Thursday, May 19, 2011
How CNET ZDNET had Control over End Users
How CNET/ZDNET had Control over the Service;
Since P2P software has substantial Legal uses. I would not usually feel the distributer has an obligation to install copyright filters. Even if the Distributor, such as CNET, had a generalized knowledge that the device was being used for copyright infringement.
However, the distributor, CNET, knew full well FOR YEARS that the software is used for mass copyright infringement as admitted many times in frequent articles and tests, The copyright infringing prowess was demonstrated on many occasions by actual CNET Employees.
CNET, the distributor, had more than a "generalized knowledge that copyright infringement was ongoing". They had direct knowledge as they performed and published direct copyright infringement evidence themselves.
it is well known to CNET that Audiogalaxy's Copyright Filters worked. (In the 2nd "Smackdown Test" Audiogalaxy was referred to as "Hobbled" and "Bought the Farm" ) after the copyright filters were installed. No, the service still worked JUST FINE for legal file sharing. CNET admitted that it worked well, but it had "Bought the Farm" and the "File Sharing Smackdown" performed with copyrighted songs was intended to Guide former Audiogalaxy users to the best File Sharing alternatives.
100's of P2P software downloads were frequently updated, I believe that CNET/ CBS Interactive had a legal obligation to order the installation of filters if they had Actual Knowledge of the Direct infringements and the filters could have mitigated the infringing activity. Well, the CNET Staff performed the direct actual infringement themselves, boasting about it and publishing to the world as informed guidance.
CNET through Upload,com exercised complete control over the testing and function over the product. Each upload was "Tested" by a "Team of Technology Experts" for use and effectiveness. It was reported online by software developers that the CNET testing staff would insist on CHANGES to the software code or functionality before allowing uploads to post on the site. When EACH upload product was submitted, the final authority for the Description, Category and Keyword selection were all overseen and approved by CNET Editorial Staff.
ALSO, after CBS bought CNET, CBS had a fiduciary responsibility to it's Artists and Creators whom were earning royalties and commissions from the secondary sale of works to which those creators contributed, to PROTECT the Creator's income.
CBS is acting as Agent to many creators. CBS had a legal obligation to filter or stop distributing these "Devices" didn't they?. The CNET staff admitted time and again that these programs were "Known Piracy Applications". Actual Editorial Articles admitted that the were used primarily for Piracy.
For that matter, CNET could have simply refused to offer the p2p software category at any time. That would have been effective.
Since the Cnet Editor's had TOTAL editorial control over the category for the software, why was the P2P File Sharing Software in a Category called "MP3 Finders" grouped in the "Music Downloads Master Category" until the late 2000's? And recommended on pages named "Find Music" Guides , when the software had MANY ofher legal file Sharing uses? That fact must go to control of the distribution of the product and subsequent use in some way.
The category of Internet utilities certainly seems to be a better fit for p2p software. I don't see CNET editors reviews discussing sharing Profit Reports, Home Movies, Family Photos or Business Research. Just Music!!! MP3s!!! Movies!!! Software!!!
MOREOVER, Cnet had remarkable Control over Service to the end users, "It's the Service AFTER the Sale"
CNET/ZDNET is not merely a seller / distributor whose contact with consumers ceases when the product is sold or downloaded.
CNET/ZDNET exercises a substantial and ongoing control over its service.
• Automatic Updates plan for the software. After EACH DOWNLOAD, the download page asks you to "Sign Up for free Automatic Software Updates AND ALERTS"
• Tutorials for Instructional Guidance AFTER the download or sale has occurred to "Get you Going".Step one: Download the Software, etc.
• Newsletters by actual File Sharing System Name, for a Continuing Stream of Guidance
• User reviews to allow the site to offer a constant flow of Peer Guidance. Comments that are clearly stated that are Moderated and were subject to removal, MODERATED BY WHOM?
