Armed with the ruling in Napster, the music industry has been pursuing actions against the remaining dominant, seemingly illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing services, including Aimster, Morpheus, Kazaa and Grokster. The outcome of those actions appeared inevitable and certain. The 9th Circuit definitively had held that peer-to-peer services that knowingly facilitate the sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works are liable to copyright owners for contributory and vicarious infringement.
But, in Metro Goldwyn Mayer Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 01-08541/01-09923 (C.D. Cal, order filed April, 25, 2003), the U.S. District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Grokster. How could a District Court find in favor of Grokster in light of the 9th Circuit’s decision in Napster? The answer, according to the District Court, lies in the similarities and differences of the two systems, which is the focus of this article.
For reprints of this article or additional information, contact the author Harrison Dossick.