Your own Arguement

My opinion of the case Grokster v. MGM Studios is that of the Supreme Court. A company with the means to distribute software and uphold servers and databases built exclusively around the sharing of information from one user to another is harmless enough in and of itself; But when the company upholding that software and those servers and those databases knowingly is distributing via peer-to-peer systems to people who have not purchased the copyrighted material and try to uphold their own claim as what they were doing was only providing the software and doing the upkeep on the servers although they knew was transpiring in the court of law, they are blatantly in the wrong. I myself have illegally downloaded music from servers such as those upheld with Grokster without realizing and being to young to wish to find out what the meaning of copyrighted material even was. If I knew then what I know now I would have never stolen the intellectual property from the various bands and artists from which I downloaded their music for free. Even the fact that Grokster tried to hide behind another case (1984 Sony v. Universal Studios) to protect themselves is borderline despicable to me. Being a media company themselves I just don’t see how they could perpetuate giving away copyrighted material and not feel the twang of guilt that was obviously apparent.