MGM v Grokster in Light of the Constrained Court Debate - Case Study Example

Researching and analyzing MGM v Grokster case (an actual dispute) in light of the Constrained/Dynamic Court debate Traditionally, courts are considered as the key means for securing the effectiveness of the local legal system. Indeed, courts have the power to set the terms under which disputes will be resolved or punishment will be imposed in accordance with the laws related to each particular case. Moreover, the power of the courts to promote social reform has led to the development of the Constrained and the Dynamic Court debate. The Constrained Court debate emphasizes on the fact that courts are not able to produce social reform, as they have ‘to face severe constraints’ (Rosenberg 21). On the other hand, the Dynamic Court debate accepts that courts ‘can be effective producers of significant social reform’ (Rosenberg 22). The above debate cannot be characterized as recent, at least not totally. Indeed, the Constrained Court debate has its roots in 1892 when an article emphasized on the oppositions that a court has to face in case that ‘it rules against the popular opinion’ ((Bailey and Maltzman 97). Moreover, often, it is quite difficult to state clearly whether a court decision is dynamic or constrained, since ‘the social impact of a court is entirely depended on exogenous factors’ (Christensen 17). A quite critical court decision is set under evaluation in this paper: the MGM v Grokster case. MGM along with 28 entertainment companies sued Grokster, a firm operating in the area of software distribution, for peer to peer networks, based on the accusation that Grokster has violated the copyright laws; indeed, the software distributed to the customers of Grokster is used in file-sharing which can refer to software programs that are protected under the copyright laws. At a first level, the courts held that Grokster should not be considered as liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and held that Grokster is liable for the above offense. The specific case is analyzed and evaluated particularly regarding its relationship with the Constrained/ Dynamic Court debate. The paper is based on the following hypothesis: the MGM v Grokster case meets the requirements of the Dynamic Court debate highlighting the power of the Supreme court to act independently, i.e. without be constrained from internal institutional constraints, meaning the decisions of lower courts, or from the beliefs of the local society, as these beliefs can constitute cultural constraints in regard to a particular case. The above hypothesis is tested below using relevant evidence. The case under examination could be analyzed as follows: a) Parties: the Metro-Golwyn-Mayer Studios Inc versus the firm Grokster Ltd., b) Legal Claims: MGM claims that Grokster has ‘knowingly and intentionally distributed its software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works’ (Cornell University, Legal Information Institute 2011); moreover, MGM notes that the free software distributed by Grokster ‘is used to transfer files for which MGM holds the copyright’ (Jha and Jha 321); c) in regard to the claims of MGM the courts that reviewed the case came to opposing views. More specifically, the District Court held that Grokster ‘should not be held liable for contributory or vicarious infringement of copyright’ (Jha and Jha 321); the Court of Appeals verified the above decision stating a similar view. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Grokster Ltd is liable for the particular offence, because of the following reasons: a) copyrighted material was not filtered, b) there was a profit motive (meaning the profits of Grokster from advertising); also, the marketing used for the promotion of the firm’s activities can be considered as a means for urging individuals to committing infringement of the copyright law, c) the level of file-sharing activities based on the firm’s software was so high that it cannot be assumed that Grokster was not aware of the infringement of copyright laws committed through its software (Jha and Jha 321). The Supreme Court referred to the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc case for justifying its decision; it also noted that the lower courts failed in interpreting the above case and they came to wrong assumptions in regard to the responsibility of Grokster for the infringement of copyright law (Cornell University, Legal Information Institute). The decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the above case has caused turbulences in the market, especially among the firms operating in the file – sharing software industry (Hansell and Leeds 2005). Indeed, despite the court focuses on the liability of providers of file-sharing software, it is possible through the above decision that the holders of such software are ‘held liable for software infringement’ (Hansell and Leeds 2005). At the next level, the specific decision addresses an important problem: the protection of the rights of the creators of copyright material in the context of the Internet (Rosenblatt 2005). In regard to these rights and since no clear law seems to exist for the activity reviewed in the above case, it could be noted that the above decision enhances ethics in the software industry. Moreover, even if the above case has been particularly important for the software industry, no governmental or non-governmental institution asked to participate in the hearing process, leading to the assumption that the expansion