MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
Primary Holding
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.
In the case of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., the Supreme Court decided that companies can be held responsible if they create and promote software that encourages people to illegally share copyrighted material, like movies and music. This ruling helps protect the rights of creators and copyright holders, ensuring that consumers can't just use any software without considering its legality. If you're using file-sharing software, this case is relevant because it reminds you to be cautious about what you're sharing and to respect copyright laws to avoid potential legal trouble.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., the dispute arose from the distribution of peer-to-peer file-sharing software by Grokster, Ltd. and StreamCast Networks, Inc. These companies provided free software that allowed users to share electronic files directly between their computers without the need for a central server. While this technology offered advantages in terms of speed and efficiency, it was prominently used by users to share copyrighted music and video files without authorization. As a result, a group of copyright holders, including Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM), filed a lawsuit against Grokster and StreamCast, alleging that they knowingly and intentionally facilitated copyright infringement by distributing their software. The procedural history of the case began with MGM's lawsuit in the trial court, where they sought damages and an injunction against Grokster and StreamCast for the copyright infringements committed by their users. During the discovery phase of the litigation, evidence was gathered regarding the operation of the software, the business objectives of the defendants, and the behavior of their users. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court after being appealed from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The relevant background context includes the growing popularity of peer-to-peer networks, which allowed for efficient file sharing among various users, including individuals and institutions. However, the use of such networks for sharing copyrighted material raised significant legal questions regarding the liability of companies that provide the technology. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the circumstances under which distributors of products capable of both lawful and unlawful use could be held liable for copyright infringement committed by third parties using their products.
Whether the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product, specifically when the distributor promotes its use to infringe copyright.
The judgment is affirmed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 29, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Souter
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court held that the exemption from patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) applies to uses of patented inventions in preclinical research, even if the results are not ultimately included in a submission to the FDA, as long as those uses are reasonably related to the development and submission of information required by federal law regulating drugs.
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Federal Communications Commission's determination that cable companies providing broadband Internet service do not qualify as "telecommunications services" under Title II of the Communications Act, and thus are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation, is a lawful construction of the Act under the Chevron deference standard.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where state-court losers seek to challenge state court judgments in federal court, and it does not extend to other situations that would override preclusion law or allow federal courts to dismiss cases in deference to state court actions.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (2005)
Consumer LostA federal court in a diversity action may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional plaintiffs whose claims do not meet the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement, as long as at least one named plaintiff satisfies that requirement and the claims are part of the same case or controversy.