October Term 2004 · Docket 04-480

Does selling tools for file sharing create copyright liability?

Studios claim Grokster and StreamCast induce infringement. The companies argue their tools have legal uses.

Official caption
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Verrilli stated infringement is the only significant use of the services.

    Mr. Taranto argued the software has large and growing legitimate uses.

    Mr. Clement claimed the lower decision allows businesses to build on infringement.

    Mr. Verrilli described the situation as a shell game.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests when software sellers face copyright liability. Studios argue the tools serve no legal purpose. The companies claim the tools have broad legitimate uses.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Studios want the Court to hold the companies liable for infringement.

Companies want the Court to protect their software distribution.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Studios argue the tools serve only infringing purposes.

Companies argue the tools have significant legitimate uses.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if the claim of no legitimate use is accurate.

Justice O'Connor asked if the Court could address active inducement.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the limits of secondary copyright liability. It determines when software sellers face legal responsibility for user actions. The outcome shapes the future of digital file-sharing tools.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON