Explore BrainMass

The Grokster Case

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

Summarize briefly the key facts of the Grokster case.

Discuss the applicable law and legal issues in the case of Grokster case.
Assume you are the CEO of Grokster. What could you do to make your service compliant with copyright laws?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:39 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

Key Facts of the Grokster case:

The plaintiffs in this case were song writers, music publishers, and motion picture studios (such as MGM, Universal City, and Disney Enterprises). They filed suit against Grokster and StreamCast for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement ( Himma &Tavani, 2008).

"Grokster and Streamcast distribute free software that allows computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. The software allows users' computers to communicate directly with each other. There is no central server and Grokster and Streamcast are not involved in users' acts of file sharing. Slip op. at 1. The peer-to-peer networks created by the software can be used to share any type of digital file, but the networks are primarily used to share copyrighted music and video files without the authorization of the copyright owners. Slip op. at 2. MGM commissioned a study that showed nearly 90% of the files available for download were copyrighted works. Slip op. at 4. Importantly, Grokster and Streamcast conceded direct infringement by users of their software, and that they were aware that users use their software primarily to download copyrighted files. The companies also learned from time to time of their users' infringement directly from the users, when users sent emails to each company with questions about playing copyrighted movies they had downloaded. The companies responded to such inquiries with guidance. MGM also placed the companies on notice that 8 million copyrighted files could be obtained using their software. Slip op. at 9." (Hornick, 2005)

"The plaintiffs contended that the networks of the defendants were employed for the purpose of swapping copyrighted music and movie files and that their business models depended on copyright infringement. The magnitude of file sharing of copyrighted works is beyond dispute: "90% of the works available on the FastTrack network demonstrably were infringing, and over 70% belonged to Plaintiffs" (Plaintiffs' Joint Excerpts of Record, 2003). On the contrary, Grokster and StreamCast have argued that "potential noninfringing uses of their software are significant in kind, even if infrequent in practice" (MGM v. Grokster, 2005).( Himma &Tavani, 2008).

The plaintiffs ...

Solution Summary

This solution dicusses a legal case study that involves copyright infringement.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Real and Intellectual Property Law Briefs

I need help writing two court case briefs; one involving real properties (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-712.ZS.html) and one involving intellectual properties http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.html.

Each court brief should be approximately 500 words.
Title each of the sections with the:
Minority Rationale(s)

Follow-Up Questions
Why is the title to real property permanent whereas some intellectual property is limited in the time that it is protected?
? Owning real property does not mean that all rights are protected. Provide two examples where rights are limited in the ownership of land or personal property.
? What are some similarities and differences between the legal protections available for real and intellectual properties?
? What is the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents?
? How do servitudes and easements get put into place?
? How can servitudes and easements be protected?
? Why are servitudes and easements important?

In addition please include a response to the follow-up to the questions.

View Full Posting Details