of infringement in the software industry is more rapid than initially estimated. Thus the need for the dynamic intervention of the courts, as in the particular case, is emergent. When having to rule courts are likely to face constraints, which are commonly distinguished into doctrinal, institutional and cultural. In the case under examination, which, as noted above, meets the requirements of the Dynamic Court debate, all these constraints are weak, a common phenomenon in cases based on the particular debate. Indeed, the Supreme Court has the power to rule differently from lower courts, always in accordance with the terms of the law applied on the specific case. Of course, doctrinal constraints in the particular case exists, even if their power is quite limited. For instance, a doctrinal constraint in the case under examination would be the fact that constitutional law regulating the particular activity is not precise, but it is rather vague. In this context the interpretation of the unique law focusing on copyright, the Copyright Act is depended on the attitudes of judges who may decide differently from lower courts using the power that the Supreme Court incorporates. In other words, in Dynamic Court views, doctrine constraints are low meaning that the judge can be independent, and not constrained from the doctrine, when developing his view on the issue under discussion. On the other hand, the actual power of the Supreme Court to act independently has to be further explored. Rosenberg (1991) tried to verify whether the Supreme Court can be fully independent from political powers and came to the conclusion that there is no such independency, at least not at high level, and for this reason the actual potential of the Supreme Court to produce social change can be doubted (Ruggiero 19). The findings of the study of Rosenberg have been often negatively criticizes, as ‘being oversimplified’ (Ruggiero 19). Even under these terms, the power of doctrine constraints in the context of the Dynamic Court approach can be often doubted, a view which is also promoted in the study of Sarwate (2005) who studied the potential role of doctrine constraints in the Supreme Court’s decision in the MGM v Grokster case. In terms of institutional constraints, the following issue should be highlighted: the Supreme Court has an increased power compared to the other USA courts. In fact, the particular court is not depended on the rulings of the lower courts but it can develop a different decision, based on the evidence available. The above power of the Supreme Court is part of its role as derived from the USA Constitution, which, in the case of the Dynamic Court debate empowers the courts and does not limit them. In this context, the differentiation of the Supreme Court, compared to its lower courts can be characterized as fully justified. It can be also characterized as valid, since it is based on specific facts. In accordance with Fisher (2011) the differentiation of the Supreme Court from the rulings of its lower courts can be characterized as a win of the Hollywood, meaning the holders of copyright. It is implied that the Supreme court did not have to face institutional constraints, meaning that it has been able to accept a totally different view on the case under examination without institutional issues, referring to the conflicts between courts for ruling using different criteria, to appear. On the other hand, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the specific case has been considered as opposing to the above Court’s previous practice, which was favorable for technology innovation (McGuire 2005). From this point of view, institutional constraints would exist for Supreme Court for interpreting the specific case differently than its lower courts. However, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the specific case proved that institutional constraints in the court’s view on the case were weak; the Supreme Court was not constrained neither from the lower courts’ views nor from its own practice (Fisher 2011). Another aspect of the Dynamic Court debate is the following one: the cultural constraints that are possibly related to the case under discussion. In the specific case, the court had to face a specific cultural constraint: the view that file-sharing is a common activity and it should not be prohibited or punished. The value of file sharing for the development of various tasks cannot be ignored. However, in the case under examination a particular aspect of file sharing has been discussed: the file sharing of videos and music and not of files that are related to academic research or other similar activity, i.e. the potential use of file sharing for entertainment had to be judged. The reference to the particular sector has made the file sharing in the above case weaker, as a factor that could possibly influence the Court. Thus, in terms of cultural constraints also, the Court had not to face pressure. Rather, it was able to decide taking into consideration the evidence and the existing law, verifying its alignment with the Dynamic Court debate. At this point, the following issue should be discussed: are the cultural constraints related to the decisions of the Supreme Court weak, at least as of their high majority? In accordance with the research developed by Hoekstra (4) people across USA are not aware of the court’s activities, as of its role in the USA judicial system. In the above research it has been also made clear that people across USA do not, necessarily, support the