The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in MGM v. Grokster, arguably the most important copyright case before the Court in over two decades. The case, which seeks to hold peer-to-peer software developers liable when their products are used for illegal copying, is likely to have major implications for developers of new digital technologies and for free expression online.
In arguments today the Court clearly grappled with the broad impact of the case beyond the two file-sharing companies at issue. Several Justices sharply questioned whether new liability rules could sweep in the makers of VCRs, Xerox machines, or iPods - and how a technology developer "sitting in a garage" could anticipate how his or her product would be used. At the same time, some members of the Court expressed distress about companies using misappropriated works as the basis for their businesses.
"While concerned by the serious problem of illegal copying online, many Justices today clearly understood the high stakes for those who create valuable new consumer products,"said CDT's Michael Steffen, who attended today's argument. "At least some Justices raised hard questions about creating liability for those who develop a technology that could later be misused."
CDT filed an amicus brief in the case in January alongside leading technology groups. The brief expressed a common consumer and industry interest in preserving the Court's landmark 1984 Sony Betamax holding, which protects the developers of copying technologies that have "substantial non-infringing uses." Rather, CDT's brief urged the Court to send the case back to the lowers courts for an exploration of the bad behavior - independent of technology - that might give rise to liability.
In questioning today, some Justices appeared to focus today on that very issue - openly seeking alternatives that might create liability for inducement of illegal copying, while protecting innovation.
"We do not condone illegal file-sharing, but this case is about more than just a few peer-to-peer companies. At stake is access to the new technologies so critical to the digital communications revolution and the free flow of information online," said Alan Davidson, CDT Associate Director. "There are better approaches to stop bad actors in the market, without undoing the current legal protections for developers of valuable products."
CDT is committed to the principle that copyrighted material should be protected from illegal copying. At the same time, CDT believes that the public interest in an open and democratic communications media demands breathing room for valuable new technologies to develop, even if they may have some infringing uses. The Sony Betamax ruling has been a critical shield for the developers of new technology, from the iPod to instant messaging to the computer itself, all of which might also be used for infringement.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in MGM v. Grokster by the end of its term, this June.
For More Information, contact: Alan Davidson, Associate Director 202-637-9800 x110 Michael Steffen, Policy Analyst 202-637-9800 x115
CDT's Web resources on Grokster, the Induce Act, and copyright liability
Amicus Brief of CDT, DiMA, ITAA, and NetCoalition
# # # #