Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rules against file swapping companies
{{date|June 27, 2005}}
[[Image:US Supreme Court Building.jpg|300px|right]]
The [[w:United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] today ruled that Internet file sharing networks can be sued for copyright infringement. The decision in the case "[[w:MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.|Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd. et al.]]" had been much awaited by those on both sides of the debate about copyright law and its application to Internet technologies. The court ruled that businesses created with the purpose of letting users commit copyright violations should be held liable for the infringement.

Writing for the court, Justice [[w:David Souter|David Souter]] wrote: "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, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."

The strength of the decision was unexpected &mdash; this is the first major Internet copyright case to reach the Supreme Court in many years, and the Justices' unanimity sends a strong message about their lack of tolerance for companies designed to violate the law.

The decision affects such companies as [[w:Grokster|Grokster]] and [[w:Morpheus (computer program)|StreamCast]], both of which were [[w:defendant|defendant]]s in this suit. The court's ruling does not have an immediate effect, however, as the Justices referred the decisions to a lower court to be reconsidered.

Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the [[w:Electronic Freedom Foundation|EFF]], panned the court for not providing a clear test for what constitutes inducement, saying it would discourage innovators unsure of their project's legality. He did however remain optimistic about Grokster and StreamCast's chances in the lower courts.

{{publish}}

==Sources==

* {{source|url=http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+rules+against+file+swapping/2100-1030_3-5764135.html?tag=nl|author=John Borland|date=June 27, 2005|pub=News.com|title=Supreme Court rules against file swapping}}
* {{source|title=Justices Rule File-Sharing Services Can Be Held Liable for Theft
|url=http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-062705grokster_lat,0,5397050.story?coll=la-home-headlines
|author=David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
|pub=LA Times
|date=12:44 PM PDT, June 27, 2005}}

==External links==

{{wikipediapar|MGM v. Grokster}}
{{wikisourcepar|MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.}}
* [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-480.pdf Supreme Court decision in the case]

    {{PD-Article}}
{{archive}}
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Culture and entertainment]]
[[Category:Film]]
[[Category:Music]]
[[Category:US Supreme Court]]
[[Category:Copyright]]
right
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that Internet file sharing networks can be sued for copyright infringement. The decision in the case "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. v. Grokster, Ltd. et al." had been much awaited by those on both sides of the debate about copyright law and its application to Internet technologies. The court ruled that businesses created with the purpose of letting users commit copyright violations should be held liable for the infringement.

Writing for the court, Justice David Souter wrote: "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, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."

The strength of the decision was unexpected — this is the first major Internet copyright case to reach the Supreme Court in many years, and the Justices' unanimity sends a strong message about their lack of tolerance for companies designed to violate the law.

The decision affects such companies as Grokster and StreamCast, both of which were defendants in this suit. The court's ruling does not have an immediate effect, however, as the Justices referred the decisions to a lower court to be reconsidered.

Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney for the EFF, panned the court for not providing a clear test for what constitutes inducement, saying it would discourage innovators unsure of their project's legality. He did however remain optimistic about Grokster and StreamCast's chances in the lower courts.
United States Internet Culture and entertainment Film Music US Supreme Court Copyright