News Flash: GROKSTER-types could be liable UNANIMOUSLY HELD

Sending the Grokster plaintiffs back to the District Court and reversing the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme's UNANIMOUSLY found 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, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses. Pp. 10-24."

Without reversing the famous Betamax v. Sony Decision, the Court found that Grokster and its peer-to-peer technology markedly different from the timeshifting technology of Betamax.

"Here, there has been no finding of any fair use and little beyond anecdotal evidence of noninfringing uses." "In sum, when the record in this case was developed, there was evidence that Grokster's and StreamCast's products were, and had been for some time, overwhelmingly used to infringe, ante, at 4-6; App. 434-439, 476-481, and that this infringement was the overwhelming source of revenue from the products, ante, at 8-9; 259 F. Supp. 2d, at 1043-1044"

Playing arm chair quarterback, reading how the majority tore at the declarations of those music groups and distributors that praised the technology for getting their music out there, the Grokster team underestimated the Court's scrutiny of these declarations.

More later.