Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Why Grokster Stands Where Napster Fell
In a landmark decision issued on April 25, 2003, a federal district judge in Los Angeles rejected claims that two leading decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks were liable for copyright infringement. The court quashed the request of motion picture and recording industry associations, professional songwriters and music publishers to shut down the Grokster and StreamCast Networks, two companies that distribute free, P2P software allegedly used for the exchange of copyrighted music, movies and other digital media over the Internet. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., No. 01-08541, slip op. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2003).
The music industry plaintiffs argued that Grokster and StreamCast were liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement on the heels of another California federal district court's ruling that found Napster secondarily liable for copyright infringement by end-users of its file sharing software. See, A & M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). The Grokster court sharply distinguished its facts from those of Napster, holding that Grokster and StreamCast, while operating in a manner “conceptually analogous” to Napster, were significantly different from Napster in their function, and thus were not secondarily liable for their end-users' copyright infringements.
Grokster distributes a branded version of Kazaa Media desktop software. StreamCast distributes its own software, called “Morpheus.” Both the Grokster and Morpheus platforms allow users to download software that enables users to share files with others. When launched on a user's computer, both types of software automatically connect to a P2P network and make shared files available for transfer to any other user connected to the same P2P. A user searches to locate specific files. The software then displays a list of users who are sharing files based on common criteria.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.