary liability even if the technology is capable of lawful uses.
- On summary judgment, courts may resolve secondary-liability elements where the evidentiary record is one-sided, while reserving genuinely disputed factual questions (including the practical significance of noninfringing uses) for later proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court held that LimeWire’s operation and promotion of its P2P software supported secondary copyright liability, including inducement and strong showings of contributory and vicarious infringement, and that Sony-based reliance on lawful uses did not defeat liability where defendants intentionally encouraged widespread infringement and benefited from it.


Arista Records LLC v. Lime Grp. LLC, 784 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)