Citation
Cour Suprême des États-Unis
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC., ET AL.,
PETITIONERS v. GROKSTER, LTD., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 27, 2005]
JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is under what circumstances the distribu-
tor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is
liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties
using the product. We hold that one who distributes a
device with the object of promoting its use to infringe
copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirma-
tive steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the
resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

[...]

Thus, StreamCast developed promotional materials to
market its service as the best Napster alternative. One
proposed advertisement read: "Napster Inc. has an-
nounced that it will soon begin charging you a fee. That's
if the courts don't order it shut down first. What will you
do to get around it?" Id., at 897. Another proposed ad
touted StreamCast's software as the "#1 alternative to
Napster" and asked "[w]hen the lights went off at Napster
. . . where did the users go?" Id., at 836 (ellipsis in origi-
nal).7 StreamCast even planned to flaunt the illegal uses
of its software; when it launched the OpenNap network,
the chief technology officer of the company averred that
"[t]he goal is to get in trouble with the law and get sued.
It's the best way to get in the new." Id., at 916.
The evidence that Grokster sought to capture the mar-
ket of former Napster users is sparser but revealing, for
Grokster launched its own OpenNap system called Swap-
tor and inserted digital codes into its Web site so that
computer users using Web search engines to look for
"Napster" or "[f]ree filesharing" would be directed to the
Grokster Web site, where they could download the Grok-
ster software. Id., at 992­993. And Grokster's name is an
apparent derivative of Napster.

StreamCast's executives monitored the number of songs
by certain commercial artists available on their networks,
and an internal communication indicates they aimed to
have a larger number of copyrighted songs available on
their networks than other file-sharing networks. Id., at
868. The point, of course, would be to attract users of a
mind to infringe, just as it would be with their promo-
tional materials developed showing copyrighted songs as
examples of the kinds of files available through Morpheus.
Id., at 848. Morpheus in fact allowed users to search
specifically for "Top 40" songs, id., at 735, which were
inevitably copyrighted. Similarly, Grokster sent users a
newsletter promoting its ability to provide particular,
popular copyrighted materials. Brief for Motion Picture
Studio and Recording Company Petitioners 7­8.

In addition to this evidence of express promotion, mar-
keting, and intent to promote further, the business models
employed by Grokster and StreamCast confirm that their
principal object was use of their software to download
copyrighted works. Grokster and StreamCast receive no
revenue from users, who obtain the software itself for
nothing. Instead, both companies generate income by
selling advertising space, and they stream the advertising
to Grokster and Morpheus users while they are employing
the programs. As the number of users of each program
increases, advertising opportunities become worth more.
Cf. App. 539, 804. While there is doubtless some demand
for free Shakespeare, the evidence shows that substantive
volume is a function of free access to copyrighted work.
Users seeking Top 40 songs, for example, or the latest
release by Modest Mouse, are certain to be far more nu-
merous than those seeking a free Decameron, and Grok-
ster and StreamCast translated that demand into dollars.

Finally, there is no evidence that either company made
an effort to filter copyrighted material from users'
downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted
files. Although Grokster appears to have sent e-mails
warning users about infringing content when it received
threatening notice from the copyright holders, it never
blocked anyone from continuing to use its software to
share copyrighted files. Id., at 75­76. StreamCast not
only rejected another company's offer of help to monitor
infringement, id., at 928­929, but blocked the Internet
Protocol addresses of entities it believed were trying to
engage in such monitoring on its networks, id., at 917­
922.

[...]

Texte complet (PDF) : [a257.g.akamaitech.net]

Citation
Arnaud
Ils sont journalistes... pas juristes ; en plus, on leur demande de résumer un truc complexe en une intervention audio de 30 secondes.