Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Bow to Innovation: The Supreme Court's Decision in MGM v. Grokster
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001 (2005) is noteworthy for the Court's decision to sidestep modifying the standard that the Court set in the Sony case in 1984 as to when a product distributor can be liable for infringing uses of its product. Although the Supreme Court was faced with compelling arguments from copyright owners and the technology industry alike both for and against modifying the standard in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), it ultimately found that Grokster and its co-defendant StreamCast could be liable for infringing downloads, not because they distributed a product that was used to infringe copyrights, but because they took the additional step of actively inducing their users to download copyrighted material. In so doing, the Supreme Court avoided deciding whether it was appropriate that a mere distributor of a product “capable of substantial noninfringing use” should avoid liability even when its product is being used for massive copyright infringement.
Grokster and StreamCast had prevailed at both the district court level, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2003), and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004), by relying on the Sony standard. The Supreme Court derived that standard in 1984 from Section 271(c) of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. '271(c)), which exempts from liability one who distributes a “staple article of commerce” if the product is used to infringe. Applying that same standard to copyright law, the Court held that Sony was not liable for infringing uses because the Betamax recorder was capable of being used for noninfringing “time shifting,” which the Court found to be a fair use.
By applying the patent law standard for contributory infringement to copyrights, the Court recognized that it was striking a balance “between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective ' not merely symbolic ' protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce.” Sony, 464 U.S. at 442. In other words, a copyright owner should have a genuine and practical alternative to individually suing millions of infringers for copyright infringement. Nevertheless, the Court wished to ensure that a copyright owner's right to sue the product distributor for those infringements be limited to circumstances in which the product cannot be used for substantial non-infringing purposes. Otherwise, technology developers would have a diminished incentive to create new products, because they could be held liable if the products are used to infringe copyrights, even if the developers did not intend or anticipate such use.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.