Are you an Employer?    Attract the Best Candidates with Smart Job Postings! Search Legal Resumes
Legal Jobs Board for Attorneys, Law Students & Legal Staff | Serving USA & Other Countries | LawCrossing

Need Help? Call (800) 973-1177 

Job Seeker Login   Employer Login 

Job Seekers?  Try it Now  

ATTORNEY JOBS
LAW STUDENT JOBS
LEGAL STAFF JOBS
See Law Jobs We Have Recently Researched and Located for You
What Where
Show Recruiter Jobs  

Show Refreshed Jobs  



Search in Job Title Only
Job Type:
Employer Type:

+ Browse Legal Jobs     + Advanced Search     + Search Tips     + Upload Legal Resume
Legal Jobs >> Legal Articles >> Feature >> Copyright Law & New Technologies: How the Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster will affect millions of technically savvy Americans - and our modern toys.
  • Feature

Copyright Law & New Technologies: How the Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster will affect millions of technically savvy Americans - and our modern toys.


by      

Copyright Law & New Technologies:  How the Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster will affect millions of technically savvy Americans - and our modern toys.
This result is different from the Napster case, in which the lower courts ruled that the service clearly was in violation of copyright law. "The other piece of good news is that the court did affirm the Sony standard. Under the Sony standard, a creator of new technology that permits copying is not liable if the technology has substantial non-infringing uses. Liability rests on the design and uses of the technology. The lower court held that Grokster and Streamcast are not liable under the Sony standard because of the design of the P2P service permitting non-infringing uses. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the lower court had misapplied the Sony standard by focusing exclusively on the question of design and not enough on the intent of the creators of Grokster and Streamcast."

Here's where the bad news starts. "The Supreme Court basically created another way for the creator of new technology to be liable for copyright infringement," he says. "If the creator intended to induce copyright infringement, then the creator can also be found liable. To quote the court: '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.'"

After today's decision, there are two potential pitfalls for creators of new technology, according to Ghosh. "The first, under Sony, is to create technology that because of its design and uses has primarily infringing uses," he says. "The second, under Grokster, is to create technology with the intent to induce infringement by third parties. The Sony standard focuses on the design of the technology, the Grokster standard on the intent of the creator. Even if the design of technology may have a lot of non-infringing uses—as Grokster and Streamcast allegedly did—the creator of new technology still can be found liable if his purpose in creating the technology was to permit copyright infringement.

In Sony, the court borrowed from the law on contributory infringement in patent law; in Grokster, the court borrowed from patent law's rules about inducement. "In its defense," Ghosh added, [the Grokster] opinion, totaling more than 50 pages in length, did show sensitivity to the arguments about technological innovation that were raised in the litigation. However, the decision also complicates copyright law by creating a new—and questionable—legal standard. Only future cases will tell how this standard will affect P2P and other technologies."



From the University at Buffalo Law School Newspaper, The Opinion


Related Article
The Supreme Court's Top Five Worst Rulings



It's been said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ....

The High Court's No-Decision Decision

When word came on Monday morning that the Supreme Court had reversed the 6th Circuit in the two big wetlands cases, some of us critics of federal imperialism were ecstatic. Callooh, Callay, O frabjous day! We fairly chortled in our joy. Justice Antonin Scalia had slain the invidious Corps of Engineers! ....

Law Students go to the Supreme Court

05/14/07 With help from the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at University of Virginia's (UVa) law school, a group of students will have the rare opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court for the case of United States v. Watson. ....
Rate This Article
   View top rated articles

Printable Version    Printable Version PDF Version    PDF Version Email to a Friend    Email to a Friend
Comment    Post A Comment View Comment    View Comment Discuss    Discuss

Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing helped me find my new job. Thank you!
Thomas K.

Facts

LawCrossing Fact #233: We provide inspirational quotes and testimonials to further motivate you throughout the job-search process.

"We want to hear your thoughts. Please comment on this article (below)!"

Comments


Article ID: 1103    

Article Title: Copyright Law & New Technologies: How the Supreme Court's decision in MGM v. Grokster will affect millions of technically savvy Americans - and our modern toys.

Comment not found for this article.

Comment Comment

Facebook comments:


total jobs
49,785
Upload Your Resume
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
14,901
Facebook Twitter
job search tip
When employers check references, they're looking for confirmation of what they already believe about you. So coach your references.
LawCrossing



The Job Search Program that Guarantees Success.
Our career counselor creates a tailor-made job search strategy for you and walks you through every step of the process.
Create your unique brand for just $2,495!
2014 Most Influential Legal Recruiter Rankings
Get the ranking

Your privacy is guaranteed. We will never give out, lease, or sell your personal information.


Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss it, you will land among the stars.