Litigation
in cra-briefings29 · September 15, 2005
MGM v. GROKSTER
On June 27, 2005 the US supreme court ruled on the long-standing battle between MGM and 27 other music and movie production companies, and the popular peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing programs such as Grokster, and Streamcast. In a rare unanimous decision, the nine-member court ruled that software makers can be held liable for enabling computer users to copy protected work without permission. “We hold 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.” Historically, the issue of service provider liability has been determined by applying the “substantial non-infringing use” articulated by the Supreme Court in its 1984 Sony Betamax decision that stated that Sony could not be held responsible if users of Betamax video recorders copied television shows illegally because it could also be used for legitimate purposes. Justice David Souter, speaking for the Court, acknowledged the Betamax decision but stated that this decision had not been intended to shield companies that actively encouraged or induced customers to infringe copyright.
The Court did not determine the matter as between MGM and Grokster, but rather sent the matter back to the lower courts for a decision applying the new test. For the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision refer to www.eff.org/ip/p2p/mgm_v_grokster/04-480.pdf
NTP Inc. v. RESEARCH IN MOTION—UPDATE
Briefings #25 reported that the government of Canada had filed a brief on behalf of the Canadian company Research in Motion in the US Appellate Court with respect to jurisdictional issues and the application of American law to Canadian intellectual property. Though there was a long wait for the decision, the US Appellate Court has decided to rehear the case on certain jurisdictional issues. This may bode well for Canadian creators as the government is apparently taking steps to ensure that Canadian intellectual property rights are not subject to random application of international law in their determination. The text of the decision can be found at caselaw.lp.findlaw.com.
SUPREME COURT DECIDES AGAINST HEARING CPCC TARIFF APPEAL
Also in Briefings #25 it was reported that the Canadian Private Copying Collective had decided to appeal the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal, regarding the application of the private copying tariff to internal memory cards in devices like iPods. The CPCC did file the appeal, however, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that it will not hear the case.
Here’s more legal history of the case.