In a unanimous decision, the music industry won.
I couldn’t find the decision yet, but I’m sure it will be interesting.
UPDATE: The decision is here.
Basically, the Court held that when there is intent for users to infringe, the software provider is in deep doo-doo. I was sad to see the Court avoid the Sony decision, but Breyer’s concurring opinion does a good job of explaining why we should leave the Sony decision alone (as much as possible).
The two different concurring opinions are interesting. Ginsberg, Rehnquist, and Kennedy all seem to think that a re-interpretation of Sony may be in order. This concurrence states: “If, on remand, the case is not resolved on summary judgment in favor of MGM based on Grokster and StreamCast actively inducing infringement, the Court of Appeals, I would emphasize, should reconsider, on a fuller record, its interpretation of Sony’s product distribution holding.”
Breyer, Stevens, and O’Connor seem to focus on the development of technology. Their concurrence points out the factual similarities with Sony and nearly admits that the software is a staple article of commerce. They still come down on the side of the music industry. However, they appear to limit the holding to cases where the entity “actively seeks to advance the infringement.”
Of the opinion and the two concurrences (55 pages total), I recommend the Breyer concurrence (last 18 pages).
Comments?
You may be interested in reading the following related posts:
Posted by Douglas Sorocco, June 27, 2005 at 10:19 am
Permalink: Grokster Decided
2 Comments
I am disappointed to see in the Grokster decisions that the judicial analysis is directed to inducing infringement. This implies that person who receives a copy, even a requested copy, constitutes an infringer.
I would rather see Grokster treated analogously to a broadcaster. They are facilitating the dissemination of multiple copies. I can see that as an illegitimate behavior that should be restrained.
This is what needs to happen. This keeps Sony intact but does make software developers aware of their actions. I haven’t yet read the entire opinion but I am curious what kind of damages Grokster may be liable for? What if their intention was to only have one person steal copyright protected material? Are they liable for every one of the “billions” of infringing acts? Does the accrual of damages stop with the lawsuit or may the damages continue because remember, the software cannot be shut off by anyone except the individual user.
I am also curious to see what satisfies the intent prong of this new test. The lower court has a huge task to develop that.
Overall, right answer, difficult administration.