Infringement of copyright Act in music industry thereby encouraging internet users to down load the copyrighted music or video freely raises a serious question whether the courts are adequately situated to deal with such question of policy. According to Justice Breyer, Congress is in a superior position than the courts to reply to issues of constituents and to perform the cost –benefit analysis demanded in such competing and complex issues. Congress has initiated efforts to resolve copyright infringements in a digital age scenario.
However, these efforts have reproduced nothing with issues of internet piracy, thereby illustrating the ever increasing part of the courts in this arena. However, it is hilarious to note that the courts, while acting with the best purposes, have only aggravated the situation thereby having created bedlam, offending both market innovators and copyright holders. Though, the RIAA influenced the courts that Napster had violated its member’s labels’ copyrights, it could not be so triumphant in its fight against file-sharing software that followed in Napster’s wake, notably Grokster.
It is to be observed that Napster’s index system and filing were centralized whereas Grokster simply connect the users of computers which they do not own. It is to be observed that a federal court ruled hat Grokster and other file sharing companies do not have command over the files being swapped through their systems and they can not be held liable for copyright infringement. Further, a US District judge in Los Angeles held that file-sharing companies like Grokster do not infringe copyrights law as they do not have direct check over the filed swapped on their network.
RIAA action of filing legal suits against hundreds of music fans –including a 12 –year –old –girl whom RIAA asserted had unlawfully shared a thousands or more songs over the internet. However, opponents of the RIAA termed the lawsuits as one of the most clumsy public relations mix-ups in recent history. Some analysts are of the view that RIAA and its counterpart in Europe are required to put some teeth into its crusade to educate the gullible public that downloading copyrighted product from the Internet is unlawful.
It is to be observed that the Supreme Courts decision in MGM v. Grokster has not changed the state of affairs. Chaos will reign for those who try to abide by the law and mayhem in online piracy will continue unabated. Thus, Supreme Court has only hindered the foreseeable solution of the problem. Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster case will encourage lower courts to issue new decisions on the issue due to their confused understanding on the Supreme Court’s Copyrights Act jurisprudence .
Thus, Supreme Court will no doubt be called on to return to its decisions in Sony and Grokster. Bibliography Abernathy, Donna J,’Copyrights and Wrongs’  T&D, August, 28. Bouchoux, Deborah E, Protecting Your Company’s Intellectual Property: A Practical Guide to Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets [AMACOM, New York 2001] Goldstein, Paul, International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice [Oxford University Press, New York 2001] Judge, Kathryn,’ Rethinking Copyright Misuse’ (2004) Stanford Law Review 57901.