Dissent

The opinion was delivered 9-0 in favor of MGM Studios and against Grokster and it's associates. I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Courts opinion.

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.

Reasoning of the Court

In Grokster v. MGM Studios, the district and appellate courts ruled against MGM Studios and in favor of Grokster because of the precedent of the Sony v. Universal Studios case in 1984 where Sony was found innocent from copyright infringement due to selling a product that could knowingly be used to record copyrighted material for personal use by the consumer; Sony knew this to be a unwanted side effect of the product but it wasn’t enough to warrant copyright infringement on behalf of Sony. Due to this the lower cases considered P2P (peer-to-peer file sharing via servers on the internet) of the same effect and ruled in favor of the company providing the material to conduct this business. The Supreme Court had noted that unlike Sony in 1984 whose product was for viewing of copyrighted material purchased on behalf of the user; Grokster’s software was made specifically for P2P and was exclusively for sharing files and products via servers on the internet, and specifically for sharing copyrighted and expensive material from one person in New York to someone in Hong Kong. Because of this brash difference in the basis of the companies and their product, Grokster was blatantly advertising itself as a “Napster alternative” in that it would get you the song or movie and what not that you wanted from someone you would never meet for a cost of next to nothing with no payment made towards the original producer of that material. The Supreme Court found this in violation of the Copyright Act and held Grokster and it’s associates fully responsible for all of the copyrighted material infringed upon on their servers using their software. This set a new precedent for copyrighted material and P2P software and servers on the internet, at least those based within the United States where jurisdiction is still held. This has helped bring down malicious software from its free roaming unobstructed reigns to at least stem the tide of P2P which is also a cesspool for viruses and Trojans on top of being a music and movie database from which to download.

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.

Issues of the Case

Copyright infringement is a very serious matter, especially more so in the field of audio with which I plan to make my living. In MGM Studios v. Grokster, the facts of the case are as follows. Grokster was a company that distributed software and products that elicited the peer-to-peer and ensured it would thrive (peer-to-peer being file sharing with computers that have access to the internet without access to the actual computer, just being able to access its files even without the permission of the computer user) in the established internet world. Among these files shared in the peer-to-peer network was expressly stated copyrighted material that was transferred with the knowledge of Grokster. The transfer of this copyrighted material without the written expressed statement from MGM Studios to do so was perceived as copyright infringement on behalf of Grokster as they blatantly knew about the illegal sharing of the material. Grokster countered with they not only didn’t know what material was being transferred, only that they were providing the product with which people could transfer files on an established peer-to-peer server; But also that the transfer over the internet could not be claimed as copyright infringement as it is outside of the jurisdiction of the US Government and non-negotiable as to who owns the materials on hand. The opinion is as follows “We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” – Supreme Court Justice Souter.

Supreme Court Case

A peer-to-peer company was selling software that enabled file sharing between users on the internet claiming that it could be done as the internet was a free enterprise. MGM and other major production companies felt that the free trade of copyrighted material was illegal and they should be compensated for it. Because it’s on the internet, the company’s “GROKSTER LTD.” and “StreamCast Networks, Inc.” felt they had no legal obligation to upholding copyrighted law as it was a trade between peers on the internet with no legal contracts being held, sort of like if I was give a friend a burned CD of music I purchased, but on a much grander scale. The case was presented on March 29, 2005 and the Decision was given on June 27, 2005. The companies were upheld for copyright infringement.
Cornwell University Law School: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.html
European Digital Rights: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/p2p