CHALK TALK: The Day the Music Died: The Supreme Court's Reversal of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster and its Impact on Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement

I. INTRODUCTION Beginning with Napster, 1 computer file-sharing software has created a unique obstacle for the recording industry in preventing copyright infringement. The recent Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd . Supreme Court decision (hereinafter Grokster III ) makes it clear that distributors of computer file-sharing software can be held liable for copyright infringement committed with their software, even when they have no control over the infringement. 2 The software distributed by the defendants in Grokster allowed users to exchange files via a peer-to-peer network (P2P), a decentralized system where users download from other users without using a central indexing system controlled by the software distributors. The Ninth Circuit's MGM, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd . decision (hereinafter Grokster II ) had found that the P2P 3 software distributors were not secondarily liable for copyright infringement. 4 Previously, courts had held P2P software distributors secondarily liable for the copyright infringement committed by software users. 5 Although the Ninth Circuit in Grokster II reached a different result, it applied existing doctrine to do so. 6 The Ninth Circuit arrived at the correct result and should not have been overturned by the Supreme Court. To understand the full significance of the decision, a basic understanding of computer file-sharing is necessary. This article will discuss the history of P2P file-sharing litigation, why the Ninth Circuit's decision was correct and what the Supreme Court's reversal of Grokster II means for the future of P2P file-sharing litigation. II. COMPUTER FILE-SHARING ...