Chapter

13.05[E][4][c], p. 13-84 (1982). Proof of actual harm, or

From Property: Volume 1 Christian Turner Assistant Professor of Law University of Georgia School of Law eLangdell® Press 2012 by Christian

Concepts

1. Even Probable

   "even probable harm, may be impossible in an area where the effect of a new technology is speculative, and requiring such proof would present the “real danger … of confining the scope of an author’s r

2. 502 Willing

   "502 be willing to pay for only “live” viewing audiences, if they believe VTR viewers will delete commercials or if rating services are unable to measure VTR use; if this is the case, VTR recording co

3. Metro-goldwyn-mayer Studios

   "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) J USTICE S OUTER delivered the opinion of the Court. The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capa

4. 504 Electronic

   "504 electronic files by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others. 1 Other users of peer-to-peer networks include individual recipients of Grokster’s and StreamCast

5. 505 Capacity

   "505 capacity by the software and designated a supernode, or to some other computer with comparable power and capacity to collect temporary indexes of the files available on the computers of users con

6. 506 Networks

   "506 networks to disseminate files, Shakespeare being an example. Indeed, StreamCast has given Morpheus users the opportunity to download the briefs in this very case, though their popularity has not

7. 507 Notorious

   "507 After the notorious file-sharing service, Napster, was sued by copyright holders for facilitation of copyright infringement, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D.Cal.2000),

8. 508 Streamcast

   "508 Thus, StreamCast developed promotional materials to market its service as the best Napster alternative. One proposed advertisement read: “Napster Inc. has announced that it will soon begin chargi

9. 509 Users

   "509 users to search specifically for “Top 40” songs, which were inevitably copyrighted. Similarly, Grokster sent users a newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular, popular copyrighted ma

10. 510 MGM

    "510 A MGM and many of the amici fault the Court of Appeals’s holding for upsetting a sound balance between the respective values of supporting creative pursuits through copyright protection and promo

11. 511 Restricting

    "511 Restricting Innovation, 56 Stan. L.Rev. 1345, 1386-1390 (2004). The argument for imposing indirect liability in this case is, however, a powerful one, given the number of infringing downloads tha

12. 512

    "512 … . The parties and many of the amici in this case think the key to resolving it is the Sony rule and, in particular, what it means for a product to be “capable of commercially significant noninf

13. 513 Specific

    "513 “specific knowledge of infringement at a time at which they contributed to the infringement, and failed to act upon that information.” 380 F.3d, at 1162 (internal quotation marks and alterations

14. 514 Classic

    "514 The classic case of direct evidence of unlawful purpose occurs when one induces commission of infringement by another, or “entic[es] or persuad[es] another” to infringe, Black’s Law Dictionary 79

15. 515 Liability

    "515 liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves. The inducement rule, instead

16. 516 Understanding

    "516 have been the understanding of anyone offered Grokster’s suggestively named Swaptor software, its version of OpenNap. And both companies communicated a clear message by responding affirmatively t

17. 517 Copyrighted

    "517 copyrighted movies and software programs. Grokster’s name is apparently derived from Napster, it too initially offered an OpenNap program, its software’s function is likewise comparable to Napste

18. 518 Viewed

    "518 viewed in the context of the entire record its import is clear. The unlawful objective is unmistakable. B In addition to intent to bring about infringement and distribution of a device suitable f

19. 519 Purpose

    "519 purpose to cause and profit from third-party acts of copyright infringement. If liability for inducing infringement is ultimately found, it will not be on the basis of presuming or imputing fault

20. 520 Available

    "520 available through peer-to-peer networks including those accessed through Grokster’s and StreamCast’s software. The District Court declared it “undisputed that there are substantial noninfringing

21. 521 Dwarfed

    "521 dwarfed by, the huge total volume of files shared. Further, the District Court and the Court of Appeals did not sharply distinguish between uses of Grokster’s and StreamCast’s software products (

22. 522

    "522 use s.” And they answer that question by stating that the Court of Appeals was wrong when it granted summary judgment on the issue in Grokster’s favor. I write to explain why I disagree with them