Grokster

Grokster is a peer-to-peer file sharing program which runs under Microsoft Windows. It uses an interface similar to Kazaa, and combines searches over several P2P networks. It has been estimated that 90% of files shared on Grokster are downloaded illegally. [1]

This appeal presents the question of whether distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer networking software may be held contributorily or vicariously liable for copyright infringements by users. Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude that the defendants are not liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment.

In December 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On 25 March 2005, billionaire and former Broadcast.com owner Mark Cuban announced he would finance Grokster's fight in the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were held for MGM v. Grokster on 29 March, 2005. A decision is expected in July 2005.

The heart of the debate in the Supreme Court today is the adequate interpretation for the Sony safe-harbor, which was set by the Supreme Court 21 years ago in Sony v Universal Studios (1984). According to the Sony safe-harbor "… the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial non-infringing uses." (Sony 464 U.S. at 442). The parties in front of the Supreme Court today offer different interpretation to the phrase: "capable of substantial non-infringing uses". The respondents and various amici seek to affirm the 9th Circuit ruling in Grokster. According to this decision, which followed the same circuit desicion in Napster, a proof of reasonable, actuall or potential, non-infringin use, is enough to fulfil the substantiality requirment. The petitioners argue that in order to enjoy the sony safe-harbor it is necessary to prove that the non-infringing use is the primary one. an incidental non-infringing use is not enough. the U.S. government offers a different test. According to the government position a manufacturer of technological device will enjoy the Sony safe-harbor only if the non-infringing uses are commercially significant compared to the infringing uses. A group of law and economic professors (among them professors Kenneth J. Arrow, and William M. Landes) suggest even more radical test for the substantiality requirment. In their opinion, in order to determine whether the non-infringing use is substantial, it is necessary to examine all the existing substitute mechanisms for accomplishing the same task, without allowing copyright infringement. The substantiality will be evaluated in light of the existing substitute mechanisms, meaning the next best legally permissible approach. The example given by this amicus is the dissemination of the Bible. Indeed, dissemination of the Bible through P2P file sharing software is lawful and therefore non-infringing use is done through this software. However, there are many other legitimate ways to acquire a copy of the Bible online, for example dozen of religious websites that offer an online copy of the Bible for free. Thus, in their opinion, describing the dissemination of the Bible through P2P file sharing software as substantial non-infringing use is to overweigh its beneficial consequences, since there are many alternative legitimate means to accomplish the same goal. others lean upon the cost-benefit analysis, first introduced by Judge Posner from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals at the Aimster case. according to his opinion a manufacturer of technological device will enjoy the Sony safe-harbor only if "it would have been disproportionately costly for him to eliminate or at least reduce substantially the infringing uses."

As part of this debate various amici issue briefs in support of the Respondents trying to prove that Grokster and StreamCast allow substantial non-infringing use. Among those amici was also the Creative Commons organization, which presented a strong argument for non infringing use in the form of the Creative Commons licence(Despite the fact that the architecture of the software did not allow for transfering said licences).

External links

• Grokster's homepage
• MGM v. Grokster case documents
• MGM v. Grokster Ninth Circuit oral argument transcript
• MGM v. Grokster: Day 1 – March 30, 2005 MP3 Newswire recap of first day of trial

  This software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.