MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Task 16: replaced (2×) / removed (0×) deprecated |dead-url= and |deadurl= with |url-status=; |
Yoshi24517 (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 113.211.136.253 (talk) (HG) (3.4.12) |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} |
|||
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
{{Infobox SCOTUS case |
||
|Litigants=MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. |
|Litigants=MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. |
||
| Line 10: | Line 11: | ||
|ParallelCitations=125 S. Ct. 2764; 162 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 781; 2005 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 5212; 75 [[U.S.P.Q.2d]] ([[Bloomberg BNA|BNA]]) 1001; 33 Media L. Rep. 1865; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 547 |
|ParallelCitations=125 S. Ct. 2764; 162 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 781; 2005 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 5212; 75 [[U.S.P.Q.2d]] ([[Bloomberg BNA|BNA]]) 1001; 33 Media L. Rep. 1865; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 547 |
||
|Docket=04-480 |
|Docket=04-480 |
||
|Prior=Motion to dismiss denied, 243 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/243/1073/2413426/ 1073] ([[United States District Court for the Central District of California|C.D. Cal]]. 2003); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, 259 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/259/1029/2362925/ 1029] (C.D. Cal. 2003); plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims granted in part, 269 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/269/1213/2528298/ 1213] (C.D. Cal. 2003); affirmed, 380 [[Federal Reporter#Federal Reporter, Third Series|F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/380/1154/533557/ 1154] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2004); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, |
|Prior=Motion to dismiss denied, 243 [[Federal Supplement|F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/243/1073/2413426/ 1073] ([[United States District Court for the Central District of California|C.D. Cal]]. 2003); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, 259 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/259/1029/2362925/ 1029] (C.D. Cal. 2003); plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims granted in part, 269 [[F. Supp. 2d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/269/1213/2528298/ 1213] (C.D. Cal. 2003); affirmed, 380 [[Federal Reporter#Federal Reporter, Third Series|F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/380/1154/533557/ 1154] ([[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]] 2004); [[certiorari|cert.]] granted, {{ussc|543|1032|2004|el=no}}. |
||
|Subsequent=Remanded, 419 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20051424419f3d100511309 1005] (9th Cir. 2005); summary judgment opinion on remand, 454 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/20061420454fsupp2d96611349 966] (C.D. Cal. 2006). |
|||
|Subsequent=Remanded by MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17145 (9th Cir., August 15, 2005) |
|||
|Holding=Producers of technology who promote the ease of infringing on copyrights can be sued for inducing copyright infringement committed by their users. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. |
|Holding=Producers of technology who promote the ease of infringing on copyrights can be sued for inducing copyright infringement committed by their users. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. |
||
|Majority=Souter |
|Majority=Souter |
||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.''''', 545 U.S. 913 (2005), |
'''''MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.''''', 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, [[peer-to-peer file sharing]] companies [[Grokster]] and [[Streamcast]] (maker of [[Morpheus (software)|Morpheus]]), could be held liable for inducing [[copyright infringement]] by users of their [[file sharing]] software.<ref name=":0">{{ussc|name=MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.|volume=545|page=913|year=2005}}. {{Include-FedCourts}}</ref> The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by [[Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] studios. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
The case is frequently characterized as a re-examination of the issues in ''[[Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios]]''.<ref>{{ussc|name=Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios|volume=464|page=417|pin=|year=1984}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1T4GAAAAQBAJ|title=Media and Entertainment Law|last=Towers|first=Sandi|date=2008-05-05|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=1111798648|language=en}}</ref> — [[wikt:AKA|AKA]] the "Betamax case", a decision that protected [[VCR]] manufacturers from liability for contributory infringement. MGM wants makers of file sharing technology held liable for their users' copyright infringements. In ''Sony,'' the court held that technology could not be barred if it was "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." |
|||
Entertainment industry lawsuits against new technologies that enable the copying of copyrighted content date back to the 1980s, when the movie industry sought court [[injunction]]s against the sale and use of [[Videocassette recorder|VCRs]]. In ''[[Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios]]'' in 1984'',''<ref>{{ussc|name=Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios|volume=464|page=417|pin=|year=1984}}.</ref> the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a technology manufacturer cannot be held liable for its users' copyright infringement if widespread unauthorized copying is unlikely, and if the technology enables significant non-infringing uses as well.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1T4GAAAAQBAJ|title=Media and Entertainment Law|last=Towers|first=Sandi|date=2008-05-05|publisher=Cengage Learning|isbn=978-1111798642|language=en}}</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
