Split Decision on File-Sharing

Grokster may be a goner, but swapping is here to stay

BY Mike Godwin

The Supreme Court’s June 27 decision in MGM v. Grokster is not quite as bad as the tech companies feared it would be, and not nearly as good as the content companies hoped it would be. Unfortunately, the decision also lacks the clarity that the rest of us hoped it would have. As a result, we can reasonably expect more litigation for some time to come.

In Grokster, the Court reversed lower courts’ summary judgment on the issue of whether the current software offered by defendants Grokster and Streamcast was lawful, and then went on to adopt a new theory for liability–the intentional “inducement of infringement.”

The new rule marks a departure from the two-decade old “bright line” test of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, which held that a technology is lawful if it is “capable of substantial noninfringing use,” even when that technology is widely used for infringement. Post-Grokster, a technology-providing defendant will have to prove it didn’t create or distribute tools that can be used for copyright infringement with the intent of causing such infringement.

Proving a negative is hard in any situation, and for a defendant in this type of case, it probably means turning over just about all records to whoever is suing you, so that the plaintiff can dig for incriminating e-mails and memos about what the defendants knew and when they knew it.

It’s clear the Supreme Court was trying to preserve the fundamental effect of the Sony rule, which has given breathing space for the development of new consumer technologies from the iPod to TiVo. Still, the Grokster case likely means that U.S. technology developers will be thinking a lot harder in the future over whether the next iPod or TiVo is going to trigger litigation, and about how they describe the features of new technologies, both in public statements and in private communications. Whether this means a “chill” on product innovation in the long term is still up for grabs, but the tech community–including companies that disapprove of the file-sharing tech providers like Grokster–is fearing the worst.

What probably won’t be affected, however, is the willingness of ordinary Americans to share their cultural enthusiasms–music, TV, movies, and everything else–in the online world. That impulse has accompanied every era of recording technology–it’s why our fathers and grandfathers hooked up reel-to-reel tape recorders to their hi-fi equipment. Regardless of the outcome of the Grokster case and the cases that are sure to come, file-sharing won’t be going away anytime soon. It’s up to the content creators and our culture at large to adapt to a new world.

Mike Godwin is the legal director of Public Knowledge. Read his blog.

More information about Mike Godwin

  • Reader Comments

    “Proving a negative is hard in any situation, and for a defendant in this type of case, it probably means turning over just about all records to whoever is suing you, so that the plaintiff can dig for incriminating e-mails and memos about what the defendants knew and when they knew it.”

    It’s not the Defendant’s burden to prove a negative. It’s the Plaintiff’s burden to prove intent, the most egregious level of culpability, and which generally gives rise to punitive damages, but which is the most difficult to prove.

    Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 1:23 PM

    “What probably won’t be affected, however, is the willingness of ordinary Americans to share their cultural enthusiasms—music, TV, movies, and everything else—in the online world.”

    You missed the most important part ==> “FOR FREE.”

    Posted by Lefty on Jul 7, 2005 at 1:25 PM

    Proving a universal negative is not just hard, it’s logically impossible to prove a negative unless the proof refers to an impossible set of circumstances that cannot exist by definition (e.g. a “square circle” or a “married bachelor”).  This case should have been immediately dismissed in the first place.  There are many legitimate, and quite legal reasons, for groups of dispersed people to use file sharing software.  The fact that it can be used to violate copyright laws is not relevant in the least bit.  There is no public safety issue in question to override this standard, unless you consider corporate greed a safety issue.

    Posted by Cortez Mack on Jul 12, 2005 at 8:21 AM

    “There are many legitimate, and quite legal reasons, for groups of dispersed people to use file sharing software.”  And How!!  This is the important point. What about all the unsigned bands with uncopyrighted works they are dying to let the world hear??

    So Public Libraries, watch your back. You are encouraging people to have access to copyrighted works without purchasing them with your “check out” technology.

    By making it so easy to for me to check out CDs and VHS tapes and burn them to CD-R and DVD-R, you are inducing me to infringe on the copyrights of the authors.

    Oh, and Silly Putty? You are inducing people to pick up copyrighted images from the Sunday Funnies. Watch your back, you are gonna be run out of business

    Posted by Walrus Gumboot on Jul 12, 2005 at 11:31 AM
  • Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account