« Public Knowledge Statement on the Brand X case | Main | Concurring Opinions in MGM v. GROKSTER »
June 27, 2005
Grokster Decision
DECISION
No. 04-480, MGM Studios v. Grokster, reversed 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Souter. Justice Ginsburg concurred, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy; and Justice Breyer concurred, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor
"Grokster and StreamCast are not, however, merely passive recipients of information about infringing use. "
"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."
Grokster, StreamCast Lose (at 10:31 AM by Kevin Russell of Scotusblog): "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that developers of software violate federal copyright law when they provide computer users with the means to share music and movie files downloaded from the internet."
Excerpts from AP:
"The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial."
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by the clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties ... [t]here is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court."
DISCUSSION
Denise Howell and Ernest Miller have joined the WSJ Online Roundtable discussion on Grokster; they're offering a non-subscriber link here.
Check out Picker MobBlog for a more in depth discussion from a great cast of law professors.
Discussion has finally started at Scotusblog as well.
More Grokster coverage: Kinja, Technorati.
The following statement is from Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, on the Grokster decision today: "Today's Court decision in the Grokster case underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted -- punish infringers, not technology. The Court has sent the case back to the trial court so that the trial process can determine whether the defendant companies intentionally encouraged infringement. What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law. The Court also acknowledged, importantly, that there are lawful uses for peer-to-peer technology, including distribution of electronic files 'by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.' The Court is clearly aware that any technology-based rule would have chilled technological innovation. That is why their decision today re-emphasized and preserved the core principle of Sony v. Universal City Studios -- that technology alone can't be the basis of copyright liability -- and focused clearly and unambiguously on whether defendants engaged in intentional acts of encouraging infringement. The Court held expressly that liability for providing a technological tool such as the Grokster file-sharing client depends on 'clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.' What this means is, in the absence of such clear expression or other affirmative acts fostering infringement, a company that provides peer-to-peer technology is not going to be secondarily liable under the Copyright Act."
PREVIOUSLY
* Briefs Filed
* Questions Presented [pdf]
* Transcript of MGM vs. Grokster oral arguments
* Annotated HTML version of the Ninth Circuit decision under review
Posted by Kevin at June 27, 2005 10:35 AM