Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=888928
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (92)



 


 



Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court's Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court's Kazaa Ruling


Jane C. Ginsburg


Columbia Law School

Sam Ricketson


Melbourne Law School


Media & Arts Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2006
U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 144
Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 06-105

Abstract:     
On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court announced its much-awaited decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd. A few months after this, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision at first instance in relation to parallel litigation in that country concerning the KaZaa file sharing system. Both decisions repay careful consideration of the way in which the respective courts have addressed the relationship between the protection of authors' rights and the advent of new technologies, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer networks.

In the Grokster case, songwriters, record producers and motion picture producers alleged that two popular 'file-sharing' networks, Grokster and Streamcast (dba Morpheus) should be held liable for facilitating the commission of massive amounts of copyright infringement by the end-users who employed the defendants' peer-to-peer (P2P) software to copy and redistribute films and sound recordings to each others' hard drives. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that the technology entrepreneurs could be held liable for 'actively inducing' the end-users' acts of infringement. A similar decision was reached in Australia with respect to the KaZaa software, albeit in this proceeding the court had the advantage of much greater factual material as to the operation of the KaZaa system than did the US Supreme Court in Grokster. Nonetheless, both cases illustrate the difficulties that arise as consumer-wielded digital media increasingly supplant the traditional intermediaries who made copyrighted works available to the public (and who traditionally were the targets of copyright enforcement) and as courts struggle to balance meaningful protection for works of authorship against the progress of technological innovation. For some, the weakening of copyright control is the necessary price to pay for technological advancement. For others, authors' ability to maintain exclusive rights remains a cornerstone of any copyright system as it adapts to accommodate new modes of exploitation.

Grokster is the latest, and most important, in a series of US decisions to address that balance by articulating the liability of an enterprise which does not itself commit copyright infringement, but instead makes it possible for others to infringe. To appreciate the Supreme Court's analysis, it helps to set the case in both domestic and international doctrinal context. Because unauthorized P2P distribution of copyrighted works extends well beyond the US, copyright owners have pursued legal actions in other countries, including the Netherlands and Australia. While the Australian case still awaits full appellate consideration, it provides a useful example of how another common law jurisdiction (Australia) analyses the liability of those who provide goods or services to facilitate infringement. In this regard, it is also useful to consider what obligations, if any, exist at the international level with respect to the liability of infringement-facilitators. We will conclude with some (perhaps foolhardy) forecasts for the post-Grokster/KaZaa future of copyright enforcement.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 26

Keywords: KaZaa, Grokster, file sharing, file share, authors' right, peer-to-peer, copyright, morpheus, streamcast, P2P, infringement, technology

JEL Classification: K00, K1, K10, K11, K42

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 9, 2006  

Suggested Citation

Ginsburg, Jane C. and Ricketson, Sam, Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court's Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court's Kazaa Ruling. Media & Arts Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2006; U of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 144; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 06-105. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=888928

Contact Information

Jane C. Ginsburg (Contact Author)
Columbia Law School ( email )
435 West 116th Street
Rm 710
New York, NY 10027
United States
212-854-3325 (Phone)
212-854-7946 (Fax)
Sam Ricketson
Melbourne Law School ( email )
Victoria, 3010
Australia
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 5,748
Downloads: 1,812
Download Rank: 4,203
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  92
People who downloaded this paper also downloaded:
1. P2P and the Future of Private Copying
By Peter Yu

Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.250 seconds