The advent of [[file sharing]] via the Internet in the late 1990s, and its enabling of easy and more widespread copying of copyrighted materials, inspired new arguments from the entertainment industry because copying technology had progressed since the 1980s. The ''Sony'' precedent was partially modified by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] in ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.|A&M Records v. Napster]]'' (2001), which addressed the ease of sharing music files online, and how the designers of the technology could be held liable for [[contributory copyright infringement]] and [[Vicarious liability|vicarious copyright infringement]] if such behavior was the primary use of the technology and the company benefited from it.<ref>''A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,'' [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14102696336550697309&q=239+F.3d+1004&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 239 F.3d 1004] (9th Cir., 2001).</ref> |
|||
| ⚫ | Computer and Internet technology companies such as [[Intel]], and trade associations including firms such as [[Yahoo!]] and [[Microsoft]], filed ''[[amicus curiae]]'' briefs in support of the file sharing companies, while the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]] and [[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]] both sided with MGM. [[Napster]] filed a brief in support of the |
||
Just a few years later, Internet technology had progressed to the point that trading large video files, including those for entire movies, had become viable via popular services including [[Grokster]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gregorian |first=Jamie |date=2009 |title=Grokster, BitTorrent, Copyright infringement, and Inducement: How Modus Operandi Can Provide a Functional Standard for Future File-Sharing Cases |journal=Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=145–168 |via=HeinOnline}}</ref> The ''MGM v. Grokster'' case is frequently characterized as a re-examination of the issues in ''Sony'' precedent, in light of rapidly progressing technologies and consumer behaviors. MGM and the other plaintiffs argued that makers of file sharing technology should held liable for their users' copyright infringement, via the contributory and vicarious infringement doctrines.<ref name=":0" /> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | During [[oral argument]], the Supreme Court justices appeared divided between the need to protect new technologies and the need to provide remedies against copyright infringement. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] expressed concern that inventors would be [[Chilling effect |
||
| ⚫ | The entertainment companies appealed to the Supreme Court after losing at two lower courts. The [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]] originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the ''Sony'' precedent.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. |vol=259 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=1029 |court=C.D. Cal. |date=2003 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/259/1029/2362925/ |access-date=2018-03-26 }}</ref> On appeal, the [[Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] upheld the district court's decision after acknowledging that peer-to-peer ("P2P") software has legitimate and legal uses.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. |vol=380 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1154 |court=9th Cir. |date=2004 |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/380/1154/533557/ |access-date=2018-03-26 }}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | The music industry suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster, to which Souter replied, "I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod. But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."<ref>[[Linda Greenhouse]], [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/technology/30bizcourt.html "Lively Debate as Justices Address Filesharing"], ''New York Times'', March 30, 2005.</ref> On the other hand, the justices seemed troubled at the prospect of ruling that Grokster's alleged business model of actively inducing infringement and then reaping the commercial benefits was shielded from liability. |
||
| ⚫ | Computer and Internet technology companies such as [[Intel]], and trade associations including firms such as [[Yahoo!]] and [[Microsoft]], filed ''[[amicus curiae]]'' briefs in support of the file sharing companies, while the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]] and [[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]] both sided with MGM and the other entertainment companies. [[Napster]], having lost its [[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.|similar lawsuit]] about its enabling of users' copyright infringement, filed a brief in support of the entertainment companies.<ref>A list of briefs filed in the case is available at [http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/ copyright.gov] and [https://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/ eff.org] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011114548/http://eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster |date=2008-10-11 }}.</ref> Billionaire [[Mark Cuban]] partially financed Grokster's legal battle.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/Mark+Cuban+to+finance+Grokster+defense/2100-1032_3-5641530.html |title=Mark Cuban to finance Grokster defense |date=2005-03-27 |first=Steven |last=Musil |access-date=2006-07-20 |publisher=CNET |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120715215133/http://news.cnet.com/Mark-Cuban-to-finance-Grokster-defense/2100-1032_3-5641530.html |archive-date=2012-07-15 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | |||
The opinion was authored by [[David Souter|Justice Souter]], who wrote: |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | During [[oral argument]], the Supreme Court justices appeared divided between the need to protect new technologies and the need to provide remedies against copyright infringement. Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] expressed concern that inventors would be [[Chilling effect|chilled]] from entering the market by the threat of immediate lawsuits. Justice [[David Souter]] questioned how the plaintiffs' interpretation of the law would affect devices like [[Photocopying|copy machines]] or the [[iPod]].<ref name=":0" /> |
