SCOTUS Set to Hear Grokster

On March 29, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could become a landmark in copyright law: MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

The Grokster saga began when nearly every significant name in the entertainment industry teamed up to bring suit against the makers of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software such as Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaA.  The plaintiffs alleged that these P2P networks are used primarily for exchanging copyrighted materials by people without rights to distribute those materials.

Grokster's liability could be established my two alternate theories.  Contributory copyright infringement occurs when a defendant, with knowledge of the infringing activity, materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.  Vicarious liability on the other hand requires that the defendant has the right and ability to control the infringer's acts and receives a direct financial benefit from the infringement. 

Will either theory prove successfull?  Previous attempts have failed.  Relying primarily on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (a.k.a. "Betamax"), the Ninth Circuit found [PDF] that P2P file-sharing software is capable of noninfringing uses.  Thus, the distributors of Grokster and Morpheus software could not held liable for users' copyright violations. 

But will the Supreme Court follow the Betamax ruling? Soon, that question will be settled once and for all.

More on this as it develops...