Grokster 0 - media companies 9
"The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product.
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," says the US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.
21 years ago, the Supreme Court failed to ban video recorders - as the movie companies asked - because they had a legal use (timeshifting). Although p2p networks have a legal use, the defendants promoted the illegal use of their networks...
We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties," says the US Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.
21 years ago, the Supreme Court failed to ban video recorders - as the movie companies asked - because they had a legal use (timeshifting). Although p2p networks have a legal use, the defendants promoted the illegal use of their networks...