Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2005Docket #1701897
162 L. Ed. 2d 781 125 S. Ct. 2764 545 U.S. 913 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5212 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 547 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1865 75 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1001 2005 WL 1499402 Intellectual Property Internet Law Torts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software were sued for their users’ massive copyright infringement. The Court held that distributing a product with the intent to promote its use for infringement constitutes “inducement” and is a basis for secondary copyright liability, separate from the Sony analysis.

Legal Significance: Established the “inducement rule” for secondary copyright liability. A distributor of a dual-use technology can be liable for infringement if they take affirmative steps to foster it, even if the technology has substantial noninfringing uses under the Sony test.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Respondents Grokster and StreamCast distributed free peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software. While the software had lawful uses, evidence showed that an overwhelming majority of files shared (nearly 90%) were copyrighted works. The defendants were aware of this widespread infringement. Unlike the manufacturer in Sony, Grokster and StreamCast actively promoted their software for infringing purposes. They targeted former users of Napster, a service shut down for copyright infringement, marketing their products as the “next Napster.” Internal documents and advertisements confirmed their intent to capture this market of infringers. Their business model relied on advertising revenue, which increased with the volume of users. This created a financial incentive to encourage the high-volume, infringing use of their software. The defendants made no effort to develop filtering technology to diminish the infringement and, in StreamCast’s case, actively blocked monitoring attempts. A coalition of copyright holders, led by MGM, sued for secondary copyright infringement.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is a distributor of a dual-use technology liable for secondary copyright infringement if they distribute it with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright?

Yes, Grokster and StreamCast could be held liable for the infringing acts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is a distributor of a dual-use technology liable for secondary copyright infringement if they distribute it with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright?

Conclusion

This case significantly narrowed the *Sony* safe harbor by establishing that evidence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol

Legal Rule

One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Souter, established a new Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitat

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A distributor of a product with both lawful and unlawful uses
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

You win some, you lose some, and some you just bill by the hour.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+