ABSTRACT
MGM Studios v. Grokster (2005), the most recent copyright case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, was brought in 2001 by 28 of the largest entertainment companies against the makers of Grokster and StreamCast software products for their development of peer-to-peer fi le-sharing technologies. The case raises the issue of whether a distributor of a technology that may be used for copyright infringement should be held liable for contributing to the unlawful activities of its end users. Peer-to-peer fi le-sharing challenges the notion of copyrighted works as discrete, commodifi ed goods, and has the potential for the cultural commons envisioned by copyright activists. Peer-to-peer networks allow users to bypass an intermediary, centralizing content controller and exchange content directly with other users in a client-client fashion. They operate on individual computers that connect directly with others’ individual computers, meaning that peer-to-peer networks cannot operate without this type of peer-to-peer interaction. Further, peer-to-peer networks grow larger and stronger, not weaker, through the increased activity of users. These characteristics-distributed architecture, decentralized control, and facilitation of sharing-challenge a print-and analog-based model of copyright law. In this way, the balance formulated by copyright law between authors’ rights and users’ rights is thrown off kilter: the very structure of the balance no longer works the way it did in a pre-digital culture. While print-and analog-based intellectual and creative works required a content owner’s stewardship (and, subsequently, incentives for entertainment and publishing industry involvement), on peer-topeer networks these products can be reproduced and circulate in the public sphere without this stewardship. In MGM Studios v. Grokster, the Supreme Court responded to the introduction of such structures by ruling in favor of the content industries by assigning potential liability to Grokster and StreamCast Networks for the infringing uses of their networks. This ruling set a precedent for the relationship between technology innovation and copyright law in a digital age.