||
| ⚫ | The music industry suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster, to which Souter replied, "I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod. But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."<ref>[[Linda Greenhouse]], [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/technology/30bizcourt.html "Lively Debate as Justices Address Filesharing"], ''New York Times'', March 30, 2005.</ref> On the other hand, the justices seemed troubled at the prospect of ruling that Grokster's alleged business model of actively inducing infringement and then reaping the commercial benefits was shielded from liability.<ref name=":0" /> |
||
Concurring opinions were written by [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Justice Ginsburg]], who was joined by Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]] and [[Anthony Kennedy|Justice Kennedy]]; and by [[Stephen Breyer|Justice Breyer]], joined by [[John Paul Stevens|Justice Stevens]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]]. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | While the Court unanimously |
||
| ⚫ | The opinion of the court was authored by [[David Souter|Justice Souter]], who wrote: "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."<ref name=":0" /> |
||
| ⚫ | While the Court unanimously held that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, [[concurring opinion]]s by several of the Justices showed considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the ''Sony'' precedent, and whether that precedent should be modified. On the one hand, [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Justice Ginsburg]], joined by [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]] and [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], claimed that "[t]his case differs markedly from ''Sony''" as there was insufficient evidence of non-infringing uses of the technology.<ref name=":0" /> On the other hand, [[Stephen Breyer|Justice Breyer]], joined by [[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]], claimed "a strong demonstrated need for modifying ''Sony'' (or for interpreting ''Sony''<nowiki/>'s standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of ... lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in ''Sony''." These justices concurred in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally.<ref name=":0" /> |
||
Roughly speaking, the Ginsburg concurrence suggests that Grokster would be liable (unprotected by ''Sony'') even absent evidence of inducement. The Breyer concurrence, on the other hand, suggests that Grokster would be protected by ''Sony'' without evidence of inducement. The Souter opinion does not address whether or not ''Sony'' protects Grokster. Thus, neither the view that Grokster is protected nor the view that Grokster is unprotected by ''Sony'' commanded a plurality of the Court. |
|||
| ⚫ | In the ''Grokster'' ruling, the Court as a whole did not reach a decision to formally overturn the ''Sony'' precedent, and instead partially applied it to the specific issues raised by the Grokster and Streamcast technologies. Justice Souter noted: "in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the ''Sony'' safe harbor."<ref name=":0" /> Thus, the ''Grokster'' ruling was limited to the specific technologies at issue in the case. |
||
The majority of the Justices would have either expanded or contracted the [[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.|Sony Betamax doctrine]]; however, the Court as a whole has not chosen to reexamine the [[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.|Betamax]] precedent in the decision, being split into three equal groups. Thus the Betamax ruling was reviewed only as necessary to properly detail the issues involved in this case. Instead, a new and—as several critics have contended—ambiguous test has been developed to determine whether the software in question is not protected by the Sony ruling. Briefly stated, it has to be shown that the distributors of the program have advertised and/or otherwise induced its use for copyright infringement; if this intent can be shown, additional contributory aspects may be relevant. For example, MGM et al. had asserted that the defendants' refusal to incorporate protocols that would filter copyrighted materials from the file-sharing network constitutes an intent to promote copyright infringement. In Footnote 12, however, Justice Souter notes that |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
== Subsequent developments == |
== Subsequent developments == |
||
| ⚫ | Legal researchers hailed ''Grokster'' for striking a fair balance between the need to respect the copyrights of artists, and the benefits of allowing and promoting technological innovation. Conversely, others have criticized the decision for its apparent vagueness, contending that it permits financially powerful organizations like the [[Recording Industry Association of America|RIAA]] and [[Motion Picture Association of America|MPAA]] to effectively hinder development of new technology by actively engaging in litigation against the developers and distributors of new technologies.<ref name="NYT">{{cite news | first =Tom Jr. | last =Zeller |author2=Roben Farzad |author3=Saul Hansell| url =https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/technology/28peer.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=41f5ea71b5f92739&ex=1277611200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1153411907-IhDfRpnMphZzBY9s4J9HUA | title =Sharing Culture Likely to Pause but Not Wither | work =The New York Times| date = 2005-06-28| access-date =2006-07-20}}</ref> |
||
{{update|date=November 2010}} |
|||
| ⚫ | On November 7, 2005 Grokster announced that it would no longer offer its peer-to-peer file sharing service. |
||
