The Legal Landscape After MGM v. Grokster: Is It the Beginning of the End or the End of the Beginning? Part I: Understanding the Context.

This article describes the facts of the court case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. The case offers several important lessons for those with some stake or interest in the continued battle between copyright owners and copyright users. In June 2005, while hearing this case, the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that 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. The evidence weighed heavily against the defendants and the infringing nature of most downloading and uploading. In fact Grokster conceded this point in its brief. Moreover, internal documentary evidence suggested that Grokster desired to exploit the extant market for users desiring a vehicle to continue its infringing quests for copyrighted recordings and other material. Advertisements and other external communications reflected the outward expression of this internal desire.