decisions of the court, meaning that the cultural constraints in regard to the above Court’s decisions can be significant (Hoekstra 4). In regard to the case under examination, O’Blood and Ngiam (2011) noted that the decision of the Court has highly contributed in the differentiation of the role of online content providers; it is explained that through the above decision a critical obligation is established for those providers; indeed, the latter are expected ‘to play a critical role in the protection of the rights of copyright holders’ (O’Blood and Ngiam 7). From this point of view, no cultural constraints would exist in regard to the decision of the Court in the MGM v Grokster case; rather, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the specific case is likely to be highly supported by the public. In accordance with a report published by Public Knowledge, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case under examination highlights ‘the border between copyright and innovation’ (Public Knowledge 2005). This means that file sharing as an activity is not prohibited. Rather the Court held that the methods used by Grokster for promoting its file sharing software has violated the Copyright law. In this context, freedom in exchanging information is not threatened by the decision of the specific Court, an issue also highlighted in a relevant report of the American Bar Association (Sarwate 2005). For this reason, those who supported the right of Grokster to promote file sharing software, should not be opposed to the ruling of the Supreme Court on the particular case (Crawford 2011). The decision of the Court on the specific case is not a threat for the human rights, as it could be possibly stated, but rather a tool for understanding the potentials of these rights, as they are secured through the provisions of the USA Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court in regard to the MGM v Grokster case revealed the willingness of judges to promote social change. In other words, judges in the specific case acted in accordance with the Dynamic Court view. Indeed, file sharing is a practice widely expanded in all sectors. The specific practice is considered as supporting the exchange of information but, in fact, it violates the Copyright law and results to severe financial damages for creators and the people involved in the production process. From this point of view, the activism of judges in the particular case has set the limits for the management and the transfer of knowledge, especially when referring to products that have been verified as personal property. The change promoted through the ruling of the Supreme of Court in the above case, has the following form: the respect for Copyright products is increased and the enforcement of Copyright laws is made more effective. Moreover, authorities are given the power to intervene in any case that a violation of the Copyright law occurs. Another important effect of the use of the Dynamic Court Debate in the above case is the following one: the ruling of the Court in the particular case can be used for resolving similar disputes in regard to other Copyright products, who are not adequately protected. In other words, law is produced for covering existing gaps in regard to the enforcement of Copyright law. Works Cited Bailey, Michael, Maltzman, Forrest. The Constrained Court: Law, Politics, and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Christensen, Robert. When courts manage: Judicial "rowing" in desegregation governance. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2007. Cornell University, Legal Information Institute. “METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD.” 30 November 2011. < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html> Crawford, Krysten. “Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle” June 27, 2005. CNN Money. 30 November 2011. < http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/27/technology/grokster/> Fisher, Ken. “Hollywood prevails in MGM v. Grokster” Ars Technica. 30 November 2011 < http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5042.ars> Hansell, Saul and Jeff, Leeds. A Supreme Court Showdown for File Sharing. March 28, 2005. The New York Times. 30 November 2011. Hoekstra, Valerie. Public reaction to Supreme Court decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Jha, Sneha, and Samar, Jha. “An analysis of the Theory of Contributory Infringement”. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights. Vol 16, pp.318-325 McGuire, David. “At a Glance: MGM v. Grokster” March 28, 2005. The Washington Post. 30 November 2011. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm> Public Knowledge. “MGM v. Grokster” March 2, 2005. Public Knowledge. 30 November 2011. < http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/grokster> Rosenberg, Gerald. The hollow hope: can courts bring about social change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008. Rosenblatt, Bill. “Supreme Court Decides Grokster Case for Media Industry” June 28, 2005. DRM Watch. 30 November 2011. < http://www.drmwatch.com/legal/article.php/3516071> Ruggiero, Cristina. The construction of judicial power in a federal system: Lessons from Canada, United States and Germany. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, 2008. Sarwate, Sanjiy. “Cases to watch in 2005: MGM v. Grokster’. Spring 2005. American Bar Association. Intellectual Property Law Committee. 30 November 2011. < http://apps.americanbar.org/tips/iplc/ipspring05.pdf> Read More