Big Entertainment Needs a Sequel to the Highly Anticipated Flop: MGM v. Grokster

Authors

• Anuj Desai, University of Georgia School of Law

Publication Date

2007

Abstract

The entertainmentindustry's attempts to police copyright infringement by targeting technologies that enable copying of protected works remain unworkable. More than twenty years ago, Hollywood initiated this strategy when it sued Sony, claiming users copied protected broadcast TV shows using Sony's Betamax, thus branding Sony a contributory infringer. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument in Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. and found that Sony was not liable as it had no knowledge of the infringement and its product was capable of substantialnoninfringing uses. The Sony doctrine was revived in the late 1990s when it was successfully invoked by the music industry to sue Napster and Aimster, centralized file-sharing networks that knowingly enabled their users to freely download music. The doctrine, however, fell short in the lower courts when Hollywood and the music studios sued Grokster and StreamCast, decentralized file-sharing networks that flourished in the wake of Napster's demise. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the entertainment industry, it declined to opine on the scope of the Sony doctrine and instead found Grokster and StreamCast liable under its new 'inducement rule.' This Note examines the Grokster decision and reveals how its flaws help neither technology innovators nor copyright owners. The Note then outlines a new approach that combines market strategies and legislative action to develop a solution bringing success to both the technology and entertainment industries.

Recommended Citation

Desai, Anuj (2007) "Big Entertainment Needs a Sequel to the Highly Anticipated Flop: MGM v. Grokster," Georgia Law Review: Vol. 41: No. 2, Article 6.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol41/iss2/6