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.
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
If this article has helped you in some way, will you say thanks by sharing it through a share,
link, or an
email to someone you think would appreciate the reference.
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!
A Look at Three New Books that Reflect on the Brown v. Board Decision Three new books deal with the ramifications of the Brown decision on schoolchildren and the broader implications on racial justice for all African-Americans. All three authors are unanimous in saying that Brown was a dismal failure in its effect on African-American schoolchildren. The United States resisted the mandate of Brown requiring equal and integrated schools. The authors blame the Supreme Court, who decided both Brown I and Brown II. They ...
Ilya Shapiro Weighs in on U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Uphold Ban on Race-based Admissions Professional Overview
On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, the United States Supreme Court supported a Michigan constitutional ban regarding race-conscious action programs. Individuals who opposed the use of racial preferences admired the court’s ruling, while supporters of using affirmative action to advance ethnic and racial diversity on college campuses conveyed their concerns. Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato In ...
New Mexico Supreme Court Unanimously Affirms Right to Same-Sex Marriage New Mexico became the 17th US state to allow gay marriage after a unanimous decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court affirming the rights of same-sex partners to marry within the state. In its ruling, the court reasoned that “protections and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship” applies equally to same-sex and opposite-sex couples. With the ruling given, right now, 17 US states and the District of Columbia comes to recog ...
Law Students Take on Copyright Infringement Law To help low-income residents, two third-year law students at the University of Maine School of Law in Portland are representing two college students against the Recording Industry Association of America.
Farm Animal Protection Law Goes Before Supreme Court In 2008 the Humane Society released an undercover video that revealed the severe abuse of injured and sick animals at a slaughterhouse in Southern California. In response, the state enacted a law banning the purchase, sale, or slaughter of “downer” cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats and instead requires them to be promptly euthanized. Furthermore, the law forbids the dragging or pushing of farm animals with heavy equipment, such as a forklift, to ...
Through LawCrossing I got what I was looking for. Using the site was a fantastic experience. Ian
LawCrossing Fact #241: We go out of our way to tell you which jobs are the best in the market.
New Legal Jobs in Last 7 Days
Job of the day
Corporate Attorney in Austin, TX USA-Austin
Duties: Support the legal needs of the various departments with emphasis on the America’s Commer...
job search tip
An interviewer cares about three things: Can you do the job (experience, education)? Will you do the job (hours, money, location)? and Will you fit in the company (personality)?