Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. V. Grokster Case Summary

This case with the A & M Records vs. Napster, Inc. stated that record companies and music producers are filing a lawsuit against Napster. Napster is an online media source that serves the consumers for downloading music to their tablets, I phone’s, MP3 players, to where the consumers must have access to the Napster system to receive files and data. The A & M records are suing for the copyrights that the Napster is taking advantage from the music industry that the company had no rights to give permission over to Napster to transfer through servers. The A & M Records must have evidence that shows the ownership of the material and the copyright.

For the past decade, if you wanted to download copyrighted material and didn 't want to pay for it, it 's likely you turned to “The Pirate Bay”. Up until a police raid it was the most popular place to grab Sunday 's episode of “MSNBC or Power” months before the Blu-ray hits stores (Seppala, 2014). You didn 't have to log in to some arcane message board or know someone to get an invite. The anonymous file-sharing site was open to everybody and made piracy as simple as a Google search. That 's what scared Hollywood.

The case of A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., record companies brought infringement action against Napster for the unfair use of copyrighted work and harmed the potentiality of music within the market (239 F3d 1004, 2001). With the burgeoning of the internet age, musicians and artists were faced with the threat of in home piracy, via file sharing programs like Napster, or Grokster.

In MGM vs. Grokster, the filming company blamed the program for infringing. In the following quote from the Bible, it describes the situation. The court needs to defend the film and music makers from the infringing Grokster Company.” Psalm 82:3-4 NIV; Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” The wicked are the ones that have made Grokster for the people to steal and share information that people have created so they can make a salary out of

A June 2014 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Limelight Networks v. Akamai reversed a 2012 decision by the Federal Circuit that had held Limelight liable for infringing an Akamai patent that covered methods for storing and delivering large files via the Internet.

In 2010, MGA had counter-claimed arguing that Mattel misappropriated its trade secrets. A year later the court of appeals awarded MGA $85 million in damages along with attorneys’ fees and costs, totaling $310 million. Alex Kozinski, the Chief Judge in this case stated, “The jury rejected Mattel’s claim that MGA infringed Mattel’s copyrights by producing Bratz dolls. While Mattel doesn’t challenge that result…it does challenge the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs to MGA under the Copyright Act.” MGA argued that the copyright holder has a right to keep their ideas to themselves without the employer’s knowledge.

After development of the functionality got out the studio received a “cease and desist” letter from a lawyer of the defendant, whom allegedly claims to hold patents for the Internet transmission of audio and video signals within a game environment. The defendant’s lawyers also represent media companies that originate the streaming content. The plaintiff then filed an injunction to keep the defendant and the media companies from suing them.

American Broadcasting Companies Inc. (the plaintiff) involving multiple groups of television producer, broadcasters, etc., filed copyright infringement suits against Aereo. Aereo does not have copyright to the shows held on their system.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that peer to peer file sharing is copyright infringement. Millions of people illegally copied and shared copyrighted music, films, and software over the internet that directly infringed MGM’s copyright. Copyright violations were knowingly caused by the defendant by promoting the

The case of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (2005) 220 ALR 1 was an Australian court case involving music labels suing the distributors (Sharman parties) of software that authorized access to the Kazaa peer to peer network. The court case involved the responsibility of the distributors for authorising copyright infringement by giving authorization to users to infringe copyright materials by sharing copyright-protected material without permission of owner. The court decided there had been authorization by the Sharman parties for infringement to occur due to the knowledge the Sharman parties knew. The legal and non-legal responses were effective in ensuring amendments to current acts and educating people on the copyright laws. Sharman Networks Ltd had authorised the infringing conduct of Kazaa users.

The entertainment industry expressed its displeasure when Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) and “other film studios, songwriters, music publishers and recording companies filed suit against both Grokster and the StreamCast Network” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 360). This landmark case made its way to the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court after the higher court granted review of the lower federal courts decision to side with the defendants (Grokster and StreamCast). Thus was born the case MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). The Supreme Court under began hearing arguments in this case in

Major record companies and internationally known bands such as Metallica and many others soon realized how badly Napster was taking a toll on their profits resulting in a major lawsuit charging Napster with contributory and vicarious copyright infringement -(“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  Napster appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court noted that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement, meaning that the record labels had to prove their ownership of the allegedly infringed content in order to establish their case -(“Piracy and File- Sharing”). 

The Supreme Court recognizes the defendant’s motives were used to persuade and encourage internet users to engage in illegal acts. “The evidence that Grokster and StreamCast, unlike the manufacturer and distributor in Sony, acted with purpose to cause copyright violations by use of software suitable for illegal use” (Jennings, 2010 p. 8.). The lower court decision was based on conflicting court interpretation regarding the Betamax defense. The ruling was misunderstood at the time. The Supreme Court noted thatGrokster and StreamCast continuously advertised to user’s computers while the users were using their programs. As the number of users increased the value of the advertising increased as well. Grokster andStreamCast made no effort to

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

A&M Records v. Napster is a landmark case in which the application of intellectual property laws has forever impacted contemporary culture with regards to digital works. The legal issues and applicable laws presented in the instant case resulted in a holding, which set forth a precedent that has influence the mode and means of digital works distribution. The outcome of Napster affects both businesses and individuals.