| ⚫ | On November 7, 2005 Grokster announced that it would no longer offer its peer-to-peer file sharing service.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grokster.com|title=Grokster|access-date= 2006-07-20|publisher= Grokster}}</ref> As part of a civil lawsuit enabled by this Supreme Court ruling, Grokster was forced to pay $50 million to various companies in the music and movie industries.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.cnet.com/Last+waltz+for+Grokster/2100-1027_3-5937832.html |title=Last waltz for Grokster |first=John |last=Borland |date=2005-11-07 |access-date=2006-07-20 |publisher=CNET |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120711115423/http://news.cnet.com/Last-waltz-for-Grokster/2100-1027_3-5937832.html |archive-date=2012-07-11 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Stating in 2008, visitors to the Grokster website (www.grokster.com) encountered this message: "YOUR IP address [...] HAS BEEN LOGGED. Don't think you can't get caught. You are not anonymous."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grokster.com |title=Grokster website |access-date= 2008-10-24 |publisher=Grokster}}</ref> |
||
| ⚫ | [[Streamcast]] |
||
| ⚫ | [[Streamcast]] continued to fight the suit on [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]]. On September 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the entertainment companies and held Streamcast liable for the infringement of its users.<ref>"[http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/legal/streamcast_summary.pdf September 27, 2006, Decision] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061028012842/http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/legal/streamcast_summary.pdf |date=October 28, 2006 }}"</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3634866 |title=StreamCast Up Streaming Creek |date=28 September 2006 |access-date= 2006-09-28 |publisher=InternetNews.com}}</ref> |
||
Fearing lawsuits similar to ''MGM v. Grokster'', [[Mark Gorton]], the [[chief executive officer]] of the firm that produces [[LimeWire]], has said that he plans to stop distributing his file sharing program. He explained this by saying |
|||
Fearing similar lawsuits, [[Mark Gorton]] of [[LimeWire]] vowed to stop distributing his file sharing program.<ref name="NYT" /> A lawsuit was brought against LimeWire; ''[[Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC]]'' (2010), also led to a ruling in favor of the entertainment industry and an injunction against use of the software. Following that ruling, the download page for the free LimeWire client included a footnote stating: "The download, however, is not a license to upload or download copyrighted material. We urge you to respect copyright and share responsibly."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.limewireofficial.com/ |title=Download LimeWire |access-date=2021-11-11}}</ref> |
|||
<blockquote>Some people are saying that as long as I don't actively induce infringement, I'm O.K. I don't think it will work out that way ... [the Court] has handed a tool to judges that they can declare inducement whenever they want to.<ref name ="NYT" /></blockquote> |
|||
A lawsuit was brought against LimeWire in ''[[Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC]]'', which held that Lime Group LLC induced [[copyright infringement]] with its [[P2P file sharing]] software LimeWire and issued a [[permanent injunction]]. |
|||
Downloads of the free LimeWire client have now been barred from its official website, with a notice claiming that this is a result of the Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC legal battle, which resulted in the official download of LimeWire now being unavailable, but as of July 21, 2013, the site remains open. |
|||
== References == |
== References == |
||
| Line 82: | Line 73: | ||
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-480 |
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/04-480 |
||
}} |
}} |
||
*[https://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf Copy of the decision from EFF] ([[Portable Document Format|PDF]]) |
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100251/http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/04-480.pdf Copy of the decision from EFF] ([[Portable Document Format|PDF]]) |
||
*[{{SCOTUS URL|oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf}} Transcript of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court] |
*[{{SCOTUS URL|oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf}} Transcript of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court] |
||
*[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040823002045984 Transcript of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit] |
*[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040823002045984 Transcript of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit] |
||
| Line 89: | Line 80: | ||
*[http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html Filed Briefs] |
*[http://www.copyright.gov/docs/mgm/index.html Filed Briefs] |
||
*[http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/mgmday1.html MGM v. Grokster: Day 1] - March 30, 2005 [[MP3 Newswire]] recap of first |
*[http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/mgmday1.html MGM v. Grokster: Day 1] - March 30, 2005 [[MP3 Newswire]] recap of first |
||
{{USArticleI}} |
|||
{{USCopyrightActs}} |
|||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]] |
||
[[Category:United States copyright case law]] |
|||
[[Category:United States file sharing case law]] |
[[Category:United States file sharing case law]] |
||
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]] |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]] |
||
| Line 99: | Line 92: | ||
[[Category:Copyright infringement]] |
[[Category:Copyright infringement]] |
||
[[Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] |
[[Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer]] |
||
[[Category:Legal scholars]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 02:36, 31 October 2023
| MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 29, 2005 Decided June 27, 2005 | |
| Full case name | Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al. |
| Docket no. | 04-480 |
