EFF: 20050301 CFA-CU-FP-PK

No. 04-480

================================================================

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS, INC.,

et al.

,

Petitioners,

v.GROKSTER, LTD.,

et al.

,

Respondents.

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------

On Writ Of Certiorari To TheUnited States Court Of AppealsFor The Ninth Circuit

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------

BRIEF OF THE CONSUMER FEDERATIONOF AMERICA, CONSUMERS UNION, FREEPRESS AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AS

AMICI CURIAE

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

---------------------------------

♦

---------------------------------P

ETER

J

ASZI

(

Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae

)G

LUSHKO

-S

AMUELSON

I

NTELLECTUAL

P

ROPERTY

L

AW

C

LINIC

W

ASHINGTON

C

OLLEGE

OF

L

AW

A

MERICAN

U

NIVERSITY

4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20016(202) 274-4216================================================================

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

iTABLE OF CONTENTSPageTABLE OF CONTENTS................................................ iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................... vSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF

AMICI CURIAE

..... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................ 2 ARGUMENT................................................................... 2I. This Case Raises Fundamental Questions About the Proper Relationship of Law andTechnology, Which Strongly Implicate thePublic Interest in Access to Information........... 2II. This Case Puts at Risk the Salutary Approachto Regulation Introduced in Response to theFirst “Technology Of Freedom”.......................... 3 A. The Statute of Anne introduced theprinciple that copyright should regulatetechnology use, not technology................... 4B. Despite wide-spread and well-known piracy,eighteenth and nineteenth century copyrightowners fought to establish authority over themisuse of print, rather than to limit thetechnology’s dissemination............................ 5C. Access to technology is necessary if American consumers are to benefit fromsocial, economic and cultural progress....... 6D. The principle that has secured the value of new technologies to the public is now atrisk............................................................... 7

iiTABLE OF CONTENTS – ContinuedPageIII. This Court’s Holding in

Sony

Reaffirms thePrinciple That Assures Broad Access toTechnology by Restating Prevailing Law onSecondary Infringement Liability..................... 7 A. The

Sony

principle strikes a balance betweencompeting interests, rather than invitingfurther balancing in its application............... 9B. The

Sony

principle applies generallyto secondary liability for copyrightinfringement................................................ 10C. This Court should exercise extreme cautionbefore importing new liability principlesthat are being developed under patent lawin conflict with legislative intent.................. 121. The patent doctrine of “active inducement”is confused and confusing...................... 122. The inappropriate importation of “active inducement” liability couldcreate havoc in copyright law................ 14D. The

Sony

principle does not excuse allproviders of multi-purpose informationtechnology from liability, but it sets atraditionally high standard in such cases..... 151. Liability based on active concertexplains the

Kalem

precedent discussedby this Court in

Sony

............................. 16

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/27/2008
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org copyright Law legal law eff electronicfrontierfoundation advocacy eff.org (fewer)

Documents

People