"While the Court unanimously concurred that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, there was considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony case, and whether the precedent established by Sony should be modified. On one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "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 concur in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.
My opinion goes both ways, only because I too am guilty of file sharing.I get my music now from ITunes and or other people’s iPods. So it’s cut down a lot based on not exactly knowing where or how my peers may have received their music.Knowing more about the music industry I would agree with the courts.I wouldn’t want any of my materials to be stolen either especially if my compensation was being hindered.As an artist I would completely understand by how much work you put into your materials, how much money you’ve invested, and how much time was put in as well.On the other hand I wouldn’t mind as much if my materials were being shared as an up and coming artist.I would want my music to travel into as many ears as possible and get recognition.That’s how artists grow and become popular.It’s a catch 22 but I think at the end it pays back. Artist wants their music to be heard and played as many times and however it can be.For example, artists are practically throwing their materials for FREE at DJ’s and radio stations to get as much play as possible.Whether it is a DJ to play at a club or to have them add it on their mix tapes which the DJ would profit or to have their song put in rotation from the radio station.Also as for us “users’ to me, economics comes into place.I don’t have the money to dump into all albums that I’d like to buy, and if I wanted to check out and listen to it first to decide whether or not I want to buy it then that’s an easy way to do so.By then I already have the album.I know this sounds bias but there are certain artists that I know ill like so ill go ahead and buy the album at the same time supporting.If a friend wanted that album as well, I’d easily burn it with no hesitation.It is a chunk of money that is being loss but comparing to the amount of money that they are still receiving from people that do buy, endorsements, merchandise, concerts, tours etc... I wouldn’t think that it’s that big of a deal only for the simple fact that it’s not going to stop and there isn’t anything that you can do about it. It’s almost looked at as free advertising because your music is going around.
“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.”
The precedent of this case unlike the Sony case rules that whoever creates or designs a program or software that enables you to “P2P file-share” other people’s copyrighted makings is illegal by not only the the user but by the creator of the software as well, which is considered stealing.All software that induces file sharing must say that if used to download illegal material is prohibited and that lawful actions will be taking place.
The Supreme court decided that file sharing and creating a software that enables you to do so is not illegal.Although, if your software allows you to do so then you must issue out a warning stating that downloading music and motion pictures is in fact illegal and can and will be prosecuted.Even though Grokster tried to hide behind the ruling of the Sony case which protected VCR manufacturers from liability for copyright infringement , the courts still sought out Grokster for meeting those violations due to the simple fact that Groksters software did not issue any copyright warning or any illegal use of the software that enables file sharing.
Over all the deciding factor and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court concluded defendant Grokster and Streamcast was found guilty for inducing a software that promotes and violates copyright infringement laws.Grokster no longer offers its per-2-peer file sharing service."The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted material is illegal. Copying copyrighted motion picture and music files using unauthorized peer-to-peer services is illegal and is prosecuted by copyright owners." Is now stated on the website when visited.Grokster is now forced to pay $50 million dollars to the music and recording industries.
"While the Court unanimously concurred that Grokster could be liable for inducing copyright infringement, there was considerable disagreement over whether the case is substantially different from the Sony case, and whether the precedent established by Sony should be modified. On one hand, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy and Rehnquist, claim that "[t]his case differs markedly from Sony" based on insufficient evidence of noninfringing uses. On the other hand, Justice Breyer, joined by Stevens and O'Connor, claims "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 concur in the judgment on the narrow ground of Grokster's alleged inducement of its customers to use the product illegally.
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."
"Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services. "