| Citations | 545 U.S. 913 (more) 125 S. Ct. 2764; 162 L. Ed. 2d 781; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5212; 75 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1001; 33 Media L. Rep. 1865; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 547 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Motion to dismiss denied, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2003); summary judgment granted in part to defendants, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003); plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counterclaims granted in part, 269 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2003); affirmed, 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, 543 U.S. 1032 (2004). |
| Subsequent | Remanded, 419 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2005); summary judgment opinion on remand, 454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006). |
| Holding | |
| Producers of technology who promote the ease of infringing on copyrights can be sued for inducing copyright infringement committed by their users. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Stevens, O'Connor |
| Laws applied | |
| Copyright Act of 1976 | |
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast (maker of Morpheus), could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software.[1] The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.
Background[edit]
Entertainment industry lawsuits against new technologies that enable the copying of copyrighted content date back to the 1980s, when the movie industry sought court injunctions against the sale and use of VCRs. In Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios in 1984,[2] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a technology manufacturer cannot be held liable for its users' copyright infringement if widespread unauthorized copying is unlikely, and if the technology enables significant non-infringing uses as well.[3]
The advent of file sharing via the Internet in the late 1990s, and its enabling of easy and more widespread copying of copyrighted materials, inspired new arguments from the entertainment industry because copying technology had progressed since the 1980s. The Sony precedent was partially modified by the Ninth Circuit in A&M Records v. Napster (2001), which addressed the ease of sharing music files online, and how the designers of the technology could be held liable for contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement if such behavior was the primary use of the technology and the company benefited from it.[4]
Just a few years later, Internet technology had progressed to the point that trading large video files, including those for entire movies, had become viable via popular services including Grokster.[5] The MGM v. Grokster case is frequently characterized as a re-examination of the issues in Sony precedent, in light of rapidly progressing technologies and consumer behaviors. MGM and the other plaintiffs argued that makers of file sharing technology should held liable for their users' copyright infringement, via the contributory and vicarious infringement doctrines.[1]
The entertainment companies appealed to the Supreme Court after losing at two lower courts. The United States District Court for the Central District of California originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the Sony precedent.[6] On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision after acknowledging that peer-to-peer ("P2P") software has legitimate and legal uses.[7]
Computer and Internet technology companies such as Intel, and trade associations including firms such as Yahoo! and Microsoft, filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the file sharing companies, while the RIAA and MPAA both sided with MGM and the other entertainment companies. Napster, having lost its similar lawsuit about its enabling of users' copyright infringement, filed a brief in support of the entertainment companies.[8] Billionaire Mark Cuban partially financed Grokster's legal battle.[9]
Oral arguments[edit]
During oral argument, the Supreme Court justices appeared divided between the need to protect new technologies and the need to provide remedies against copyright infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia expressed concern that inventors would be chilled from entering the market by the threat of immediate lawsuits. Justice David Souter questioned how the plaintiffs' interpretation of the law would affect devices like copy machines or the iPod.[1]
The music industry suggested that iPods have a substantial and legitimate commercial use in contrast to Grokster, to which Souter replied, "I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod. But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."[10] On the other hand, the justices seemed troubled at the prospect of ruling that Grokster's alleged business model of actively inducing infringement and then reaping the commercial benefits was shielded from liability.[1]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
The opinion of the court was authored by Justice Souter, who wrote: "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."[1]
While the Court unanimously held that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, concurring opinions by several of the Justices showed considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony precedent, and whether that precedent should be modified. On the one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claimed that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" as there was insufficient evidence of non-infringing uses of the technology.[1] On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claimed "a strong demonstrated need for modifying Sony (or for interpreting Sony's standard more strictly) has not yet been shown," primarily because "the nature of ... lawfully swapped files is such that it is reasonable to infer quantities of current lawful use roughly approximate to those at issue in Sony." These justices concurred in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally.[1]
In the Grokster ruling, the Court as a whole did not reach a decision to formally overturn the Sony precedent, and instead partially applied it to the specific issues raised by the Grokster and Streamcast technologies. Justice Souter noted: "in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor."[1] Thus, the Grokster ruling was limited to the specific technologies at issue in the case.
