MGM and its co-plaintiffs seek to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Grokster and filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Question Presented:
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based “file sharing” services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services.
Public Knowledge: Statement on MPAA Petition to Supreme Court: ““There is no reason the Supreme Court should review the Grokster decision. That case was based on the principles established in the 1984 Betamax case, which has lead to the largest and most profitable period of technological innovation in this country’s history. Consumers, industry and our country have all benefited as a result.”
EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann: Big Media Attacks Betamax in Court: “First, the entertainment industry is plainly mounting a frontal attack on the Betamax doctrine, seeking a radical rewrite of secondary liability principles…. Second, the entertainment industry appears to think that it can treat the Supreme Court and Congress interchangeably in pushing for its preferred re-write of copyright law.”
Previously: Ninth Circuit Affirms Grokster Ruling
