When is a developer or distributor of technology legally
responsible for the copyright infringements of the users of that
technology? On the last day of the 2004-2005 term, the U.S. Supreme
Court handed down its decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
v. Grokster Ltd.
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
When is a developer or distributor of technology legally responsible for the copyright infringements of the users of that technology? On the last day of the 2004-2005 term, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.,125 S. Ct. 2764 (2005), one of the most closely watched copyright cases of recent years. The court, unanimously reversing the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ grant of partial summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, held that the defendants had distributed their software “with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright,” as shown in the record by “clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement”; and held that, as a result, they were not shielded from contributory copyright liability under ” Sonydoctrine.” The Sonydoctrine derives from the 1984 decision in Sony v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), in which the court, by a 5-4 majority, held that Sony’s distribution and sale of Betamax VCRs did not render it liable as a contributory copyright infringer. The VCR was, concededly, used by many purchasers to infringe the copyrights in broadcast television shows and movies. It was, however, a “staple article of commerce,” a device “widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes” (such as recording televised broadcasts with the implied consent of the copyright owner, or for the purpose of “time-shifting”-viewing previously broadcast shows at a later, more convenient time). Id. at 426, 442. Because of that, the court held, Sony could not be held liable for the infringing uses to which it was put by purchasers; “the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is . . . merely . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Id. Sonyengendered considerable confusion in the two decades since it was handed down. When are the noninfringing uses of a technology “substantial” enough to make it into the Sonysafe harbor? Need a device be merely “capable” of being used in a noninfringing way, or must it actually be used in such a manner? Was Sonyannouncing a complete immunity from contributory copyright liability for distributors of “staple articles of commerce,” or were there other theories of third-party copyright liability on which an infringement judgment could be based even if one met the Sony“substantial noninfringing use” standard? The 9th Circuit answered some of these questions in its 2001 decision in A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). The court there held that software developed by Napster Inc.-the first generation of peer-to-peer software, and the direct predecessor of the Grokster and StreamCast systems-was indeed, like the VCR, “capable of substantial noninfringing uses” (e.g., sharing files containing material in the public domain). Id. at 1021. Napster was nonetheless contributorily liable for its users’ infringements because, unlike Sony, it had “actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement.” The copyright holders had provided notice of specific infringing files that were being shared on the Napster system, and Napster could confirm the availability of these files by checking its central database of shared files-and, in the face of that knowledge, it failed to “block access to the system by the suppliers of infringing material” or to “remove the material.” Id. at 1021, 1022. That the software was capable of “substantial” noninfringing uses under the Sonystandard was, in that circumstance, irrelevant; actual knowledge that infringements were taking place, plus the ability to act upon that knowledge and to prevent the infringements, was a sufficient basis for the imposition of liability independent of the Sonysafe harbor. Designing around ‘Napster’ Enter Grokster and StreamCast. They had, in effect, designed around the Napsterdecision; their file-sharing systems had no central databases, and there was no continuing communication between the users of the software and the two defendant companies. They argued, therefore, that they had neither “knowledge” of the specific files that were being shared using their systems (infringing or otherwise), nor any ability to “block” or “remove” the offending files. The 9th Circuit agreed, holding that the ” Napsterexception” didn’t apply to them, and that they could, therefore, avail themselves of the Sonysafe harbor; inasmuch as their systems were “capable of substantial noninfringing uses,” the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of partial summary judgment in the defendants’ favor, absolving them of contributory copyright liability. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004).
SPECIAL EDITION Supreme Court Review ARTICLES
This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
Dynamically explore and compare data on law firms, companies, individual lawyers, and industry trends.
Exclusive Depth and Reach.
Legal Compass includes access to our exclusive industry reports, combining the unmatched expertise of our analyst team with ALM’s deep bench of proprietary information to provide insights that can’t be found anywhere else.
Big Pictures and Fine Details
Legal Compass delivers you the full scope of information, from the rankings of the Am Law 200 and NLJ 500 to intricate details and comparisons of firms’ financials, staffing, clients, news and events.
Sponsored by: NAM (National Arbitration and Mediation)
Webcast Date: Thursday, December 12, 2019 | **EARN CLE FOR THIS EVENT** | Join this webcast, and earn 1.0 CLE credit (General Skills)*, Join this webcast for insight into the mediation process and how it can be leveraged to resolve disputes and retain business relationships.
As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters.
Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss.
Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.