• FREQUENT Call in Radio and TV Shows Shows with P2P users calling in for guidance. Hundreds of these are recorded on CNETtv.com, ( and Ustream.tv)
Go to CNETtv.com and just search keyword "RIAA" or "MPAA" or "File Sharing" or "LimeWire" or "AudioGalaxy" or "Bittorrent" or "Torrents" ( especially if you add "Rant" to the search terms. Callers will ask questions such as, "I keep getting broken downloads with Limewire, What should I do?" Look for those featuring "Tom Merritt" and "Molly" Just amazing how helpfully they offered guidance to live call in viewers.
( Alki used an excerpt from one of these in one of his videos on Viaconned, A Listener calls in for advice on which DRM removal tool to use, and Seth Rosenblatt responds with guidance".)
• CNET's Help.com offered a PAID Write-in Question/Answer Service to assist you with your P2P questions! Literally categorized by Software title such as Napster, Scour, etc. That "Write in Offer" is clearly on every Help.com p2p guide page. For example, "Do you have questions about how to use Scour? Ask our staff of experts for a nominal fee" ( Something to that effect.) ( I have Tons of Screen Caps)
• Replying with guidance to an actual published letters! For Example, In "Spyware Horror Stories" when a 15 year old girl admits to copyright theft of a Harry Potter book twice with Bit Comet and Bittorrent. And the Cnet Editor;'s respond with Guidance. ( Doesn't that example create evidence of "Actual Knowledge" of copyright infringement as well?)
My Additional Thoughts
• Cnet's Help.com "Tips and Tricks" were submitted by user's and CHOSEN by editors for posting. Many had actually copyrighted song or artists mentioned in the postings. Subscriptions to the Newest "Tips and Tricks" were also offered to be sent by email.
• CNET Staff wrote articles offering Advice and Recommendations for superior Services or Replacements, Trusted Opinions, in actual editorial news articles linking directly to the software. (FileSharing Smackdowns) Offering new uses, or recommending un-intended, possibly shady, uses. "Where should you turn when the Napster Well Runs Dry?"
• Instructional Videos and published tests using copyrighted songs with Actual CNET Editor's advice. PLEASE NOTICE that the "CNET Editors" write the reviews far more often than Mere "Cnet STAFF". "CNET Editor's" carries additional Authority and Trust. The published tests were specifically written to GUIDE former software users to the best new download offerings to procure Copyrighted songs.
• Guidance to keep using the Napster System, contrary to the legal orders of various Federal Court injunctions. Napster evidence must apply here, as Limewire co-existed with Napster and Limewire was pitched as a suitable Napster replacement. Moreover, CNET offered Software and instructional Guidance up until 2011 to keep using the original Napster system in use. Many editorial Articles with instruction directions are still published with live links to this day.
* CNET allows downloaders to Subscribe to email ALERTS, with an alert specifically for Newly Listed P2P software offerings, to be alerted to each and every new P2P Program, with a notice sent directly to your mailbox. CNET has offered this service for years right up until today. ( I have Screen Shots)
* CNET offers an array of add on devices for existing P2P Downloads.
for Example, If I have downloaded Limewire, I am given substantial additional software download choices, often lauded by the CNET Editor's Reviews to enhance the p2p downloading experience.
For example; Software to remove adware or spyware from existing p2p software that is already downloaded and in use. New add-on offerings for Faster P2P Downloads, Easier P2P Searching, ID Masking and More! These constant offerings were more than mere add ons as they often had instructional guidance, Users Reviews,, moderated user forums.
• Frequent and faulty copyright guidance for Downloaders/Uploaders. The LACK of obvious Copyright Disclaimers until just a few weeks ago.
• Zapshares to keep from getting caught using Limewire for Piracy. A use extolled in a 4 star editors review. One would need to be a Limewire user or P2P user already.
• Editorial Articles advising readers of the RIAA and Federal Governments next moves in order to shield the reader from legal problems. Actually giving users advice how to shield their criminal activities.
>Zdnet published DRM Removal Tutorials! As editorial articles linking directly to the drm remover on their own ZDNET Downloads site.
• Moderated Forums to allow questions to be asked for guidance.
I have great evidence screen shots for most of these points.