Mgm Et Al. V. Grokster Ltd. Et Al.

Mgm et Al. v. Grokster Ltd. et Al.

Overview of Mgm et Al. v. Grokster Ltd. et Al. in relation to cyber crime: [1]It was on this basis that Grokster, StreamCast Networks, and other software creators involved in the more recent case hoped the court’s prior reasoning and ruling would apply to p2p technology. However, judges became convinced that many p2p creators were fully aware that their software was being used primarily for copyright infringement and that software developers like Grokster were financially profiting from that infringement. Accordingly, the court decided that Grokster and other case defendants were contributing to the infringement. It is important to understand that in making this ruling the U.S. Supreme Court did not overrule its prior decision in the Sony case. Rather, it expanded legal issues that technology developers need to be concerned about, which now include inducement as well as contributory and vicarious liability.

Resources

Notes and References

1. By Shaun M. Jamison

See Also

• Types of Cybercrime
• Cybercriminal

Further Reading

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. et al. vs. Grokster, Ltd., et al. (2005). 04 US 480; Electronic Freedom Foundation. (2007). Overview of MGM vs. Grokster. See https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/; Wu, S. (2005). MGM v. Grokster: Background and analysis. See https://web.archive.org/web/20060111135013/ (internet link) scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/03/mgm_v_grokster.html; Zeller, T. (2005, June 28). Sharing culture likely to pause but not wither. New York Times. See (internet link) nytimes.com/2005/06/28/technology/28peer.html?pagewanted =1&ei=5090&en=41f5ea71b5f92739&ex=1277611200&partner=rssuserland&emc =rss&adxnnlx=1153411907-IhDfRpnMphZzBY9s4J9HUA.