This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer Studios, Inc.)
According to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. (Petitioners), according to Metro‑Goldwyn‑Mayer Studios, Inc. (Petitioners), copyright infringement is the only commercially significant use of the Grokster and StreamCast services, indicating a business model built on infringement.
According to Mr. Clement, the lower court allowed companies to build a business model out of copyright infringement without fear of secondary liability.
According to Mr. Clement, a study by petitioners’ experts shows how the system operates to facilitate infringement.
According to Mr. Clement, the Ninth Circuit got the analysis wrong by relying on a combination of public‑domain works and anecdotal evidence of authorized sharing.
According to Mr. Clement, under the Sony test, a clear business model that targets infringing uses should satisfy the inducement standard before reaching actual inducement.
According to Mr. Taranto, because the software products have large and growing legitimate uses, their distribution is protected under the Sony rule.
According to Petitioners, all past acts constitute a basis for inducement liability, which the Court could affirm.
- [1] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 3
- [2] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 19
- [3] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 20
- [4] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 22
- [5] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 24
- [6] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 28
- [7] df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdf, p. 41
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked whether the claim that infringement is the only significant use ignored the 2.6 billion legitimate uses noted in the brief.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Court, the Court noted that the staple article‑of‑commerce doctrine must strike a balance that provides effective protection of copyright while protecting unrelated lines of commerce.
The Government argued that the rule of immunity would destroy innovation and that technological innovation is moving toward legitimate digital distribution of music and movies.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- df7d30b12bfc5f34ba7f-r1-164d0d530150985c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.