Subsequent developments[edit]
Legal researchers hailed Grokster for striking a fair balance between the need to respect the copyrights of artists, and the benefits of allowing and promoting technological innovation. Conversely, others have criticized the decision for its apparent vagueness, contending that it permits financially powerful organizations like the RIAA and MPAA to effectively hinder development of new technology by actively engaging in litigation against the developers and distributors of new technologies.[11]
On November 7, 2005 Grokster announced that it would no longer offer its peer-to-peer file sharing service.[12] As part of a civil lawsuit enabled by this Supreme Court ruling, Grokster was forced to pay $50 million to various companies in the music and movie industries.[13] Stating in 2008, visitors to the Grokster website (www.grokster.com) encountered this message: "YOUR IP address [...] HAS BEEN LOGGED. Don't think you can't get caught. You are not anonymous."[14]
Streamcast continued to fight the suit on remand. On September 27, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the entertainment companies and held Streamcast liable for the infringement of its users.[15][16]
Fearing similar lawsuits, Mark Gorton of LimeWire vowed to stop distributing his file sharing program.[11] A lawsuit was brought against LimeWire; Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC (2010), also led to a ruling in favor of the entertainment industry and an injunction against use of the software. Following that ruling, the download page for the free LimeWire client included a footnote stating: "The download, however, is not a license to upload or download copyrighted material. We urge you to respect copyright and share responsibly."[17]
References[edit]
- ^ a b c d e f g h MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
This article incorporates public domain material from judicial opinions or other documents created by the federal judiciary of the United States.
- ^ Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
- ^ Towers, Sandi (May 5, 2008). Media and Entertainment Law. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1111798642.
- ^ A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir., 2001).
- ^ Gregorian, Jamie (2009). "Grokster, BitTorrent, Copyright infringement, and Inducement: How Modus Operandi Can Provide a Functional Standard for Future File-Sharing Cases". Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law. 10 (2): 145–168 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
- ^ MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004).
- ^ A list of briefs filed in the case is available at copyright.gov and eff.org Archived 2008-10-11 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Musil, Steven (March 27, 2005). "Mark Cuban to finance Grokster defense". CNET. Archived from the original on July 15, 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2006.
- ^ Linda Greenhouse, "Lively Debate as Justices Address Filesharing", New York Times, March 30, 2005.
- ^ a b Zeller, Tom Jr.; Roben Farzad; Saul Hansell (June 28, 2005). "Sharing Culture Likely to Pause but Not Wither". The New York Times. Retrieved July 20, 2006.
- ^ "Grokster". Grokster. Retrieved July 20, 2006.
- ^ Borland, John (November 7, 2005). "Last waltz for Grokster". CNET. Archived from the original on July 11, 2012. Retrieved July 20, 2006.
- ^ "Grokster website". Grokster. Retrieved October 24, 2008.
- ^ "September 27, 2006, Decision Archived October 28, 2006, at the Wayback Machine"
- ^ "StreamCast Up Streaming Creek". InternetNews.com. September 28, 2006. Retrieved September 28, 2006.
- ^ "Download LimeWire". Retrieved November 11, 2021.
External links[edit]
Wikinews has related news:
Works related to MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. at Wikisource- Text of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Copy of the decision from EFF (PDF)
- Transcript of oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court
- Transcript of oral argument before the Ninth Circuit
- Stanford case page (archive)
- California district court case summary
- Filed Briefs
- MGM v. Grokster: Day 1 - March 30, 2005 MP3 Newswire recap of first
