Decision of the Court

In the Supreme Court Case Grokster v. MGM Studios the decision of the courts was in favor of MGM studios. Grokster had quoted the earlier case of 1984 landmark decision in the Sony v. Universal city Studios case where Sony had provided betamaster software so consumers could copy their own videos for safekeeping or sharing with the family. The difference in the cases is that Sony didn’t know what it’s users had actually been using the software to do, nor had any idea of what information was being shared, they only provided the software. Grokster on the other hand had actively given the software, actively been monitoring the servers with which the information was being stored, and had even labeled themselves as “Napster alternatives.” Therefore the courts had found negligence on behalf of Grokster and found them guilty. It appears that the court had been found 9-0 with two concurring notions delivered by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. Both giving elongated statements on different aspects of the case both focusing on the fact that Grokster unlike Sony which it attempted to hide behind had been negligent and even promoted the copyrighting of the material. Justice Ginsburg stated, “ I concur in the Court’s decision, which vacates in full the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, ante, at 24, and write separately to clarify why I conclude that the Court of Appeals misperceived, and hence misapplied, our holding in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). There is here at least a “genuine issue as to [a] material fact,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c), on the liability of Grokster or StreamCast, not only for actively inducing copyright infringement, but also or alternatively, based on the distribution of their software products, for contributory copyright infringement. On neither score was summary judgment for Grokster and StreamCast warranted.” Showing that the warrants for Sony were in the slightest something of tangible nature that Sony did not know nor perpetuate was happening, unlike Grokster. Justice Breyer states, “I agree with the Court that the distributor of a dual-use technology may be liable for the infringing activities of third parties where he or she actively seeks to advance the infringement. Ante, at 1. I further agree that, in light of our holding today, we need not now “revisit” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). Ante, at 17. Other Members of the Court, however, take up the Sony question: whether Grokster’s product is “capable of ‘substantial’ or ‘commercially significant’ noninfringing uses.” Ante, at 1 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (quoting Sony, supra, at 442). And they answer that question by stating that the Court of Appeals was wrong when it granted summary judgment on the issue in Grokster’s favor. Ante, at 4. I write to explain why I disagree with them on this matter.” Where he states that there wasn’t a necessity to revisit the Sony v. Universal Studios case based upon the relevance it had doing with the Grokster v. MGM Studios case as they are of different natures due specifically to the extreme changes in technology between the times of the cases.