| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

04-480 MGM STUDIOS, INC V. GROKSTER, LTD DECISION BELOW: 380 F3d 1154 CERT. GRANTED 12/10/2004 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-55894, 03-55901, 03-56236
In the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., the U.S Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of MGM and other copyright holders in 2005. The court held that peer-to-peer file sharing companies could be sued for inducing or encouraging direct copyright infringement by their users who illegally downloaded copyrighted material such as movies and music. Grokster and StreamCast Networks were found to have intentionally facilitated illegal activity by promoting their software's ability to access copyrighted materials while making no significant effort to impede unlawful conduct on their services. This landmark decision expanded liability for indirect copyright infringement beyond previously established boundaries set forth in Sony Corp v Universal City Studios (1984), which had limited it only when a company had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement.
In the dissenting opinion for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., it was argued that peer-to-peer file sharing technology itself should not be held liable for copyright infringement committed by its users. The justice emphasized that such technologies have significant non-infringing uses and potential benefits in terms of promoting information exchange and technological innovation. They also pointed out that holding tech companies responsible for how consumers use their products could stifle innovation and deter the development of new digital tools and platforms. Furthermore, they contended that existing laws were sufficient to punish individual infringers without needing to target the technology providers themselves.