Author Archives: Tim Wu

So will MGM v. Grokster fasttrack the Induce Act, as many (here Seth F.) think? Hard to say, but there are some reasons, both from theory and history, to think that it won’t. First, the Grokster decision, by creating a Circuit split, actually creates legal uncertainty that may slow down settlement. Both sides now have a chance to win outright in the Supreme Court. This probably matters more to the electronics industry– with a chance to get everything they want through the Supreme Court, the attraction of settlement decreases. Second, the story of Sony itself was similar in some ways…. Continue reading →

So the question on Grokster-watchers’ minds: Cert? (For non-lawyers: will the Supreme Court hear this case?) My guess is yes, for 7 reasons, ranging from the more to less legal: 1. These is a stated legal conflict on the Sony standard as between the 7th and 9th Circuits; 2. The 7th and 9th Circuits disagree (albeit in partially in dicta) on the relevance of willful blindness to secondary liability; 3. The Court has these matters in hand: it has granted cert. in many similar cases historically (Sony, 1980s, White-Smith (the Piano Roll case) 1909, Teleprompter and Fortnightly (Cable / Broadcast,… Continue reading →

Grokster has won MGM v. Grokster. (By Grokster I mean “Streamcast & Grokster,” hereinafter) Analysis The Ninth Circuit has decided that, on the facts developed, Grokster-style P2P technology is an easy case under Sony. For those unfamiliar with Sony, that decision held VCR manufacturers are not liable for copyright infringement practiced by owners of VCRs. The Court ruling recognized, in other words, that the P2P filesharing technology in programs like KaZaA falls into the same category as typewriters, photocopiers, VCRs, and pencils. All are tools that whose usage is not supervised by the manufacturer, that can be used for both… Continue reading →