The History of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd - Essay Example

The district court and the court of appeals both ruled the decision in favour of MGM concerning copyright infringement but did not hold the respondents responsible for it and summary judgement was granted. MGM had then decided to move to Supreme Court appealing for summary judgement in their favour (Casenote Legal Briefs, 2009). Are the respondents responsible for any liability that arose as a result of copyright infringement by the users of the respondent’s software? 

Yes, the respondents are responsible for any liability that arose as a result of copyright infringement by the users of the respondent’s software. Reasoning: The evidence that MGM produced showed that the respondents marketed and sold the software as a tool that could be used to share copyrighted material. The respondents had a clear purpose of making profits from the violation of the act by the users. The respondents had actively promoted pirating. File-sharing tools are not illegal and the manufacturers of the tools are not responsible for how the users use the tool until and unless the manufacturer encouraged infringement. Result: It was ruled that the respondents promoted pirating and hence the case ruled in favour of MGM and the summary judgement in favour of the respondents was a mistake.

I think that the respondents encouraged sharing of copyrighted material on their software. Yes, the respondents cannot control how their software will be used once it is sold but if they generate a sale by promoting the software as a tool to share copyrighted material, then the main purpose of the software will be pirating. Hence, respondents should be held responsible for copyright infringement. Unlike Sony Corp v. Universal Studios, the only use of the software is to share files which can be copyrighted or not. In Sony, VCRs could only play already copyrighted content and in no way contributed directly to pirating.